Topic: Strict constitutionalists
started by: wix
Posted by wix on Jun. 29 2002,00:15
Americans, it seems, have a strange fascination-- almost a religious phenomenon with their document, devine light, god inspired, and brilliant consitution. But the consitution has been changed, thousands of times, not just through amendments because that isn't really nessicary; we have the courts to do it for us. While reading through many of the posts here, it seems that most of us are mixing the issue of what the consitution interpetation may be done in the United States Supreme Court. It is my intent to argue that the court has the descretion to interpret the consitution in any means that are good for the state.
A little background infromation:
The consitution sets up three branches of the government. Article I relating to the executive, Article II relating to the legislative, and Article III, which creates a high court with (article III, sec 2) judicial powers extending to "... all laws... arising out of this consitution..." Marbury v. Madison setup the court's jurisdiction to nullify laws and actions of the government (often, and herein referred to as 'judicial review'
.Now, The question is if the court is over extending it's rights to look at the consitution. Many "Gun toting, confederate flag loving republicans" (-Al Gore) argue that the court overstepped it's bounds in casses like Ro v. Wade (on interping abortion rights) or Texas v. Johnson (in outlawing flag burning laws). I don't think it did in either.
Our friendly conservative propgandist, CK, argued relevant to the posts on the pledge of allengence, that the court in San Fransisco overstepped it's bounds because:
| Quote |
| I think the whole matter is bunk. The constitution says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. the purpose was so that the secular government wouldn't adobt a state religion, not to purge secular society of all mentions of religion of any sort. ... what are you scared of? the constitution being interpreted how the founders wanted it to be? |
CK misses the point, again.
A little while ago I wrote in the 2nd amendment post that the 9th amendment and US. v Curshank extended the right to own a gun past the second amendment (hence, revoking the 2nd amendment wouldn't get rid of gun rights). CK, you, posted an agreement. Only now that this the court has made a more liberal descison than your normal social conservative bullshit, you want a strict interp of the consitution. It's clear to anyone who reads the 2nd amendment that the founding fathers never really intended it the NRA does. Read it outloud: "A well regulated militia, being nessicary to the security of a free State,... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Now the first thing when reading author's intent is you have to understand the author's timeframe and period. The founding fathers were called to convention to do build a unified army to stop the farmer's revolts. Shay's rebellion really shook up the people, and you can see that most of the founding father's, Madison especially, never really trusted the people. Madison argues in Federalist #10 that the people are rash and shouldn't be trusted, but what should be trusted and what must be protected (in latter papers with John Jay), are the States! Now reread that passage, it makes sense.
What have I just proved? That handguns or automatics shouldn't be trusted to the indivdiual, or that the founding father's wouldn't have intended them to be trusted to the individual? Even if I've failed to show one way or the other... It doesn't matter.
In answer to CK's earlier question, Am I scared of the consitution being interpreted how the founders wanted it to be? OF COURSE I'm afraid of the consitution being intrepted that way. I happen to think my neighbor, who is African American, is worth more than 3/5ths a human being.
The court is bound to protect and uphold not the words of the consitution but it's intent of freedom and liberty and the basis for what this country stands on.
Most american's can tell you many of the liberties granted them by the consitution, but few even know, or mention the one granted by the 9th.
AMENDMENT IX
"The enumeration in the consitution, of certain rights, shall not be constructed to deny or desparage others rettained by the people."
Just because it's not written down in the consition doesn't mean the people cannot maintain it as a right, and should they do that, does the consitution then have the power to deny them that under the 9th amendment? NO it does not. Prooving that the founding father's original intent was X, doesn't mean that doing X was justified.
Social conservatives miss the mark big time. Their major advocacy against abortion rights is that the court overstepped it's bounds because a "right of privacy isn't enumerated in the consitution." Then they argue the same crap with burning the flag.
Our consitution works, because we change it on a daily basis. Every court decision every law that is passed works as a proxy to alter to some part the original intent of the consitution for today's language, social structure, and economic conditions.
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 29 2002,00:41
watch wix...I just know it, there's gonna be an arg. that marb vs. madison is faulty because it's outside the scope of author's intent..., I'm gonna laugh when I see it...
Posted by demonk on Jun. 29 2002,00:44
Wow. If only more people could post as intelligently as you (this includes me 
), we could have some really good discussions (and not just arguements). And good point about bringing up Shay's Rebellion. I need to go back and reread all my old history books. I've forgotten too much of where we have come, so it's hard to see where we are going.
Posted by wix on Jun. 29 2002,00:47
| Quote (Pravus Angelus @ 28 June 2002,16:41) |
| watch wix...I just know it, there's gonna be an arg. that marb vs. madison is faulty because it's outside the scope of author's intent..., I'm gonna laugh when I see it... |
Pravus, that is the point. The court was correct in deciding Marbury v. Madison (even most conservatives won't argue otherwise!
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 29 2002,00:48
| Quote |
| Wow. If only more people could post as intelligently as you (this includes me ), |
give up now. nobody's as smart as ben and that'll never change
good to set your goals high though...
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 29 2002,02:22
| Quote |
| Now the first thing when reading author's intent is you have to understand the author's timeframe and period. The founding fathers were called to convention to do build a unified army to stop the farmer's revolts. Shay's rebellion really shook up the people, and you can see that most of the founding father's, Madison especially, never really trusted the people. Madison argues in Federalist #10 that the people are rash and shouldn't be trusted, but what should be trusted and what must be protected (in latter papers with John Jay), are the States! Now reread that passage, it makes sense. What have I just proved? That handguns or automatics shouldn't be trusted to the indivdiual, or that the founding father's wouldn't have intended them to be trusted to the individual? Even if I've failed to show one way or the other... It doesn't matter. |
You havn't proven anything. The government's power should be derived from the people, if the people don't trust the government, then maybe they should revolt. The states DO have a right to make a militia, but that is not what the second amendment is referring to really.
The Bill of Rights is a list of individual rights. The individual right to free speech and religion. The individual freedom from having to quarter soldiers. The individual freedom from unreasonable search and seizures. The individual freedom from double jeopardy. The individual right to confront witnessess against you. The individual right to trial by jury. The individual freedom from cruel punishment. The enumeration of rights to individuals. And lastly, the STATE's rights to form a militia, but not the PEOPLE'S? Why would amendments 1 and 3-10 be about individual's rights, but not the 2nd? I find it pretty hard to misinterpret "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." anyways.
| Quote |
| In answer to CK's earlier question, Am I scared of the consitution being interpreted how the founders wanted it to be? OF COURSE I'm afraid of the consitution being intrepted that way. I happen to think my neighbor, who is African American, is worth more than 3/5ths a human being. |
Thats why we have amendments and the power to make them. Being a strict constitutionalist doesn't mean abiding by the original wording of the constitution. It means relying on the spirit of the constituion and applying modern principles and language. For example, the 2nd amendment says "A well regulated militia, being nescessary for the security of the state". The word "regulated" back in the day meant trained, or proficient. As strict constitutionalist, I would want to keep with the spirit of the constitution and say "the founders meant that individuals need guns to stay free". A liberal judge would take the term "well regulated militia" out of context by applying modern day language and saying "the founders wanted guns to be restricted to the national guard only". This isn't the spirit of the constitution, however.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 29 2002,02:37
and, of course, there's always the fact that the framers of the Constitution knew damn well what they were doing. every word in there was chosen very carefully. some of the passages are purposely very general and wide open to interpretation. some of them are very specific.for example, that's why the First Amendment opens with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." instead of something like "Congress shall not establish a Church of State, and freedom of religion shall be guaranteed."
The way it's written, any law respecting ("to show appreciation for; to hold in esteem") an establishment of religion is illegal. At the same time, any law that prohibits people from practicing their religion is illegal as well.
It's pretty clear that this passage is intended to say one thing, and one thing only - the government may not give any religion preferential treatment. There's no room for interpretation.
Other passages are much more vague... I'd dig one up but I gotta go home right now
Posted by wix on Jun. 29 2002,18:56
[quote=CatKnight,28 June 2002,18:22][/quote]| Quote |
| You havn't proven anything. The government's power should be derived from the people, if the people don't trust the government, then maybe they should revolt. The states DO have a right to make a militia, but that is not what the second amendment is referring to really. The Bill of Rights is a list of individual rights. The individual right to free speech and religion. The individual freedom from having to quarter soldiers. The individual freedom from unreasonable search and seizures. The individual freedom from double jeopardy. The individual right to confront witnessess against you. The individual right to trial by jury. The individual freedom from cruel punishment. The enumeration of rights to individuals. And lastly, the STATE's rights to form a militia, but not the PEOPLE'S? Why would amendments 1 and 3-10 be about individual's rights, but not the 2nd? I find it pretty hard to misinterpret "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." anyways. |
Actually, you're proving my point for me. Reguardless of what the author's intent is it is the PEOPLE who must decide and the supreme court who must uphold. Reading the constitution strictly is rediculous because author's intent doesn't take into account these factors. Even if your interpetation of the 2nd amendment is correct, which I don't think it is, it doesn't mitigate the fact that the supreme court is correct in upholding gun rights even if the 2nd amendment was thrown out. Likewise, the US Supreme Court has the right to say the constitution implies a Right of Privacy even though it's not specifically enumerated.
| Quote |
Thats why we have amendments and the power to make them. Being a strict constitutionalist doesn't mean abiding by the original wording of the constitution. It means relying on the spirit of the constituion and applying modern principles and language. For example, the 2nd amendment says "A well regulated militia, being nescessary for the security of the state". The word "regulated" back in the day meant trained, or proficient. As strict constitutionalist, I would want to keep with the spirit of the constitution and say "the founders meant that individuals need guns to stay free". A liberal judge would take the term "well regulated militia" out of context by applying modern day language and saying "the founders wanted guns to be restricted to the national guard only". This isn't the spirit of the constitution, however. |
No, a strict constitutionalist does exactly what you're saying. They read the consitution and try to make their concepts, liberal or otherwise fit into the mold. They assume that regulated has additional meaning, when infact it doesn't even need to be considered. The people hold for themselves rights, and the court can not object.
My point about the 3/5ths a human was that the authors, founders, god inspired men if you will, were fallable or at least stuck in their times. Why is it so much more important that congress pass consitutional amendments on things that are obviously part of the american spirit. The system of checks and ballances still exists that way, congress can pass an amendment at any time to mitigate the new decision. Sometimes the court is the only body which can do things quickly, or things which would invoke a lot of political termoil. eg flag burning, stricking down rediculous child protection statues, manditory filtering, conservative placed bans on contraception or police strip searching women in chicago for traffic violations. How many constitutional amendments do you expect congress to pass considering each one takes about 10 years to do.
In any case, you miss the argument that I'm making. It doesn't even matter what the original intent is.
The US Supreme Court has the power to say that certain individual or states rights exist within the constution. Not only as a mandate from the people, but from the 9th amendment as well.
Posted by wix on Jun. 29 2002,19:00
| Quote (Darth Liberus @ 28 June 2002,18:37) |
| and, of course, there's always the fact that the framers of the Constitution knew damn well what they were doing. every word in there was chosen very carefully. some of the passages are purposely very general and wide open to interpretation. some of them are very specific. for example, that's why the First Amendment opens with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." instead of something like "Congress shall not establish a Church of State, and freedom of religion shall be guaranteed." The way it's written, any law respecting ("to show appreciation for; to hold in esteem") an establishment of religion is illegal. At the same time, any law that prohibits people from practicing their religion is illegal as well. It's pretty clear that this passage is intended to say one thing, and one thing only - the government may not give any religion preferential treatment. There's no room for interpretation. Other passages are much more vague... I'd dig one up but I gotta go home right now |
DL, my point was that the author's of the consitution weren't gods. They didn't know eveything, and couldn't have foresee everything. The consitution, like any other political document, is subject to a) stupidity, b) political compromises, c) misiniterpretation, d) changing times, e) unintended consequences and f) a 'neglect' to enumerate, that is write, something that needs to be there for today's society.
The consitution says nothing on abortion, pornography, the internet, childrens rights, .... on and on. The only way that we can READ these things is by implying that the constituion would really extend, in spirit, to these things.
The authors didn't think up a lot of things, but they did leave paths to change. I argue the most valuable is the US Supreme Court.
Posted by Bob_the_Cannibal on Jun. 29 2002,19:30
| Quote (CatKnight @ 28 June 2002,18:22) |
| The Bill of Rights is a list of individual rights...And lastly, the STATE's rights to form a militia, but not the PEOPLE'S? Why would amendments 1 and 3-10 be about individual's rights, but not the 2nd?... ...The word "regulated" back in the day meant trained, or proficient. As strict constitutionalist, I would want to keep with the spirit of the constitution and say "the founders meant that individuals need guns to stay free". A liberal judge would take the term "well regulated militia"...[and say] "the founders wanted guns to be restricted to the national guard only". This isn't the spirit of the constitution, however. |
CK makes an excellent point there, even if I do not agree with his platform on other issues...
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 29 2002,22:47
On the subject of individualism vs. the state. CK, you may find it strange to have the bill of rights pertain to individuals and groups, on a per right basis and I'm certainly not going to take a position here. however, if you claim author's intent, which has been your justification all along, then maybe you'd like to demonstrate how it is that you know the intent of the author so well?| Quote |
| Madison argues in Federalist #10 that the people are rash and shouldn't be trusted, but what should be trusted and what must be protected (in latter papers with John Jay), are the States! Now reread that passage, it makes sense. |
It doesn't even matter whether Wix believes gun rights are an individual right or a group right, the point he's making is that the author's intent (hence, the reference to madisson) seems to be to not trust the individual. You make claims to know the author's intent, but given that the framers of the constitution talked about what they were doing outside of the constitution itself and it is this (in part) that Wix is citing, the evidence certainly compels one to be inclined to believe Wix knows the author's intent better than you.
Amazingly, you will argue this to the death. It is however, merely a side issue. The point Wix is making is that one can discard the 2nd Amendment and still find a right to bear arms, and not only that, but this is exactly what the supreme court has done!
| Quote |
| 9th amendment and US. v Curshank extended the right to own a gun past the second amendment (hence, revoking the 2nd amendment wouldn't get rid of gun rights |
see?
now...off of the side issue...and onto the actual argument at hand.
| Quote |
| AMENDMENT IX "The enumeration in the consitution, of certain rights, shall not be constructed to deny or desparage others rettained by the people." |
which translates to:
1. Certain rights are enumerated in the constitution
2. Certain (non-enumerated) rights are retained by the people
3. These rights (the enumerated ones) shall not deny or desparage others [rights] retained by the people.
One can draw a fairly reasonable inference here..., since enumerated rights cannot deny non-enumerated ones, these non-enumerated rights must exist. In other words, the people retain some rights not explicitly mentioned in the constitution. Given judicial review (which is a whole nother little debate) and given that there are rights not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, the supreme court has the constitutional authority to interpret implicit rights, such as the right to privacy, etc.
In fact (and here comes the part that will blow your mind </simplified sarcasm>) the supreme court has the authority to interpret the constitution and find these non-enumerated rights outside the scope of author's intent. It doesn't even matter if the framers of the constitution believed in the explicit right to privacy. The 9th amendment gives the supreme court the authority (with judicial review) the find the right to privacy.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 29 2002,23:54
i wasn't arguing against you, wix. I'm saying that the framers were very, very good at what they did. They were well aware of their own fallibility and the fallibility of the people. They incorporated that awareness into the Constitution itself. That's why we have representative democracy instead of direct democracy. That's why we have checks and balances. Etc.I'm statiting that if you're looking for author's intent, the best place to look is in the constitution itself. It's not like they just sat down over beer one day and wrote up a document that would become the law of the land. It took MONTHS for them to agree on it, and a lot of their debates were over the exact wording of things... and the ferocity of their debates made Detnet look like Sunday school.
The Founders were human, to be sure. But they were also brilliant. The Constitution was devised to be open to interpretation in some areas and closed to it in others.
For example, in the < Bill of Rights >, Amendments I, III, V, and VI are worded very strictly. Amendments II, IV, VII, VIII, IX, and X are more open to interpretation. This is not an accident, it's by design.
As for the Founders being God-fearing men... if you would've called them that, they would've fallen out of their seats laughing at you. There is a noticable lack of words like "God", "Lord", "our Saviour", and "Jesus Christ" in the Constitution.
A lot of people misread the word "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence - they assume that Jefferson meant God. Creator was a popular term in the Enlightenment to mean "whatever created us" and was usually taken as Nature; it was an agnostic/atheist term and stood in direct opposition to the concept of "God."
If Jefferson had meant God, he would've used that word instead...
and let's not even get in to how much shit the Founders talked about religious folk in their private letters. They hated the religious right even more than I do
Posted by wix on Jun. 30 2002,03:10
The vaugeness is an interesting point, it really does even feed the assumption that more interpretation is good. Since the authors left it vauge on purpose they chaged the US Sup. Court with the duty to adapt.As for my religious references, I was speaking more sarcastically, hoping to beat out the notion that God wrote the consitution.
Posted by C_Puppy on Jul. 01 2002,13:26
| Quote |
| As for the Founders being God-fearing men... if you would've called them that, they would've fallen out of their seats laughing at you. There is a noticable lack of words like "God", "Lord", "our Saviour", and "Jesus Christ" in the Constitution. A lot of people misread the word "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence - they assume that Jefferson meant God. Creator was a popular term in the Enlightenment to mean "whatever created us" and was usually taken as Nature; it was an agnostic/atheist term and stood in direct opposition to the concept of "God." If Jefferson had meant God, he would've used that word instead... and let's not even get in to how much shit the Founders talked about religious folk in their private letters. They hated the religious right even more than I do |
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!RIGHT FUCKIN ON!!!!!!!!!!
Darth - I may have disagreed with some of your statements in the past- But as far as this one is concerned-- YOU FUCKIN ROCK
Sorry, but this is what I have been arguing about with co-workers for days now. I am really starting to fear for the country if most people have as little of a grasp of their begings as this controversy seems to have brought to my attention.
I think Heir Renquist and the conservative majority in the supreme court will over-turn the Pledge ruling, but I think it is nice that some people know what is what.
Call me a populist, but Fuck is a wonderfully useful word
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 02 2002,02:18
hmmmmmmm........I am very suspicious of that claim for some reason. I'm not going to try to discredit it until I look into it first though.However, you must realize that judeo-christianity is the culture of the united states. the 2nd amendment was written so that the federal government would not create a national church, and also to let people excersize religion freely.
ok, pause for a second. even if you don't agree with the first part, do you agree with the second part of "my interpretation" of the establishment clause? to not prohibit the excercise of religion?
well, kids aren't forced to say "under god" in the pledge, nor were they forced to join school prayer back in the day. the argument that "well kids are coerced by other kids" is bunk because people have free will to act as they please. it is not the government's job to shield every individual from one another. anyway, so saying "under god" in the pledge is not violating the second amendment. however, REMOVING the under god part, just like removing school prayer, prohibits the free excercise of the majority of the populations religious beliefs. now you may not like the idea of tyranny of the majority, but IMO, a tyranny of the minorty, or the rule-of-the-most-offended, is far worse.
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 02 2002,03:45
| Quote (CatKnight @ 01 July 2002,22:18) |
| well, kids aren't forced to say "under god" in the pledge, nor were they forced to join school prayer back in the day. the argument that "well kids are coerced by other kids" is bunk because people have free will to act as they please. |
Kids of the elementary school age have a real problem with peer pressure. If the whole class says "under God" they will probably say it too. I was uncomfortabel saying it, and even I felt forced as a little kid.
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 02 2002,04:00
| Quote (CatKnight @ 01 July 2002,22:18) |
| anyway, so saying "under god" in the pledge is not violating the second amendment. however, REMOVING the under god part, just like removing school prayer, prohibits the free excercise of the majority of the populations religious beliefs. now you may not like the idea of tyranny of the majority, but IMO, a tyranny of the minorty, or the rule-of-the-most-offended, is far worse. |
I'm going to pretend that you got confused from above where we suddenly switched to the 2nd amendment, and you meant to say "first amendment." That's the only way it makes sense. This response will be made as if you said "first amendment."
Saying "under God" is a clear promotion of a deity. I fail to see how this is not a violation of the establishment clause, and therefore, the first amendment. I also fail to see how not being able to say "under God" prohibits the free excersice of religion. They can still go to church, can't they?
CK, you belive the constitution gives freedom of religion, but not freedom FROM religion. I think that an integral part of any freedom to choose is the freedom to not make a choice. For example, you can choose not to vote. Likewise, you can choose not to have a religion. This isn't a tyrrany of the minority, it's simply not letting the majority force God on the minority. It IS forced. Every schoolchild recites it every morning. Some even had to go to the office to read it over the speakers along with the whole school. (usually a group of 5-6) Try not saying it with the whole school, including the principal listening. (...and having the mindset of a child. I'm sure most detnetters who would be forced to say something like this would tell the principal to fuck off. Kids don't have the privildge of our life experience.)
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jul. 02 2002,04:02
Becasue the majority is always right...The only thing that is tyrannical at this point is assuming that just becasue more people are chrisitan than anything else and the government should pander to to them.
That is bullshit.
The majority didn't decide to sail to this rock and the majority can't decide that the government should endorse christianity because it's what the practice. The majority of this country is caucasian. We don't put "for all the white folk" on our money.
This isn't about little kids saying the pledge. It's about the government endorsing religion.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 02 2002,04:55
Exactly TaxMan! They are not saying "No one is allowed to say 'under God' when saying the Pledge". They are just saying that the LAW passed in 1954 is unconstituational. It makes the federal government endorse a monotheistic deity. And as Bozeman said, part of freedom is the freedom to not choose.And how does the removal of that line prohibit the practice of religion? Please, explain it to me. I don't see them putting a law in saying it is illegal to say 'under God' when saying the Pledge. It just isn't part of the federally endorsed version anymore. If little Johny wants to say it during the Pledge, no police are going to come by and say "that's wrong! stop it!". Just because they don't endorse something religious doesn't mean they are hindering the free practice of that religion.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 02 2002,05:01
| Quote |
| Kids of the elementary school age have a real problem with peer pressure. If the whole class says "under God" they will probably say it too. I was uncomfortabel saying it, and even I felt forced as a little kid. |
| Quote |
| the argument that "well kids are coerced by other kids" is bunk because people have free will to act as they please. it is not the government's job to shield every individual from one another. |
I guess you just blanked out on that one, eh?
| Quote |
| I'm going to pretend that you got confused from above where we suddenly switched to the 2nd amendment, and you meant to say "first amendment." That's the only way it makes sense. This response will be made as if you said "first amendment." |
lol my bad
| Quote |
| Saying "under God" is a clear promotion of a deity. |
correct.
| Quote |
| I fail to see how this is not a violation of the establishment clause, and therefore, the first amendment. |
the reason you fail to see is because you are confused about the term "establishment". what the establishment clause is referring to is the creation of an official state religion that is part of the government. promoting a deity is not the same thing as establishing an official state religion.
| Quote |
| I think that an integral part of any freedom to choose is the freedom to not make a choice. |
kids are free to not say the pledge. I'm sure you didn't say it on at least a few occasions. I know I did. We all went through the same school system, you know as well as I that there is no such peer coersion.
| Quote |
| This isn't a tyrrany of the minority, it's simply not letting the majority force God on the minority. |
again, you seem to think that just because some people practice their religion, that it somehow interferes with the practice of others. this is not the case.
| Quote |
| The only thing that is tyrannical at this point is assuming that just becasue more people are chrisitan than anything else and the government should pander to to them. |
how is that tyrannical? government pandering to a group is not tyranny!
| Quote |
| That is bullshit. |
I agree.
| Quote |
| The majority didn't decide to sail to this rock... |
hey if you minority don't like it, go sail to your own rock!
| Quote |
| It's about the government endorsing religion. |
I don't see anything in the constitution prohibiting this. If you want to add an amendment, it will take more then a panel of 5 wacko judges in the 9th circuit to do it.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 02 2002,06:20
CK, please please please do some actual research into this topic! The Supreme Court has delt with cases that were much fuzzier about the government endorsing religion than this one, and they always fall on the side of caution. If the removal of the law will not in any way hinder people from pacticing the religion of their choice (or lack if that is their choice), but leaving it along causes even just a little controversy, they have yanked the law. As long as this case goes before the Supreme Court before Bush gets his chance to fuck it all up with changing judges around, this decision will be upheld.Again, since you don't seem to get this concept, I'm going to go through this slowly, again:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
I'm going to go through this word by word:
Congress: these are the people that we have elected to create laws for us
shall: Something that will take place or exist in the future (dictionary definition)
make: To cause to exist or happen; bring about (dictionary definition)
no: Not at all; not by any degree (dictionary definition)
law: A piece of enacted legislation (dictionary definition)
respecting: To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem (dictionary definition)
establishment: any large organization (dictionary definition)
religion: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe (dictionary definition)
So, to paraphrase:
The people who run this country will not create or bring about, in any degree, a piece of legislation that shows deferential regard towards any large organization of people that believe in a surpernatural power or powers that they view as the ruler(s) of this universe.
That is the meaning. What you were saying "The creation of a state church" is most definatly covered by the First Amendment. But you need to look beyond just that one specific case and look at what the Amendment actually says. And if you want, we can also look at author intent, because that is your favorite angle to play. As have been mentioned many times by people with much more educaion in history than you, the framers of the constitution really weren't religious people. Some even mocked religion. They wanted a way to make sure that religion and governing this country were completely seperate. Too many shitty things in the past happened because religious influience on government. They wanted to make sure that that wouldn't happen again. Even giving in just a bit opens a big door to future incursions of religion into government. This must be prevented.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jul. 02 2002,07:43
| Quote (CatKnight @ 01 July 2002,21:01) |
| hey if you minority don't like it, go sail to your own rock! |
That you for proving my argument.
Land of the free and home of the brave indeed.
Posted by wix on Jul. 02 2002,07:47
From CK:| Quote |
| [QUOTE]It's about the government endorsing religion. |
I don't see anything in the constitution prohibiting this. If you want to add an amendment, it will take more then a panel of 5 wacko judges in the 9th circuit to do it.
[/QUOTE]
Have you Read the first amendment? Besides EVEN if it's not there, please, since this thread isn't about freedom of religion but how the court should interp the consitution, why the hell is it wrong for the court to say that EVEN IF the consitition didn't say this?
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 02 2002,11:38
| Quote (CatKnight @ 02 July 2002,01:01) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
I guess you just blanked out on that one, eh?
lol my bad
correct.
the reason you fail to see is because you are confused about the term "establishment". what the establishment clause is referring to is the creation of an official state religion that is part of the government. promoting a deity is not the same thing as establishing an official state religion.
kids are free to not say the pledge. I'm sure you didn't say it on at least a few occasions. I know I did. We all went through the same school system, you know as well as I that there is no such peer coersion.
again, you seem to think that just because some people practice their religion, that it somehow interferes with the practice of others. this is not the case.
how is that tyrannical? government pandering to a group is not tyranny!
I agree.
hey if you minority don't like it, go sail to your own rock!
I don't see anything in the constitution prohibiting this. If you want to add an amendment, it will take more then a panel of 5 wacko judges in the 9th circuit to do it. |
1. No, I did not "blank out." You claim "It's the kids decision, and anyway, even if they are coerced, it's not the government's job to stop it!" That is idiotic. This is a case of a minority's beliefs being smothered by the majority. Why shouldn't the government step in? It's the same as if a Minister made me say 20 hail marys. Kids don't have the prescence of mind to stand up and not be coerced every goddamn time.
2. It happens, don't worry about it.
3. Good.
4. Bad. this is a violation of the establishment clause, as it promotes one religion over any other. See Demonk's post above.
5. Bullshit. If you don't say it, you can wind up in detention. No coercion indeed! It's almost like brainwashing! "OK class! We're all going to chant the same thing all at once!" It's pretty hard not to say it, even if you don't want to.
6. Again, you seem to think that it's OK for the majority to practice their religion, and force others to join in.
7. Isnt it?
8. Taken out of context.
9. I like it here. If you want to say "under God" so badly, YOU GET OUT! I'm sick of the "love it or leave it" attitude. Fuck you. We can affect positive change, becasue it's our country too, and we love it just as much as you.
10. CK fails to understand the establishment clause. No matter how many times we explain it to him, he's not going to get it.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 02 2002,20:05
| Quote |
| The people who run this country will not create or bring about, in any degree, a piece of legislation that shows deferential regard towards any large organization of people that believe in a surpernatural power or powers that they view as the ruler(s) of this universe. |
again, you are still jumping to conclusions that are just not there. again, you state that "the government shall not create a law respecting an establishment" but by establishment they do not mean the judeo-christian views of the people, they are referring to a national state religion, run and funded by the government.
you are going from "federally run church" to "deferential regard towards", and that connection is simply not there.
Posted by kuru on Jul. 02 2002,20:22
Except the Constitution doesn't say that. It doesn't say 'Congress shall make no law establishing religion'.
It says Congress shall make no law with respect to the establishment of religion.
It puts them on a very, very short leash. One which they overstretched in 1954.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 02 2002,21:06
5-->| Quote (CatKnight @ 02 July 2002,125) |
| you are going from "federally run church" to "deferential regard towards", and that connection is simply not there. |
| Quote |
| respecting: To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem (dictionary definition) |
| Quote |
| Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; |
Yes, there is a connection. If you can't see it, just by looking at the two sentences above, then I don't even understand how you passed basic high school english! And no, this isn't a flame. I have no doubt in my mind that you are an intelligent person. I'm just waiting for you to explain to me how the above lines do not create a connection. And please, don't just say "because they don't". I've explained very clearly and logicaly the wording and meaning on a per word basis. I've yet to get the same in return from you.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 03 2002,00:30
well there's your problem right there. ye olde english isn't very logical. I agree that you can get your interpretation out of those words, but what I am trying to tell you that is not what the founders intended. The vast majority of the people of the united states agree with me, you guys are a fringe minority, just to let you know.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 03 2002,01:10
So basicly your saying mob rule is ok? Why do you think the founding fathers put a House AND a Senate in place? They didn't want the majority to crush the minority. Just because we are the minority on this subject in no way makes us wrong. If that is the best argument you have CK, just give up now.Edit: Wanted to add that we have already talked about the founders' intent here and in other threads. You were wrong. So, I've shot down both of your arguments. You have any more?
Posted by kuru on Jul. 03 2002,03:39
And that's exactly why the Constitution was set up to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 03 2002,04:32
Remember, kiddies, if lots of people say it's OK, then it must be!I have determined that CK is a medium. How have I determined this?
| Quote |
| but what I am trying to tell you that is not what the founders intended. |
He channels the forefathers! He knows EXACTLY what they meant!
Posted by wix on Jul. 03 2002,07:57
Okay, The topic is Strict consitutionalists, eg, my argument is "who gives a shit what the founding fathers intended the 1st amendment to mean?"... Waiting for a response ...
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 03 2002,11:41
Let's not forget that the establishment clause wasn't just put there to satisfy the agnostics. The religious folks supported it as well. They didn't want the Government to tell them how they should run their church, which any legislation regarding religion is bound to do.
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jul. 04 2002,23:12
wow. I have never seen a more convincing thread for having mods delete off topic posts. Guys..., not that your arguments are silly or pointless, but they belong in a different thread. Go read wix's first post. Then read my post. Then think. Rinse, and repeat the thinking part. Then, when you've read the IX ammendment and realize the point wix is making, post on topic.
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 04 2002,23:33
Threads get off topic. Especially here. Just ride the wave, don't force the thread anywhere.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 05 2002,04:56
| Quote |
| They didn't want the Government to tell them how they should run their church, which any legislation regarding religion is bound to do. |
how does that apply to public schools? public schools aren't churches.
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 05 2002,05:22
| Quote (CatKnight @ 05 July 2002,00:56) | ||
how does that apply to public schools? public schools aren't churches. |
It doesn't. It was an interesting sidenote. We're already WAY off topic, so it doesn't matter that DL brought up something new.
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 05 2002,05:31
CK is a medium?I would wonder.
I'm a half-assed medium, especially with the Tarot, and I don't see it.
So, it could be true.
Whenever my mind is closed, I fail to see what is right in front of me.
I told a guy last week he would die within 90 days.
I told a girl that what the guy did was not her fault and she cried for an hour. I know it was an hour 'cuz she had to go back to work.
Sometimes I go into conflict whether to tell people that stuff.
Being psychic can suck.
I feel the same way about that as computers.
I know just enough to get into trouble.
Us damned watersigns.
(jerking Detnet's chain a little)
Posted by wix on Jul. 05 2002,07:53
| Quote (forumwhore @ 04 July 2002,21:31) |
| CK is a medium? I would wonder. I'm a half-assed medium, especially with the Tarot, and I don't see it. So, it could be true. Whenever my mind is closed, I fail to see what is right in front of me. I told a guy last week he would die within 90 days. I told a girl that what the guy did was not her fault and she cried for an hour. I know it was an hour 'cuz she had to go back to work. Sometimes I go into conflict whether to tell people that stuff. Being psychic can suck. I feel the same way about that as computers. I know just enough to get into trouble. Us damned watersigns. (jerking Detnet's chain a little) |
so who is confused? Oh yah, I am.
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 05 2002,08:15
quote my entire post and say "duh".You're not helping yourself.