Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Oh stop. Just have the Republican Party post for you, that way we can get it from the horse's mouth.

The GOP (Motto: "We wanted to be called the Party of God, but Hezbollah stole our idea".) has a long history of griping, not about any judicial rulings, but of the men and women who make them going back to the Warren Court days. Where is the John Birch Society now? Oh yes, it the mainstream of the Republicanism now.

Anytime rulings provide for more equality of opportunity in the USA, conservatives leap forward decrying such, but the more recent tactic is to make it seem as if making any decision in opposition to the current adminstration's actions as unpatriotic, disloyal and solely the result of, what did it say in that talking points for bloggers pamphlet?, oh yes, the result of their own personal ideology. Pshaw!

Do conservatives want an Judiciary independent of the Executive Branch or just a rubber stamp outfit? The former is what is more likely to be what the Founders envisioned unless someone has recently found something new in the Federalist Papers.

And about the money... is it just the ACLU that the rightwing wants to deny collecting attorney's fees (that's what the funds are, NOT fines or judgement amounts.) or will all organizations involved in religious lawsuits have to pay their own attorneys in any action they bring or is brought against them by a governmental agency. So when Oral Roberts University files suit to protect it's rights under the First Amendment, the right wing is now in favor of Richard and the rest of the choir having to foot the bill, even if ORU wins?

Joe(Do you really want there to be an unquestioned Executive? Move to Iran)Nation

0 Replies

I want judges who are constitutionalists, not judges who presume to write new law by edicts from the bench.

I don't want the government refunding anybody for sueing anybody for any reason. That is not the intended function of government.

And I don't want the anti-religious fanatics to be successful in stripping the public sector of all the great music, works of art, symbolism, heritage, and history on idiotic notions that they are somehow subversive or, even worse, somebody might feel uncomfortable in their presence.

You can try to spin that any way you want, and put all your perosnal ideology into your screeds, and that will be my opinion no matter who is in office or who is calling the shots.

0 Replies

You have a very low threshold for calling something a screed. I'll try to be briefer in the future.

J

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote

Quote:

Oh stop. Just have the Republican Party post for you, that way we can get it from the horse's mouth.

The GOP (Motto: "We wanted to be called the Party of God, but Hezbollah stole our idea".) has a long history of griping, not about any judicial rulings, but of the men and women who make them going back to the Warren Court days. Where is the John Birch Society now? Oh yes, it the mainstream of the Republicanism now.

This is the introduction that, in my opinion, made your post a screed. It was pretty brief as it was. It's hard to screed well with more succinctness.

You have to understand that I used the word 'screed' incorrectly as a synonym for rant. Screed just sounds worse than a rant somehow.

0 Replies

That was neither screed nor rant. That was gospel.

0 Replies

Only people who are ignorant about the law on vouchers, as Advocate obviously is, can continue to spout inaccuracies.

The US Supreme Court has ruled on vouchers, and if Advocate, who obviously does not know a thing about vouchers does not like it, he may join the ACLU and ask them to go back to try to convince the Supreme Court they were wrong.

As Foxfyre has pointed out, Judges must not be in the position of "inventing" law. They must intepret the meaning of the Constitution.

As Judge Robert Bork pointed out in his book--Slouching Towards Gomorrah--"One of the prices we pay for our Bill of Rights is an emphasis on personal freedom that is not balanced in the document by a Bill of Personal Responsibilities."

0 Replies

Joe Notion wrote:

Anytime rulings provide for more equality of opportunity in the USA, conservatives leap forward decrying such, but the more recent tactic is to make it seem as if making any decision in opposition to the current adminstration's actions as unpatriotic, disloyal and solely the result of, what did it say in that talking points for bloggers pamphlet?, oh yes, the result of their own personal ideology. Pshaw!

end of quote

Joe Notion does not understand that the "rulings" of left wing judges and the interference of the crypto-communist ACLU on laws of the USA, are not rooted in the provision of more equality of opportunity but rather on the "redistribution of income" and the absurd idea that there must not only be equality of oppoprtunity but also equality of results.

0 Replies

Joe (and others on the left,
I have a couple of questions.

If there is a constitutional basis for "separation of church and state",then why do both houses of Congress have their own official chaplains?
Doesnt that violate the separation?

Why does the military also have Chaplains?
In both cases you have the govt promoting AND sponsoring religion.

Yet,you dont seem to mind that.

Also,in Chicago right now,an illegal immigrant is hiding in a church,claiming "sanctuary" to avoid being deported.
The minister of that church is supporting her.
Now,since there is no legal basis for "sanctuary",and since the minister is violating the "separation" that you claim exists,should the govt raid the church,arrest both her and the minister,and close the church?

After all,if the church is involving itself in matters of the state,that also violates that "separation" that you claim exists,and is illegal.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-deport19.html

Whats interesting is that 1 democrat Senator and 1 democrat rep in congress are helping this woman break the law.
I thought that dems wanted the laws enforced.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Joe (and others on the left,
I have a couple of questions.

If there is a constitutional basis for "separation of church and state",then why do both houses of Congress have their own official chaplains?
Doesnt that violate the separation?

Why does the military also have Chaplains?
In both cases you have the govt promoting AND sponsoring religion.

Yet,you dont seem to mind that.

Also,in Chicago right now,an illegal immigrant is hiding in a church,claiming "sanctuary" to avoid being deported.
The minister of that church is supporting her.
Now,since there is no legal basis for "sanctuary",and since the minister is violating the "separation" that you claim exists,should the govt raid the church,arrest both her and the minister,and close the church?

After all,if the church is involving itself in matters of the state,that also violates that "separation" that you claim exists,and is illegal.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-deport19.html

Whats interesting is that 1 democrat Senator and 1 democrat rep in congress are helping this woman break the law.
I thought that dems wanted the laws enforced.

Well in truth, I think for the taxpayers to pay for congressional chaplains is inappropriate, fiscally irresponsible, and should be illegal. There are any number of clergy types who would be delighted to provide the opening prayers for House and Senate sessions for free just for the privilege of being included in the Congressional record. Also any number of congressional representatives could do that on a volunteer basis themselves. And if our lawmakers need religious counseling or nurture or whatever, they can certainly seek that on their own time and dime from a clergyman in the area.

The military is different because the military operates 24/7 and it is often not feasible for military personnel to leave the base or their assigned post to attend services or receive spiritual encouragement or counseling from a pastor or priest or whatever. And since it is the miltary who makes that difficult for the personnel, and recognizing that this is important and beneficial to religious personnel, it is as appropriate for the military to provide for the troops' spiritual needs as well as their medical, nutritional, shelter, clothing, equipment, etc. needs.

So long as military chaplains understand that it is their duty to provide for the spiritual needs of all faiths and disciplines as much as they can do that, and so long as participation in religious activities is optional on the part of the personnel, there is in no way an establishment of religion or any First Amendment violation.

The ACLU, however, has attempted to stop the chaplain programs. It will be a tragedy should they succeed.

0 Replies

Quote:

Do conservatives want an Judiciary independent of the Executive Branch or just a rubber stamp outfit? The former is what is more likely to be what the Founders envisioned unless someone has recently found something new in the Federalist Papers.

The judiciary is sup[posed to be totally independent,I agree.

Answer me this,where in the Constitution does it say the judiciary has the power to overrule the commander in chief in matters of waging war?

The President is the commander in chief,and he is responsible for waging war,not the judiciary or the legislative branches.

0 Replies

What if the C in C operates outside of existing laws or in conflict with the constitution?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

What if the C in C operates outside of existing laws or in conflict with the constitution?

Then it eventually works its way to the Supreme Court.
But until the USSC decides what the law is,the President,as CinC,has the final authority for waging war,not the judiciary or the legislature.

0 Replies

Then, just as a matter of clarity on your claim, final authority would not rest with the C in C but with the law and the constitution. They do not adjust to his whims, he remains under their determination.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Then, just as a matter of clarity on your claim, final authority would not rest with the C in C but with the law and the constitution. They do not adjust to his whims, he remains under their determination.

Final decisions for waging war remain with the C in C.
He alone is responsible for when and where we go to war,what steps are needed militarily to defend the US,and any other aspects of waging war.

The Constitution giove him alone that authority,nobody else.

If the judiciary or the legislature had the authority to override the President as C in C,then any and all decisions made by the NCA would be subject to veto and overruling by anyone.

The Constitution gives that power solely to the C in C.

0 Replies

Does his "waging war" status allow him to, say, order torture, beheadings, assassinations?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Does his "waging war" status allow him to, say, order torture, beheadings, assassinations?

I dont know that any President has ordered that,but if a C in C deemed it in our national security interests in wartime to order the assassination of the enemies leader,I would have no problem with that.

If torture was warranted to gather intel that could save American lives,I have no problem with that either.

And if it is decided that beheading spies is the appropriate punishment,I have no problem with that.

But,as far as I know,no President has ever ordered any of those actions.

0 Replies

We have had presidents, including the present one, who are quite properly unwilling to telegraph to the enemy what we will and won't do, however. There are some who don't seem to grasp the wisdom of that.

0 Replies

Alright. And if he determined that beheading children then putting those children's heads in a blender would prove an effective means of demoralizing the enemy, that too would be constitutionally fine?

0 Replies

Hmmm. What does the Canadian constitution say about things like that?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Alright. And if he determined that beheading children then putting those children's heads in a blender would prove an effective means of demoralizing the enemy, that too would be constitutionally fine?

Now you are just trying to be ridiculous.
You know very well that no President ever has or ever will order something like that.

I will not play the "what if" game with you.
You can come up with all the scenarios you want,but at least try to keep them in the real world.

0 Replies

Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know