N.J. Town Opposes Prayer Day,
jal...@cox.net
April 26, 2004
N.J. Town Opposes Prayer Day, Supports Constitution
Belvidere, N.J., is the latest battleground in the fight over
state-sponsored prayer. The town council voted last week in favor of
separation of church and state by declining to publicly support the
National Day of Prayer. James Dobson's right-wing Focus on the Family
sponsors prayer events at municipal buildings every year on the first
Thursday in May. This time, the mayor and a majority of the town council
felt that church-state concerns were grounds to take a stand against this
constitutionally dubious event. Councilman Ben Ritter defended his vote,
saying, "I fiercely believe in the separation of church and state. I will
put my life on the line to protect the separation of church and state.... I
don't think government has the right to do something like this (prayer
day), whether it's Belvidere or the United States of America."
The council voted 4-2 to defeat the National Day of Prayer resolution and
now waits for Dobson to try again next year.
-- Sam Felder
ZenIsWhen
<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:219a901l3ucfbgvt4...@4ax.com...
A L L R I G H T ! ! ! ! \
Stand up, America, and take OUR nation back from the religious zealots!
Robibnikoff
I am prouder than usual to be a "Joisey Gurl" ;)
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
Alberto Moreira
>A L L R I G H T ! ! ! ! \
>
>Stand up, America, and take OUR nation back from the religious zealots!
Hello ? I thought the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of religion ?
Alberto.
Douglas Berry
called by some junk...@moreira.mv.com (Alberto Moreira) came forth
and told this tale in alt.atheism
Yup. You can practise your faith.
Just don't expect the government to support it in anyway.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
Family Man
news:40984749...@news.mv.net...
Your're right! It does! It also gaurantees freedom FROM religion. If your
church or cult organization wants to have a silly "prayer day" then have a
ball!
As long as it is not supported by town or government that is fine with me!
Briefs Bandit
"The government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion,
nor the free exercise of it." Sounds like the government may not interfere
in religion to me. By sponsoring a "Prayer Day," government does just that.
James
Roger
ZenIsWhen
It does.
Apparently you don't understand that "freedom of religion" does NOT mean
you - or anyone else - can use the government to shove YOUR religion!
Roger
news:109bqul...@corp.supernews.com...
This is obviously a concept too advanced for many religious people.
Most get it. Most don't want the government involved in their religion.
Most know that one of the reasons America is the first world's most
religious country is that government is prevented from getting involved in
religion.
Alberto Moreira
>Yup. You can practise your faith.
>
>Just don't expect the government to support it in anyway.
Yet religious people vote, and representatives of the people are
supposed to be representatives of the people - including religious
people. So, while you can eliminate religion from the machinery of
government, you cannot eliminate it from the political process.
To witness: run on an atheist platform and see how many votes you get.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
>Your're right! It does! It also gaurantees freedom FROM religion.
I don't see that written anywhere in the Amendment. Care to expound ?
>If your
>church or cult organization wants to have a silly "prayer day" then have a
>ball!
Indeed, that's the spirit: the First Amendment guarantees freedom of
religion.
>As long as it is not supported by town or government that is fine with me!
As long as it is not suppressed by town or government, that is fine
with me too.
Alberto.
Kate
OK - so?
ZenIsWhen
"Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zpqlc.59656$cd5....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> "ZenIsWhen" <ZenI...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
> news:109bqul...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Alberto Moreira" <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote in message
> > news:40984749...@news.mv.net...
> > > Said "ZenIsWhen" <ZenI...@anywhere.com> :
> > >
> > >
> > > >A L L R I G H T ! ! ! ! \
> > > >
> > > >Stand up, America, and take OUR nation back from the religious
zealots!
> > >
> > > Hello ? I thought the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of religion ?
> >
> > It does.
> > Apparently you don't understand that "freedom of religion" does NOT mean
> > you - or anyone else - can use the government to shove YOUR religion!
>
> This is obviously a concept too advanced for many religious people.
Interesting tangental thought - that the zealous fanatics who are at the
forefront of pushing their (the christian) religion down the throats of
others - are not really religious ...just insane control freaks!
Gregory Gadow
> Said Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> :
>
>
> >Yup. You can practise your faith.
> >
> >Just don't expect the government to support it in anyway.
>
> Yet religious people vote,
Bigots vote, too. So do murderers, carjackers, rapists and Republicans.
Your point is...?
> and representatives of the people are
> supposed to be representatives of the people - including religious
> people. So, while you can eliminate religion from the machinery of
> government, you cannot eliminate it from the political process.
And yet, the Constitution is quite clear.
--
Gregory Gadow
tech...@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
ZenIsWhen
> Said Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> :
>
>
> >Yup. You can practise your faith.
> >
> >Just don't expect the government to support it in anyway.
>
> Yet religious people vote, and representatives of the people are
> supposed to be representatives of the people - including religious
> people. So, while you can eliminate religion from the machinery of
> government, you cannot eliminate it from the political process.
No one is trying to!
>
> To witness: run on an atheist platform and see how many votes you get.
All that shows is the ignorant bias of many religious people.
That's akin to a black running for ANY office in 1930's Alabama.......but as
the current situation shows - blacks are JUST as qualified as whites in ANY
office. All people had to do was get over the ignorant bias against blacks.
BTW ........ Pat Robertson - a fanatical, and openly biased "christian" only
got 14% of the votes when he ran for office!
IOW - try running on an extreme "christian only" agenda - and you won't do
well either!
Roger
>
>
> >Yup. You can practise your faith.
> >
> >Just don't expect the government to support it in anyway.
>
> Yet religious people vote, and representatives of the people are
> supposed to be representatives of the people - including religious
> people. So, while you can eliminate religion from the machinery of
> government, you cannot eliminate it from the political process.
I don't know of *anyone* suggesting it should.
>
> To witness: run on an atheist platform and see how many votes you get.
Which proves the hypocrisy of most religious people.
Roger
> Said "Family Man" <nos...@nospam.com> :
>
>
> >Your're right! It does! It also gaurantees freedom FROM religion.
>
> I don't see that written anywhere in the Amendment. Care to expound ?
The first amendment. The very first amendment.
>
> >If your
> >church or cult organization wants to have a silly "prayer day" then have
a
> >ball!
>
> Indeed, that's the spirit: the First Amendment guarantees freedom of
> religion.
And the right to not have religion imposed on you.
>
> >As long as it is not supported by town or government that is fine with
me!
>
> As long as it is not suppressed by town or government, that is fine
> with me too.
As long as it is also not promoted by government.
Roger
Very true. It must be that or that they think their religion is so weak it
needs the help of government.
Not surprising either is that many of those who want the government to
support *their* religion also protest the government promoting the ideas of
*others*.
Alberto Moreira
>Bigots vote, too. So do murderers, carjackers, rapists and Republicans.
And atheists. Your point is ?
>Your point is...?
I thought it was obvious, no ? Voting is a citizen's prerogative and
is independent of all of the above. But many vote within the ethical
frame of their own religion, and those who don't are probably a
minority. So, whoever says that govermnent is independent of religion
lives in fantasyland: while the MACHINERY of the government is
construed to be independent of religion, the citizenry isn't, and it
will put pressure on their representatives to uphold principles that
are in accordance to their religion.
So, again, try to run for office on an atheist platform, and see how
many votes you get.
>And yet, the Constitution is quite clear.
Is it ? It says "congress" - nobody else. It says "Make ... law",
which according to the same Constitution is a prerogative of Congress.
Anything that is construed to apply to anyone but Congress and to
anything but make law is not clearly stated in the Constitution but
originates from judicial interpretations which by they very nature
come from third parties and not from the actual text of the
Constitution.
Or maybe now you want to forbid clerics to vote ? Public teachers ?
Lay religious leaders of the many churches in this country ?
Sorry, dude, religion is built inside many of us. It won't go away.
Don't like it ? Tough, handle it. Your problem.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
>All that shows is the ignorant bias of many religious people.
Well, if you drop the adjectives, you quickly get to teh truth: that
shows the slant of religious people, allright.
>That's akin to a black running for ANY office in 1930's Alabama.......but as
>the current situation shows - blacks are JUST as qualified as whites in ANY
>office. All people had to do was get over the ignorant bias against blacks.
No. All people had to do is to be convinced that blacks could
represent them. It's not merely a question of qualification: if we're
voting for a representative, we're looking for someone who REPRESENTS
us, who is somehow aligned to our political ideas and to our ethics.
We're not going to vote for a black candidate just because he or she
is black, but because he or she is construed to represent us to a
minimum degree of acceptance - and that goes independent of race.
>BTW ........ Pat Robertson - a fanatical, and openly biased "christian" only
>got 14% of the votes when he ran for office!
>IOW - try running on an extreme "christian only" agenda - and you won't do
>well either!
And that's because the majority of Christians isn't nearly that
radical. Yet many of us expect our candidates to represent our own
ethics, and chances are that a candidate won't get too many Catholic
votes, for example, if he's perceived as not being in line with the
ethics of the Catholic mainstream. Take Kerry, for example, I
guarantee you that his posture on abortion will have cost him some
swing votes, unless of course something of higher stature interposes
between the voter and that issue.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
>"Alberto Moreira" <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote in message
>news:409846cb...@news.mv.net...
>> Said "Family Man" <nos...@nospam.com> :
>>
>>
>> >Your're right! It does! It also gaurantees freedom FROM religion.
>>
>> I don't see that written anywhere in the Amendment. Care to expound ?
>
>The first amendment. The very first amendment.
Where ? I don't see it written anywhere. Care to expound ?
>And the right to not have religion imposed on you.
Nope. I have all the right, as a private citizen, to proselytize unto
you and to place a barrage of religious advertisement on your TV, or
on your computer through your favorite search engines and internet
portals. And if you're not in the FCC's "do not call" list, there's
nothing that prevents me from hitting your telephone with a barrage of
proselytizing either. All you're entitled to is that the government
does not include religion in its machinery - but that's hardly an
issue in this day and age, heck, just get a religious Supreme Court
Justice in there, and who needs to hide behind the First Amendment ?
Things take care of themselves. Why do you think that governments are
so adamantly activists when it comes to nominate judges ?
>As long as it is also not promoted by government.
It doesn't need to be. Leave it to the people, and the people's
religions will predominate. And according to the First Amendment
itself, the government has no business involving itself in the
religions of the people.
Alberto.
Gregory Gadow
> Said Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> :
>
> >Bigots vote, too. So do murderers, carjackers, rapists and Republicans.
>
> And atheists. Your point is ?
>
> >Your point is...?
>
> I thought it was obvious, no ? Voting is a citizen's prerogative and
> is independent of all of the above. But many vote within the ethical
> frame of their own religion, and those who don't are probably a
> minority. So, whoever says that govermnent is independent of religion
> lives in fantasyland: while the MACHINERY of the government is
> construed to be independent of religion, the citizenry isn't, and it
> will put pressure on their representatives to uphold principles that
> are in accordance to their religion.
The Bill of Rights exists specifically to protect the minority from the
tyranny of the majority. You should have learned that in elementary school
civics. When it comes to basic civil rights -- such as sponsorship of
religion and religious activities by government -- the will of the majority
is irrelevant.
> So, again, try to run for office on an atheist platform, and see how
> many votes you get.
It just happens that I *am* running for the Washington State Legislature. I
am openly gay and openly non-religious. I guess we will have to wait until
November to see how I do.
> >And yet, the Constitution is quite clear.
>
> Is it ? It says "congress" - nobody else.
Take a look at the 14th Amendment. "No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The courts have long
interpreted this as meaning that people are equally protected with regards
to state and local governments. If the federal government is required to
provide protections -- such as with regards to the establishment of religion
and the free excercise thereof -- then state and local governments are
equally required to provide protections.
> It says "Make ... law",
> which according to the same Constitution is a prerogative of Congress.
Uh... no. Congress makes laws on a national scale. State Legislatures make
laws on a state scale. County Councils, City Councils, Town Assemblies and
other such bodies make laws on a local scale.
> Anything that is construed to apply to anyone but Congress and to
> anything but make law is not clearly stated in the Constitution but
> originates from judicial interpretations which by they very nature
> come from third parties and not from the actual text of the
> Constitution.
Judicial interpretations DO come from the Constitution, albeit indirectly.
The Supreme Court of the United States, along with inferior courts (that is
to say, all other branches of the federal court system) have the power under
common law to interpret any and all laws that come before them. Since the
Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and since all laws must be made
"in pursuance thereof" (see Article VI), the court's principle job is to
interpret the law.
> Or maybe now you want to forbid clerics to vote ? Public teachers ?
> Lay religious leaders of the many churches in this country ?
People are allowed to vote as they see fit. However, voting can not overrule
the Constitution. Voting may change the Constitution, but the Constitution
is not changed until AFTER a ratifying vote.
> Sorry, dude, religion is built inside many of us. It won't go away.
> Don't like it ? Tough, handle it. Your problem.
I couldn't care less about your religious views, provided that they are not
forced on others. Government sponsorship of religion is strictly prohibited
by the Constitution, not just to the federal government but to all
governments in our republic. Don't like it? Tough, handle it. YOUR problem,
because the Constitution says it's not my problem.
ZenIsWhen
> Said Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> :
>
>
> >Bigots vote, too. So do murderers, carjackers, rapists and Republicans.
>
> And atheists. Your point is ?
>
> >Your point is...?
>
> I thought it was obvious, no ? Voting is a citizen's prerogative and
> is independent of all of the above. But many vote within the ethical
> frame of their own religion, and those who don't are probably a
> minority.
You have any facts to support this outrageous claim?
Someone once said that people vote in accordance with their pocketbooks.
Politicians KNOW people vote according to whatever "brainwashing" works
best; that's why republicans, for example, hire PR firms ...... to sell the
package - no matter what garbage is inside!
So, whoever says that govermnent is independent of religion
> lives in fantasyland: while the MACHINERY of the government is
> construed to be independent of religion, the citizenry isn't, and it
> will put pressure on their representatives to uphold principles that
> are in accordance to their religion.
No. It will put pressure to have politicians vote the way THEY want -
whether it is in line with their religon or not!!!!
You are working on the fantasy delusion that all (or most) religous people
have NO distorted human traits.
>
> So, again, try to run for office on an atheist platform, and see how
> many votes you get.
>
> >And yet, the Constitution is quite clear.
>
> Is it ? It says "congress" - nobody else. It says "Make ... law",
> which according to the same Constitution is a prerogative of Congress.
> Anything that is construed to apply to anyone but Congress and to
> anything but make law is not clearly stated in the Constitution but
> originates from judicial interpretations which by they very nature
> come from third parties and not from the actual text of the
> Constitution.
IOW ... it makes sense that if Congress shall make no law - then neither
shall the president or any other part of government.
>
> Or maybe now you want to forbid clerics to vote ? Public teachers ?
> Lay religious leaders of the many churches in this country ?
?????????????????
You're going so far off on a tangent - it took me ten minutes to catch up
with you.
This has nothing to do with an individual's right to vote!
>
> Sorry, dude, religion is built inside many of us. It won't go away.
> Don't like it ? Tough, handle it. Your problem.
Sorry, dude, religon isn't built inside anyone -- it's a learned belief
system!
ZenIsWhen
> Said "ZenIsWhen" <ZenI...@anywhere.com> :
>
> >All that shows is the ignorant bias of many religious people.
>
> Well, if you drop the adjectives, you quickly get to teh truth: that
> shows the slant of religious people, allright.
>
> >That's akin to a black running for ANY office in 1930's Alabama.......but
as
> >the current situation shows - blacks are JUST as qualified as whites in
ANY
> >office. All people had to do was get over the ignorant bias against
blacks.
>
> No. All people had to do is to be convinced that blacks could
> represent them. It's not merely a question of qualification: if we're
> voting for a representative, we're looking for someone who REPRESENTS
> us, who is somehow aligned to our political ideas and to our ethics.
> We're not going to vote for a black candidate just because he or she
> is black, but because he or she is construed to represent us to a
> minimum degree of acceptance - and that goes independent of race.
AND RELIGIOUS BELIEF!
The religous right that is trying to force fundamentalist chroistianity into
the government, were teh same types of people who were terrified, and
bellowed, that electing a Roman Catholic president (Kennedy) would ruin
religiois freedom in this nation. Now they are trying to ruin religious
freedom in this naiton by trying to turn it all into a fundamentalist
christian government.
You want REAL religious neutrality in government - vote for an atheist!
>
> >BTW ........ Pat Robertson - a fanatical, and openly biased "christian"
only
> >got 14% of the votes when he ran for office!
> >IOW - try running on an extreme "christian only" agenda - and you won't
do
> >well either!
>
> And that's because the majority of Christians isn't nearly that
> radical. Yet many of us expect our candidates to represent our own
> ethics, and chances are that a candidate won't get too many Catholic
> votes, for example, if he's perceived as not being in line with the
> ethics of the Catholic mainstream. Take Kerry, for example, I
> guarantee you that his posture on abortion will have cost him some
> swing votes, unless of course something of higher stature interposes
> between the voter and that issue.
He will, no doubt, lose some votes .. and he will, no doubt, GAIN some
votes.
I expect my canadidates to, at the very LEAST represent my ethics.
Using George Bush as an example, apparently many people who voted FOR him,
claiming to be christiana, have NO ethics!
People will vote for the representative that makes the best promises - or,
if incumbent, "brings home the bacon". Their greed, rather than claimed
religious beliefs, is a greater cause of who gets elected.
Roger
news:4097A4EA...@serv.net...
I wish you luck. Sincerely.
It would be nice to have someone who understands the real reason for the BOR
in government.
Roger
> Said "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> :
>
> >"Alberto Moreira" <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote in message
> >news:409846cb...@news.mv.net...
> >> Said "Family Man" <nos...@nospam.com> :
> >>
> >>
> >> >Your're right! It does! It also gaurantees freedom FROM religion.
> >>
> >> I don't see that written anywhere in the Amendment. Care to expound ?
> >
> >The first amendment. The very first amendment.
>
> Where ? I don't see it written anywhere. Care to expound ?
You've never read it, obviously.
>
> >And the right to not have religion imposed on you.
>
> Nope. I have all the right, as a private citizen, to proselytize unto
> you and to place a barrage of religious advertisement on your TV, or
> on your computer through your favorite search engines and internet
> portals. And if you're not in the FCC's "do not call" list, there's
> nothing that prevents me from hitting your telephone with a barrage of
> proselytizing either. All you're entitled to is that the government
> does not include religion in its machinery - but that's hardly an
> issue in this day and age, heck, just get a religious Supreme Court
> Justice in there, and who needs to hide behind the First Amendment ?
> Things take care of themselves. Why do you think that governments are
> so adamantly activists when it comes to nominate judges ?
We have the guarantee that the government will not be involved in religion.
Unlee you break the law, you as an individual can do whatever you want. So
can I.
>
> >As long as it is also not promoted by government.
>
> It doesn't need to be. Leave it to the people, and the people's
> religions will predominate. And according to the First Amendment
> itself, the government has no business involving itself in the
> religions of the people.
If you think you can force people into believing what you want them to, you
are sadly mistaken.
Alberto Moreira
>The Bill of Rights exists specifically to protect the minority from the
>tyranny of the majority.
Wrong. The Bill of Rights exists to protect INDIVIDUALS from the
government: and it protects the majority as well as the minority. A
majority citizen gets precisely THE SAME PROTECTION from the Bill of
Rights as a minority citizen.
Furthermore, there's no such a concept as "the" majority - there is
rather the concept of "a" majority, and every different issue will
have its own majority, and the majorities for two issues will seldom
be the same.
The principle of majority is enshrined in the political machine of
this country, just about everywhere.
>You should have learned that in elementary school civics.
I wasn't educated in the U.S., therefore I have the ability to look at
it critically and with a high degree of emotional, intellectual and
ideological detachment.
>When it comes to basic civil rights -- such as sponsorship of
>religion and religious activities by government -- the will of the majority
>is irrelevant.
Basic civil rights are few and far between. And the government is also
forbidden from suppressing religion in any form. And the will of the
majority is STILL very relevant: all it takes is a suitable MAJORITY,
and the First Amendment will have been.
>It just happens that I *am* running for the Washington State Legislature. I
>am openly gay and openly non-religious. I guess we will have to wait until
>November to see how I do.
Indeed. I'll be curious to see the outcome.
>Take a look at the 14th Amendment. "No state shall make or enforce any law
>which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
>States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
>property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
>jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The courts have long
>interpreted this as meaning that people are equally protected with regards
>to state and local governments. If the federal government is required to
>provide protections -- such as with regards to the establishment of religion
>and the free excercise thereof -- then state and local governments are
>equally required to provide protections.
THE PROTECTIONS OF THE FIRST OR THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS DO NOT
EXTEND TO ACTIONS BY THE PEOPLE.
Furthermore, the First Amendment guarantees the right of free exercise
of one's religion as one of those privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States. So, it's very obvious to me that a government,
Federal or State, is forbidden from taking any action that constrains
the freedom of religion of the citizenry. Now THAT is a basic right of
individuals, minorities and majorities included.
So, if you're elected, LEAVE THE RELIGION OF YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS
ALONE - it's none of your business, either way.
>Uh... no. Congress makes laws on a national scale. State Legislatures make
>laws on a state scale. County Councils, City Councils, Town Assemblies and
>other such bodies make laws on a local scale.
The U.S. Constitution is the constitution of the Federal Government.
It forbids Congress from making law - that's WRITTEN in the text of
the document. And neither State Legislatures, County Councils, City
Councils, Town Assemblies and such other bodies can make Federal law.
So, it's jolly clear what the text of the document is talking about.
>Judicial interpretations DO come from the Constitution, albeit indirectly.
>The Supreme Court of the United States, along with inferior courts (that is
>to say, all other branches of the federal court system) have the power under
>common law to interpret any and all laws that come before them. Since the
>Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and since all laws must be made
>"in pursuance thereof" (see Article VI), the court's principle job is to
>interpret the law.
Judicial interpretations are in a way "tainted" because they are no
longer the strict text of the Constitution. Whenever someone
substitutes "Government" for "Congress" in the text of the First
Amendment, that someone is inserting an item of interpretation that is
not contained in the original document.
So, YES, such interpretations are legal, and YES, the courts have the
power to issue them, but NO, they're not stated in the Constitution,
and NO, there is no such thing as "clarity" in those interpretations.
>People are allowed to vote as they see fit. However, voting can not overrule
>the Constitution. Voting may change the Constitution, but the Constitution
>is not changed until AFTER a ratifying vote.
The Constitution is changed through a vote: a majority vote. The
minority cannot change the Constitution. But the Constitution is also
changed through interpretations from the courts. When an
interpretation of the Constitution goes from "Congress shall make no
law" to "Teachers shall not wear such and such garb", I do not buy
that the interpretation is anything but a change to the Constitution.
>I couldn't care less about your religious views, provided that they are not
>forced on others.
Sorry - I'm not a Government, therefore the restrictions of the First
Amendment do not apply to me. In fact, I have the RIGHT to free
exercise of my religion, and I have the right to proselityze you and
to try to force my religion unto you, very much so. And because of
that very First Amendment, the government - you included if you get
elected - has NO business in forcing me to do anything that in any
sense "respects religion" - because, you know Congress shall make NO
law respecting the stuff. NO law, eh ? Either way. NO law.
Repeat, to get it to sink in: NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.
Get OFF the people's religions, they're none of the government's
business, EITHER WAY.
>Government sponsorship of religion is strictly prohibited
>by the Constitution, not just to the federal government but to all
>governments in our republic. Don't like it? Tough, handle it. YOUR problem,
>because the Constitution says it's not my problem.
Government INVOLVEMENT with religion is strictly prohibited by the
Constitution, not just to the federal government, but to all
governments in our republic. Don't like it ? Tough, handle it. YOUR
problem, because the Constitution says it's not my problem.
But the government isn't allowed to suppress religion any more than
it's allowed to support it. For example, if I decide to sacrifice a
chicken in your backyard and leave the bones out there as an offer to
my gods, the government can nail me down for trespassing, or maybe for
being a public nuisance if it gets to that point - but not on account
of my religion, or my pushing my religion into you.
And ah, as a citizen, I'm not bound by the obligations stated in the
First Amendment. I CAN get involved with religion, I CAN proselityze,
I CAN try to force my religion on other people, I CAN use my religious
litmuses to drive my political vote, I CAN use my religious morals to
pressure my officials into doing what I think they should be done, and
I CAN use my religious background to try to kick them out of the
office when I think they've strayed beyond what I find morally or
ethically acceptable - and all of those things, and much more, will be
originated in my religion and guided by it.
So, if the majority of the citizenry sponsors similar beliefs, ignore
our religions at your own risk. But the government is not entitled
even to get INVOLVED with religion, either way: religion is OUT of the
government's sphere of influence. But what do you know ? Religion may
be that one swing factor that gets people in and out of office.
So, ignore it at your own risk.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
>You have any facts to support this outrageous claim?
>Someone once said that people vote in accordance with their pocketbooks.
Now, now, if you insist in being an ostrich, good luck, dude, you'll
need it. I'll drop this debate right here and right now - it has
become surrealistic.
[snip...]
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
>AND RELIGIOUS BELIEF!
>The religous right that is trying to force fundamentalist chroistianity into
>the government, were teh same types of people who were terrified, and
>bellowed, that electing a Roman Catholic president (Kennedy) would ruin
>religiois freedom in this nation. Now they are trying to ruin religious
>freedom in this naiton by trying to turn it all into a fundamentalist
>christian government.
A government that doesn't represent the people is not a legitimate
government. If a sizable portion of the people adheres to right wing
Christian principles, no government can be legitimate unless those
principles are taken well into account, and the need for that grows
stronger with the proportion of the citizenry that believes in those
principles.
>You want REAL religious neutrality in government - vote for an atheist!
Wrong. Real religious neutrality means uttering that simple three-line
phrase that's so difficult to get out of one's system:
"I don't know"
And that's very far from atheism. Issuing that "I don't know" means
that we reserve the possibility that, well, maybe the religious right
is even, what do you know, right - or that in the end it may be all
about following Allah's word through the Kuran, or that those Santeria
dudes who believe in Xhangoh and Yemanjah are really who have the
truth beyond life, or maybe those Bhuddists who pray while standing
upside down on their heads. Because, the only thing we can say about
religion is,
I DON'T KNOW
and that's the ONLY honest take on religion or on the existing of one
or more gods. If you say you're an atheist and you don't believe in a
god, or if you say that religion is (mostly) lies, then that's hardly
what I call a "neutral" position.
For example, I keep hearing many of you harping about how the First
Amendment allegedly protects people "from" religion, and I hardly hear
any of you emphasizing the other half: that the same Amendment
protects the people's exercizing of their own religion, and that the
very same Amendment also forbids the government of making any law
AGAINST religion.
Neutrality means, leave it alone: we're not competent to do anything
about it, either way. The moment neutrality equals suppression, it's
no longer neutrality.
>He will, no doubt, lose some votes .. and he will, no doubt, GAIN some
>votes.
>I expect my canadidates to, at the very LEAST represent my ethics.
So do all of us, even the most religious. For example, in an Illinois
town where the majority of the citizens is Muslim, one would expect
that candidates would need to be very much in line with the Muslim
ethics, or they might have a problem getting elected. In a strong
Jewish neighborhood, I challenge anyone with an Arabic name to get
elected. And so on.
>Using George Bush as an example, apparently many people who voted FOR him,
>claiming to be christiana, have NO ethics!
Why ?
>People will vote for the representative that makes the best promises - or,
>if incumbent, "brings home the bacon". Their greed, rather than claimed
>religious beliefs, is a greater cause of who gets elected.
No, that's not the way it goes. Voting is determined by a very complex
issue set, yet nobody votes outside his or her ethical system. We look
at people who are more or less similar to us when we vote, that's
human nature.
And ah, ignore human nature at your own risk. Worse, if you beard it,
prepare for nemesis, because it'll certainly come.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
>You've never read it, obviously.
Don't copout. C'mon, tell me. Where ? Please quote.
>We have the guarantee that the government will not be involved in religion.
>Unlee you break the law, you as an individual can do whatever you want. So
>can I.
And that's precisely what I'm saying: you CANNOT be free "from"
religion, because I the citizen am not bound by the restrictions of
the First Amendment, and the government cannot get involved in
religion and force me to change my religious behavior.
>If you think you can force people into believing what you want them to, you
>are sadly mistaken.
That's done every day and every hour in this country. It's called
"advertising". Mountains and mountains of it, everywhere. All that
bars a religion from bombarding you or me with proselityzing is money
- but the government cannot protect you "from" religion any more than
it can prevent me from exercising my religion the way I feel fit, even
trying to shove it unto you.
Which, in a way, many of us do, by voting in candidates who toe our
political, ideological, moral and ethical frame, which in many of us
originates in our religion. Do you think a Moslem's going to vote the
same way a Christian ? Fat chance.
Alberto.
Roger
> Said Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> :
>
>
> >The Bill of Rights exists specifically to protect the minority from the
> >tyranny of the majority.
>
> Wrong. The Bill of Rights exists to protect INDIVIDUALS from the
> government: and it protects the majority as well as the minority. A
> majority citizen gets precisely THE SAME PROTECTION from the Bill of
> Rights as a minority citizen.
It protects all people, but people in the majority have less need for its
protection. Those in the majority get all the support and help they need
from the legislature and the executive. The majority puts them in office,
and they do the bidding of those who put them there.
Roger
You're saying that people DON'T vote with the pocketbooks?
Ask Bush Sr. about that.
Roger
> Said "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> :
>
>
> >You've never read it, obviously.
>
> Don't copout. C'mon, tell me. Where ? Please quote.
It's such a short little thing. If you can't find it, you're wasting your
time here.
>
> >We have the guarantee that the government will not be involved in
religion.
> >Unlee you break the law, you as an individual can do whatever you want.
So
> >can I.
>
> And that's precisely what I'm saying: you CANNOT be free "from"
> religion, because I the citizen am not bound by the restrictions of
> the First Amendment, and the government cannot get involved in
> religion and force me to change my religious behavior.
>
> >If you think you can force people into believing what you want them to,
you
> >are sadly mistaken.
>
> That's done every day and every hour in this country. It's called
> "advertising". Mountains and mountains of it, everywhere. All that
> bars a religion from bombarding you or me with proselityzing is money
> - but the government cannot protect you "from" religion any more than
> it can prevent me from exercising my religion the way I feel fit, even
> trying to shove it unto you.
Buying habits are hardly the same as religious belief. Science is providing
more and more evidence that it is a function of the brain; a physical cause.
Advertizing does not change it.
>
> Which, in a way, many of us do, by voting in candidates who toe our
> political, ideological, moral and ethical frame, which in many of us
> originates in our religion. Do you think a Moslem's going to vote the
> same way a Christian ? Fat chance.
Which has nothing to do with changing ones religious beliefs.
Alberto Moreira
>"Alberto Moreira" <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote in message
>news:409bde1e...@news.mv.net...
>> Said "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> :
>>
>>
>> >You've never read it, obviously.
>>
>> Don't copout. C'mon, tell me. Where ? Please quote.
>
>It's such a short little thing. If you can't find it, you're wasting your
>time here.
I thought so: evasions and no substance. You will not be able to quote
anywhere the Constitution says a citizen is free from religion. But it
DOES say in there that a citizen has the right to free exercise of his
or her religion.
>Buying habits are hardly the same as religious belief. Science is providing
>more and more evidence that it is a function of the brain; a physical cause.
>Advertizing does not change it.
Belief is belief: a supplement for knowledge. And yes, our brains
change all the time. Call it religion, ideology, theory, brand
allegiance, it all boils down to the same thing: belief. Can be
changed, is changed. And it's also kicked out of the way with amazing
regularity.
>Which has nothing to do with changing ones religious beliefs.
Because it has nothing to do with beliefs: it has to do with culture.
Beliefs, you know, are rooted in culture. Culture is the accumulated
knowledge a human group has ammassed.
It's all truly very simple, there's basically two things out there:
knowledge and belief. They shift with the winds, nothing's immutable.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
>It protects all people, but people in the majority have less need for its
>protection.
That's not written in the Constitution.
>Those in the majority get all the support and help they need
>from the legislature and the executive. The majority puts them in office,
>and they do the bidding of those who put them there.
So you agree with me: the system's set up so that the majority speaks.
Alberto.
Roger
> Said "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> :
>
> >"Alberto Moreira" <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote in message
> >news:409bde1e...@news.mv.net...
> >> Said "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> :
> >>
> >>
> >> >You've never read it, obviously.
> >>
> >> Don't copout. C'mon, tell me. Where ? Please quote.
> >
> >It's such a short little thing. If you can't find it, you're wasting your
> >time here.
>
> I thought so: evasions and no substance. You will not be able to quote
> anywhere the Constitution says a citizen is free from religion. But it
> DOES say in there that a citizen has the right to free exercise of his
> or her religion.
Why are you being so silly? It says that the government cannot be involved
in promoting religion. Clear as day.
>
> >Buying habits are hardly the same as religious belief. Science is
providing
> >more and more evidence that it is a function of the brain; a physical
cause.
> >Advertizing does not change it.
>
> Belief is belief: a supplement for knowledge. And yes, our brains
> change all the time. Call it religion, ideology, theory, brand
> allegiance, it all boils down to the same thing: belief. Can be
> changed, is changed. And it's also kicked out of the way with amazing
> regularity.
Prove it can be changed regarding religion by external forces.
Roger
> Said "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> :
>
>
> >It protects all people, but people in the majority have less need for its
> >protection.
>
> That's not written in the Constitution.
So? It's a fact. Not all facts are written in the Constitution.
>
> >Those in the majority get all the support and help they need
> >from the legislature and the executive. The majority puts them in office,
> >and they do the bidding of those who put them there.
>
> So you agree with me: the system's set up so that the majority speaks.
And the Constitution is there to protect the minorities.
Alan Lichtenstein
Alberto Moreira wrote:
Alberto, you must also understand that the system is also set up to protect
the minority from the tyranny of the majority. A point which I feel that you
have some difficulty in understanding.
Alan
Carol Lee Smith
>You will not be able to quote
> anywhere the Constitution says a citizen is free from religion. But it
> DOES say in there that a citizen has the right to free exercise of his
> or her religion.
You are welcome to quote the part which says "right to a fair trial."
Likewise "religious liberty."
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20000918&s=pollitt
-----excerpt-----
"The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from
religion," Senator Joseph Lieberman told a rapturous audience at a black
church ... just after being chosen as Al Gore's running mate. In fact,
Lieberman is wrong about the Constitution--it does protect us from
religion. In their useful book The Godless Constitution, Isaac Kramnick
and R. Laurence Moore remind us that the Founding Fathers carefully
considered and rejected the idea of inserting religious language into the
Constitution: "The nation's founders, both in writing the Constitution and
in defending it in the ratification debates, sought to separate the
operations of government from any claim that human beings can know and
follow divine direction in reaching policy decisions." The Constitution
specifically prohibits religious tests for political office; evidently
Washington, Madison and Jefferson did not think civic virtue required
belief in God. Still less did they sympathize with Bible-based politics.
Looking for political guidance in the Bible is like looking for it in the
entrails of birds--you can always find what you want if you squint hard
enough. ...
-----end of excerpt-----
> Belief is belief: a supplement for knowledge. And yes, our brains
> change all the time. Call it religion, ideology, theory, brand
> allegiance, it all boils down to the same thing: belief. Can be
> changed, is changed. And it's also kicked out of the way with amazing
> regularity.
Which is a pretty damned good reason our Constitution doesn't endorse
belief over non-belief and why governments in the U.S. must also refrain
from doing so.
Carol Lee Smith
> Said "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> :
> >It protects all people, but people in the majority have less need for its
> >protection.
> That's not written in the Constitution.
So? There are a lot of things not written in there which many of us take
for granted.
As eminent church-state scholar Leo Pfeffer notes in his book, Church,
State and Freedom, "It is true, of course, that the phrase 'separation of
church and state' does not appear in the Constitution. But it was
inevitable that some convenient term should come into existence to
verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American
people....[T]he right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a
constitutional principle; yet the term 'fair trial' is not found in the
Constitution. To bring the point even closer home, who would deny that
'religious liberty' is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is
not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms,
including 'separation of church and state,' have received in America would
seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American
democratic principles."
This might also help:
http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/Is_the_United_States_a_Christian_nation.pdf?docID=103
~~~~~
> >Those in the majority get all the support and help they need
> >from the legislature and the executive. The majority puts them in office,
> >and they do the bidding of those who put them there.
> So you agree with me: the system's set up so that the majority speaks.
The system is set up so that anyone may speak.
Say what you would like.
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
-- Robert Anton Wilson
Circe
> Said Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> :
>
>
>> The Bill of Rights exists specifically to protect the minority
>> from the tyranny of the majority.
>
> Wrong. The Bill of Rights exists to protect INDIVIDUALS from the
> government: and it protects the majority as well as the minority. A
> majority citizen gets precisely THE SAME PROTECTION from the Bill of
> Rights as a minority citizen.
>
> Furthermore, there's no such a concept as "the" majority - there is
> rather the concept of "a" majority, and every different issue will
> have its own majority, and the majorities for two issues will seldom
> be the same.
>
> The principle of majority is enshrined in the political machine of
> this country, just about everywhere.
>
when such an imposition would violate the Constitution. The only way a
majority can instruct the government to violate the First Amendment is by
amending the constitution itself, and that is a deliberately difficult
process to achieve.
For this reason that the BOR is said to protect the minority from the
tyranny of the majority--because it prevents a majority of individuals from
getting the government to impose its will upon a minority in violation of
Constitutional protections. Without such limitations on the power of the
majority, NO ONE has any right since, as you say, the majority opinion can
change.
--
Be well, Barbara
All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman
Roger
Mike Ruskai
>http://blog.au.org/2004/04/small_town_oppo.html
>
>April 26, 2004
>N.J. Town Opposes Prayer Day, Supports Constitution
>
>Belvidere, N.J., is the latest battleground in the fight over
>state-sponsored prayer. The town council voted last week in favor of
>separation of church and state by declining to publicly support the
>National Day of Prayer. James Dobson's right-wing Focus on the Family
>sponsors prayer events at municipal buildings every year on the first
>Thursday in May. This time, the mayor and a majority of the town council
>felt that church-state concerns were grounds to take a stand against this
>constitutionally dubious event. Councilman Ben Ritter defended his vote,
>saying, "I fiercely believe in the separation of church and state. I will
>put my life on the line to protect the separation of church and state.... I
>don't think government has the right to do something like this (prayer
>day), whether it's Belvidere or the United States of America."
>
>The council voted 4-2 to defeat the National Day of Prayer resolution and
>now waits for Dobson to try again next year.
I'd be more surprised if this were from Alabama or Arkansas. Jersey has
never been a hotbed of fundy activity (I've lived here for all but a year
and a half of my life).
Granted, it gets a little thick in the rural areas (where I live), but
it's not the aggressive type found south of the Mason-Dixon line.
I still shudder when visiting my sister in Atlanta, and worry about my
niece (four and a half), when I spot all of the excessive religious debris
all over normal stores, in a decidedly non-rural area (can't buy liquor on
Sunday, too, though can drink it in a bar).
--
- Mike
Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.
Alberto Moreira
>Why are you being so silly? It says that the government cannot be involved
>in promoting religion. Clear as day.
The government cannot be involved in suppressing religion either.
Clear as day.
>Prove it can be changed regarding religion by external forces.
Just look at religious conversions. Born agan Christians. Someone
converted to Islam. Someone becomes Jewish so that he or she can marry
a Jewish consort. Happens every day, just take your head off the sand.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
>On Wed, 5 May 2004, Alberto Moreira wrote:
>
>>You will not be able to quote
>> anywhere the Constitution says a citizen is free from religion. But it
>> DOES say in there that a citizen has the right to free exercise of his
>> or her religion.
>
>You are welcome to quote the part which says "right to a fair trial."
Amendment V: No person shall ...BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR
PROPERTY, WITHGOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW...
Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy
the right to a speedy and public trial, by an IMPARTIAL jury of the
state and district wherin the crime shall bhave been committed, which
district shall have been previously ASCERTAINED BY LAW, and to be
informed of the nature adn cause of the accusation; to be confronted
with the witnesses against him; to have COMPUSORY PROCESS FOR
OBTAINING WITNESSES IN HIS FAVOR, and TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENSE.
Amendmen VII: In suits at common law... no fact tried by a jury shall
be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States than
ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF COMMON LAW.
My emphasis. If this isn't a series of guarantees towards a fair
trial, I don't know what is.
>Likewise "religious liberty."
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law... PROHIBITING THE FREE
EXERCISE THEREOF... OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH... OR THE RIGHT
OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE...
Clear enough to me.
>Which is a pretty damned good reason our Constitution doesn't endorse
>belief over non-belief and why governments in the U.S. must also refrain
>from doing so.
Our Constitution has no business dealing with belief, either way, and
it cannot endorse non-belief over belief either. The government must
stay OUT of that battle, altogether.
Our Constitution is not qualified to deal with belief - that is not
one of the powers delegated to the Federal Government by we the
people, and in the particular case of *religious* belief, our
Constitution expressely forbids the government from getting involved.
But belief is an integral part of the human nature and experience, and
it will not be thrown in the trash can not even by a Federal
Government's Constitution - after all, there ARE many things in
people's lives that are deeper and more fundamental than a political
constitution of a federal government.
So, Muslims will vote the Muslim way, Jewish will vote the Jewish way,
Catholics will vote the Catholic way, and there's nothing the
government can do about it. But elect one religious man or woman into
office, and his or her ethics may end up being strongly religious -
and again, there's nothing the government can do about it.
Keeping religion away from the government is very different from
keeping religion away from the minds and hearts of government
officials. The first is a tenable proposition; the second won't
happen, it's that simple. So, for example, if you have a Christian
Representative or Senator in Congress, a non-Christian proposition
won't even emerge from that individual as a potential law. It'll be a
non-event: non-Christian laws won't even be conceived, let alone
gestated. That's reality to you, and it far transcends any political
piece of paper, including our Federal Constitution.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
>Alberto, you must also understand that the system is also set up to protect
>the minority from the tyranny of the majority. A point which I feel that you
>have some difficulty in understanding.
No, Alan, that's not the way the system is set up. The system is set
up to protect INDIVIDUALS from the tyranny of the GOVERNMENT. Beyond
that, all bets are free. An individual belonging to the majority has
no less protections than an individual belonging to the minority, that
is, if "the" majority even exists. But our Founding Fathers were just
as worried about the cabals of the few - read "minorities" - as they
were worried about protecting individual rights from mob rule.
Moreover, majority rule is enshrined in the Constitution, for example,
Amendment XII: The electors shall ... vote by ballot for President and
Vice President... the President of the Senate shall... open all the
certificates and the votes shall then be counted: the person having
the GREATEST NUMBER OF VOTES... shall be the President. ... if no
person have such majority, then ... the House of Representatives shall
choose immediately, BY BALLOT, the President. But.... a Quorum shall
consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a
MAJORITY of all the states shall be necessary for a choice... THE
PERSON HAVING THE GREATEST NUMBER OF VOTES AS VICE PRESIDENT SHALL BE
THE VICE PRESIDENT. If no person have a majority... the Senate shall
choose... a quorum for the purpose shall consist of TWO-THIRDS OF THE
WHOLE NUMBER OF SENATORS, AND A MAJORITY OF THE WHOLE NUMBER SHALL BE
NECESSARY TO A CHOICE.
Amendment XVII: THe Senate of the united states shall be composed of
two Senators from each state, ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE THEREOF...
Section 2, Article 1: The House of Representatives shall be composed
of members CHOSEN every second year BY THE PEOPLE OF THE SEVERAL
STATES...
Section 5, Article 1: Each house shall be the judge of the elections,
returns, and qualifications of its own members, AND A MAJORITY OF EACH
SHALL CONSTITUTE A QUORUM TO DO BUSINESS...
Section 5, Article 2: Each house may... WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF
TWO-THIRDS, expel a member.
There's probably way more. The government is set up under a majority
rule, that's plainly clear.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
>"Alberto Moreira" <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote in message
>news:40a3e908...@news.mv.net...
>> Said "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> :
>>
>>
>> >It protects all people, but people in the majority have less need for its
>> >protection.
>>
>> That's not written in the Constitution.
>
>So? It's a fact. Not all facts are written in the Constitution.
But that's not the point of the argument. You stated that the
Constitution guaranteed freedom "from" religion. I said I don't read
it anywhere and asked you to quote it.
I'm still waiting.
>And the Constitution is there to protect the minorities.
No. It's a "Constitution": it CONSTITUTES the Government of the
United States: it's primarily a blueprint for a government. Almost the
whole body of the Constitution has to do with details of how the
Government will be set up as three branches, how those branches will
act and interact with each other and with the people, to what extent
those branches have powers to do what, how individuals will be chosen,
elected or appointed to those branches, what will be the relationship
between the States and the Federal Government, and a few further
operational details about how its text can be amended.
It is, badly compared, like the source code for an Operating System:
our country's operating system.
Now, as part of its provisions, it includes a set of amendments that
make diverse stipulations on relevant issues. Among those amendments,
some state specific protections to ALL citizens - irrespective of
whether they're majority or minority - from that very same government.
But it cannot protect minorities, that would be a violation of the
principle of equal protection under the law. And it cannot protect you
from a lot of majorities. For example, the Constitution may be able to
protect you against the Federal Government, but not against Microsoft;
and yet Bill Gates will have no less right to any Constitutional
protection than any of us, even the poorest or neediest or
darker-skinned "minority" citizen.
The word of order here, mind you, is "equal".
Alberto.
Gregory Gadow
> Said "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> :
>
>
> >Why are you being so silly? It says that the government cannot be involved
> >in promoting religion. Clear as day.
>
> The government cannot be involved in suppressing religion either.
> Clear as day.
People are free to pray. Government is prohibited from promoting prayer. It's
quite simple, really.
Alberto Moreira
>On Wed, 5 May 2004, Alberto Moreira wrote:
>
>> Said "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> :
>
>> >It protects all people, but people in the majority have less need for its
>> >protection.
>
>> That's not written in the Constitution.
>
>So? There are a lot of things not written in there which many of us take
>for granted.
I'm sorry, the text of the Constitution is the ONLY protection we the
people have against the vagaries of the government - and remember, the
judiciary is part of the government too. I am no less suspicious of
the Supreme Court than I'm suspicious of the Executive or of my own
duly elected Representatives and Senators; and as a citizen, I'm
definitely not prepared to give the courts a blank check in the sense
I will accept any principle or proposition they advance as legitimate
new law.
The statement here, to which I objected, was that the Constitution
protects the citizenry "from" religion. I said, I read it nowhere,
hence, it's not the Constitution that states that kind of thing - if
anything else, the Constitution explicitly protects the citizenry's
freedom to exercise their religions: no need to take anything for
granted here, it's WRITTEN in there.
>As eminent church-state scholar Leo Pfeffer notes in his book, Church,
>State and Freedom, "It is true, of course, that the phrase 'separation of
>church and state' does not appear in the Constitution. But it was
>inevitable that some convenient term should come into existence to
>verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American
>people....[T]he right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a
>constitutional principle; yet the term 'fair trial' is not found in the
>Constitution.
First and foremost: I do not believe in "scholars" when it boils down
to politics. I believe in citizens: speak eye to eye, accumulated
prestige counts nothing on this plane, and each of us is entitled to
exactly one vote, period. Anything beyond that, in political terms, is
fantasyland or worse.
About "fair" trial, the Constitution goes beyond that, in making very
specific provisions for trials, including an "impartial" jury. If
that's not "fair", I don't know what is. So, maybe I'm reading the
document with a different slant than you or someone else are, and the
net result of this will be shown at the ballot box: again, one
citizen, one vote.
One more thing: the difference between what the Constitution actually
says and a Constitutional Principle is this: the Constitution's text
is the Constitution's text, as ratified by the diverse states - while
a "Principle" is a vague tenet by the powers that be, which may or may
not be close enough to the text of the Constitution. True enough, we
accept it as fact and as a constant presence. Yet we must make a
difference: a Constitutional Principle is something created by forces
other than the Constitution itself.
I personally like to adhere to the text of the document rather than to
"principles", because those can be and are manipulated by the powers
that be according to the shifts in the wind. In fact, I'm of the
personal opinion that we're lacking a key check and balance in that
any court decision should be evaluated by Congress or by the
Executive, or both, for consistency with and closeness to the text of
the Constitution: excessive departure from that text should be
regarded as the courts "making law", which by the very text of the
Constitution is reserved to Congress.
But hey, this is my personal opinion only: it will guide my vote and I
don't ask anyone else to agree.
>To bring the point even closer home, who would deny that
>'religious liberty' is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is
>not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms,
>including 'separation of church and state,' have received in America would
>seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American
>democratic principles."
To bring the point even closer home, I'm a pragmatic man who doesn't
care that much about "constitutional principles". I care for what's
written in the document, because that was the verbiage that was hacked
to death by those Congressmen who brought it into existence. The
moment forces extraneous to the creation of the Constitution bring in
concepts that may or may not be seen as totally aligned to the
approved and ratified text of the document, I begin to say "ho hum" -
and I'm probably one of the least likely citizens to uphold the right
of a government to drive us by the way of sacred cows.
>The system is set up so that anyone may speak.
To speak effectively, action must result, or speech is irrelevant.
Again, I'm a pragmatic man, I believe in deeds not in fantasy or
belief. So, real speak is a consequence of real power - the rest is
poppycock. Big deal, protecting speech that has no consequence ! It's
the speech that leads to deeds that must be protected, and that's
usually not exercised by "anyone", but those with power to generate
change.
Alberto.
Thomas P.
Moreira) wrote:
>Said Carol Lee Smith <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> :
>
>>On Wed, 5 May 2004, Alberto Moreira wrote:
>>
>>> Said "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> :
>>
>>> >It protects all people, but people in the majority have less need for its
>>> >protection.
>>
>>> That's not written in the Constitution.
>>
>>So? There are a lot of things not written in there which many of us take
>>for granted.
>
>I'm sorry, the text of the Constitution is the ONLY protection we the
>people have against the vagaries of the government - and remember, the
>judiciary is part of the government too. I am no less suspicious of
>the Supreme Court than I'm suspicious of the Executive or of my own
>duly elected Representatives and Senators; and as a citizen, I'm
>definitely not prepared to give the courts a blank check in the sense
>I will accept any principle or proposition they advance as legitimate
>new law.
That does not make much difference. Some people are not willing to
accept what the Constitution says; that also makes little difference.
The Constitution is the basic law of the US, and the interpretations
of that Constitution made by the Supreme Court have the force of law.
That is how the system works. It is far from perfect, but a piece of
paper is quite worthless by itself. If one feels his Constitutional
rights have been violated, how is he/she to seek redress; unless there
is such a body as the Court to appeal to? If you choose to not
respect the decisions of the Court, who will protect you from
governments who choose to ignore the Court's decisions that have
benefitted you? The Constitution by itself certainly will not protect
anyone.
>
>The statement here, to which I objected, was that the Constitution
>protects the citizenry "from" religion. I said, I read it nowhere,
>hence, it's not the Constitution that states that kind of thing - if
>anything else, the Constitution explicitly protects the citizenry's
>freedom to exercise their religions: no need to take anything for
>granted here, it's WRITTEN in there.
No, actually it is not written there. It is your interpretation of
what is written there. It does not specifically say that other
bodies, such as state governments, cannot establish religions or
outlaw other religions. It is the interpretations made by the Supreme
Court that have drawn those conclusions from the amendment. That is
why no government authority in the US can legally support any religion
or any religious practice; and why people are free to exercise their
religions or to not exercise any religion at all - because the Supreme
Court has decided the Constitution guarantees those rights.
snip
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Alan Lichtenstein
Alberto Moreira wrote:
> Said Alan Lichtenstein <alicht...@erols.com> :
>
>
> >Alberto, you must also understand that the system is also set up to protect
> >the minority from the tyranny of the majority. A point which I feel that you
> >have some difficulty in understanding.
>
> No, Alan, that's not the way the system is set up. The system is set
> up to protect INDIVIDUALS from the tyranny of the GOVERNMENT. Beyond
> that, all bets are free. An individual belonging to the majority has
> no less protections than an individual belonging to the minority, that
> is, if "the" majority even exists. But our Founding Fathers were just
> as worried about the cabals of the few - read "minorities" - as they
> were worried about protecting individual rights from mob rule.
>
> Moreover, majority rule is enshrined in the Constitution, for example,
>
>
Well, Alberto, by your reasoning, if government through the constitutional
process of majority rule then violates the rights of an individual through a
perfectly constitutional and permitted process, then you would say that the
system is not set up to ejudicate that?
Alberto, don't back yourself into a corner on this one. Don't you see that
regardless of HOW you answer, you cone out on the short end of the stick? Our
system is indeed set up to protect the individual or minority individuals from
the tyranny of the majority.
Alan
stoney
Message ID: <Wralc.2564$H4....@www.newsranger.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>In article <109a9g1...@corp.supernews.com>, ZenIsWhen says...
>>
>>
>><jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:219a901l3ucfbgvt4...@4ax.com...
>>> http://blog.au.org/2004/04/small_town_oppo.html
>>>
>>> April 26, 2004
>>> N.J. Town Opposes Prayer Day, Supports Constitution
>>>
>>> Belvidere, N.J., is the latest battleground in the fight over
>>> state-sponsored prayer. The town council voted last week in favor of
>>> separation of church and state by declining to publicly support the
>>> National Day of Prayer. James Dobson's right-wing Focus on the Family
>>> sponsors prayer events at municipal buildings every year on the first
>>> Thursday in May. This time, the mayor and a majority of the town council
>>> felt that church-state concerns were grounds to take a stand against this
>>> constitutionally dubious event. Councilman Ben Ritter defended his vote,
>>> saying, "I fiercely believe in the separation of church and state. I will
>>> put my life on the line to protect the separation of church and state....
>>I
>>> don't think government has the right to do something like this (prayer
>>> day), whether it's Belvidere or the United States of America."
>>>
>>> The council voted 4-2 to defeat the National Day of Prayer resolution and
>>> now waits for Dobson to try again next year.
>>>
>>> -- Sam Felder
>>
>>A L L R I G H T ! ! ! ! \
>>
>>Stand up, America, and take OUR nation back from the religious zealots!
>
>I am prouder than usual to be a "Joisey Gurl" ;)
Robyn, tsk tsk tsk, you've provided an irresistable straight line,,,,
Holstein? :::::FFFFFFFFFLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEE"""""""""""
(eyes dance)
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
stoney
Message ID: <4097A4EA...@serv.net> wrote in alt.atheism;
>Alberto Moreira wrote:
>
>> Said Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> :
[]
>The Bill of Rights exists specifically to protect the minority from the
>tyranny of the majority. You should have learned that in elementary school
>civics. When it comes to basic civil rights -- such as sponsorship of
>religion and religious activities by government -- the will of the majority
>is irrelevant.
>
>> So, again, try to run for office on an atheist platform, and see how
>> many votes you get.
>
>It just happens that I *am* running for the Washington State Legislature. I
>am openly gay and openly non-religious. I guess we will have to wait until
>November to see how I do.
[]
Best of luck. I would be nice to see someone who isn't a theist and is
fully aware of how the separation of church and state protects theists
(from each other).
>Take a look at the 14th Amendment. "No state shall make or enforce any law
>which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
>States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
>property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
>jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The courts have long
>interpreted this as meaning that people are equally protected with regards
>to state and local governments. If the federal government is required to
>provide protections -- such as with regards to the establishment of religion
>and the free excercise thereof -- then state and local governments are
>equally required to provide protections.
[]
Alberto Moreira
>A majority cannot instruct the government to impose its will upon a minority
>when such an imposition would violate the Constitution. The only way a
>majority can instruct the government to violate the First Amendment is by
>amending the constitution itself, and that is a deliberately difficult
>process to achieve.
All you need is a suitable majority, and the First Amendment will have
been. So, YES, the majority can instruct the government to impose its
will upon a minority. It's called a "constitutional amendment".
>For this reason that the BOR is said to protect the minority from the
>tyranny of the majority--because it prevents a majority of individuals from
>getting the government to impose its will upon a minority in violation of
>Constitutional protections. Without such limitations on the power of the
>majority, NO ONE has any right since, as you say, the majority opinion can
>change.
The BOR only stands if the majority allows it to stand. A suitable
majority can change or even topple the BOR, because articles of the
Constitution itself, with possibly a couple of exceptions, can be
changed or deleted by a suiltable majority.
So, YES, the majority has the right to delete Constitutional
protections - it's written in the Constitution itself.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
>Well said.
And wrong. All you need is a suitable majority, and you may end up
with something like this:
"Amendment XXX: The first article of amendment tot he Constitution of
the United States is hereby repealed."
Alberto.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|Said Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> :
>:|
>:|
>:|>The Bill of Rights exists specifically to protect the minority from the
>:|>tyranny of the majority.
>:|
>:|Wrong. The Bill of Rights exists to protect INDIVIDUALS from the
>:|government: and it protects the majority as well as the minority. A
>:|majority citizen gets precisely THE SAME PROTECTION from the Bill of
>:|Rights as a minority citizen.
>:|
>:|Furthermore, there's no such a concept as "the" majority - there is
>:|rather the concept of "a" majority, and every different issue will
>:|have its own majority, and the majorities for two issues will seldom
>:|be the same.
>:|
>:|The principle of majority is enshrined in the political machine of
>:|this country, just about everywhere.
>:|I wasn't educated in the U.S., therefore I have the ability to look at
>:|it critically and with a high degree of emotional, intellectual and
>:|ideological detachment.
>:|
One can pay attention to Alberto, who has shown time and time again he
doesn't understand American law and our legal system in general, doesn't
understand AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, nor Americans love affair or
obsession with our Constitution, our founding, our founders, our history,
etc and so on or one can consider what those who do happen to have insight
into such things have to say on the matter.
A FOUNDER, WHICH ALBERTO IS NOT, HAD THIS TO SAY:
The Question of a Bill of Rights
Letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 17, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/jm/17881017_bor.txt
Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of
oppression. In our Government, the real power lies in the majority of the
Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended,
not from acts of government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but
from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major
number of Constituents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AS WELL AS THE FOLLOWING PERTAINING TO THIS TOPIC:
Dangers and Comments
"We the People;" Factions, Including Religious Sects, & Denominations;
Local & State Governments; Majority v. Minority; Common Law and Other
Things of Importance
Selections from James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson,
Congressional Debates and other sources.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/dangers.htm
***************************************************************
A LAWYER, SCHOOLED IN AMERICAN LAW, WHICH ALBERTO IS NOT, HAD THIS TO SAY:
Removed From The Legislative Province by Neal Blanchett, Esq.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/blanchrt.htm
[EXCERPT]
Neal Blanchett is an attorney in private practice in Minneapolis. He earned
his B.A. from St. John's University in Collegeville, Minnesota, and his
J.D. cum laude from the University of Minnesota Law School. He served four
years in the United States Marine Corps and three years in the Army
National Guard.
Some commentators believe that majority rule should prevail to allow
government endorsement of religion. Government should be able to endorse
religion, they reason, because government endorsed religion at the time the
Constitution was written, and some endorsements of religion enjoy popular
support even today. This rule is impossible to implement because the
outcomes ultimately depend on who is deciding how much endorsement is too
much. The Framers leave us no guidance on this issue (unless we allow only
those practices in place at the time of the Constitution, which would
surely exclude the endorsements in the Pledge of Allegiance, on money, and
in the Star Spangled Banner, none of which existed at the time.)
A better rule is that set forth by the Supreme Court during the 1940's,
1950's and early 1960's (a time many conservative commentators describe as
our national golden age). That rule is that matters of religion (or
"matters of conscience" in the words of Justice Jackson) are outside the
province of the legislature, and therefore outside the powers of the
majority.
The doctrine that matters of religion are removed from the government's
powers places the first amendment on equal footing with the rest of the
Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a litany of limits on government
power. There is no more support in the Constitution for splitting the power
over religion, so that government has some, than there is for splitting the
power over unreasonable searches and seizures, so that the government may
conduct unreasonable searches that the Framers would have authorized, or
the unreasonable searches that are popular. The government has neither
power. Majority opinion has no impact on the Bill of Rights limits on
government power.
Once people learn to view the religion clauses properly, as limits to
government power, the answers to most of the religion cases become easier
to predict and to understand. Viewed incorrectly, the decisions are often
mischaracterized as "bans" i.e. the courts have "banned" school prayer,
"banned" graduation prayer, "banned" nativity displays, or "banned" the
Pledge of Allegiance. The courts have done no such thing, and they lack the
power to do such things, just as the other branches of government lack
these powers. Children, parents, teachers and staff may pray in schools, at
graduations, before and during games, and may recite the Pledge of
Allegiance or any other creed at any time that it does not disrupt
instruction. Religious groups must be allowed to meet on public property
under the same rules as other groups. No teacher or principal or policeman
can take the Koran from a child's hands or put a hand over their praying
lips (unless the child is disrupting education).
The entire spectrum agrees on these crucial points, from the culturally
activist "conservative" organizations American Center for Law and Justice
and the Heritage Foundation to the (truly) ultra-conservative Libertarian
Party to "liberal" (but truly conservative on this issue) ACLU, American
Atheists, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The only thing the
decisions have banned is the government's power to endorse, sponsor and
incorporate religious exercises into public functions.
For this reason, the decisions never threaten the free exercise of
religion. Any individual may take virtually any action necessary to honor
their deeply-held beliefs - the line is drawn at criminal acts, health
violations, and public nuisances, but otherwise extends to protect nearly
any act in the known universe. The Free Exercise Clause demands this
protection for religious practices; there is absolutely no danger that any
group or individual can legally prevent individuals from worshipping as
they so choose.
Explaining the difference between limits on the government's power and
limits on the individual deserves some more time, because, in the context
of the Pledge of Allegiance decision, nearly the entire U.S. Congress, the
President, the media and much of the public confused these two concepts.
Government, often through the courts, limits individual freedom through
criminal laws and civil laws and codes. Virtually nothing limits the
government except the federal and state Constitutions. The Constitutions
are the government's contract with the people. Only through the
Constitution does the government have any power at all to constrain
individual freedom. Americans agree to give up the personal freedoms, as
their elected representatives choose to limit those freedoms. In exchange
for this collective compliance, the government agrees to certain limits on
its power. No matter how many people may want the government to act outside
those limits, it simply cannot. It is constituted without the legal power
to do so. Government can no more endorse religion than it could have
designated Co-Presidents Gore and Bush.
The fact that religious practices continue to creep stealthily back into
public functions, and have not yet been challenged, does not make
government actions inserting them legal. Our courts work only by deciding
matters brought before them. Every American has faced situations in life
where they could have sued, but didn't - someone failed to keep a promise,
or a product didn't perform as a salesman stated. Every American knows
millions of criminal acts go unpunished every day - from speeding to drug
sales to rape and robbery. In the case of government religious endorsements
and other popular but illegal acts, the right people have to find out and
bring it to the courts. For criminal and civil wrongs, this is either the
police or the person harmed. But there is no governmental office to
investigate unconstitutional government acts. In the balancing act between
individual rights and government powers, protecting individual rights is
left solely to individuals and the private groups they form. So it may be
years or decades before a practice is discovered by someone who is
sufficiently harmed to challenge it. The more popular an illegal act is,
the less likely any specific instance of it will result in prosecution. So
it is that we have hundreds or thousands of unconstitutional government
laws and policies. No one credibly argues that tradition somehow transforms
these laws from illegal to legal, or that laws illegal when enacted somehow
become legal through sheer passage of time.
Against this backdrop, the right decision in the Pledge case is easy to
see. What is difficult for many people is to reach the correct
understanding of the Constitutional principles. To most, the Constitution
and the Pledge are part of the same background. It is difficult for them to
grasp that one could possibly contradict the other. Yet those who study and
understand the Constitution believe the decision is legally sound. Below I
have set out some common attacks on the Pledge decision, and defenses of
the government's right to sponsor at least some religious exercise, with a
response to each from the correct Constitutional perspective.
2. Doesn't the majority rule?
The majority never rules on the Bill of Rights. This is a
fundamental, bedrock principle of America. The Bill of Rights protects all
Americans from the government's actions adverse to that individual, whether
those government actions are popular or not. The Framers recognized there
is a thin line between majority rule and tyranny by the majority; the
Constitution sets this line. Constitutional rights are by definition not
subject to majority rule, and those who argue otherwise are both
un-American and wrong. They need to learn to love this American principle
or leave for another country where everything is up to the majority.
[END EXCERPT]
***********************************************************
A CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR, PROFESSOR AND APPARENTLY
HE HAS BEEN OR IS A JUDGE AS WELL, NONE OF WHICH ALBERTO HAS
EVER BEEN, HAD THIS TO SAY:
[The Bill of Rights is] designed to protect individuals and minorities
against the tyranny of the majority, but it's also designed to protect the
people against bureaucracy, against the government.
JUDGE LAWRENCE TRIBE
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/202b.htm
**************************************************************
A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, WHILE SITTING ON THAT COURT,
SOMETHING ALBERTO IS NOT AND NEVER WAS OR EVER DID,
HAD THIS TO SAY:
Justice Robert H. Jackson, in the case of WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION v. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=319&invol=624
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from
the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach
of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be
applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free
speech, to free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other
fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome
of no elections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A FINAL WORD:
ONE AMENDMENT, TWO CLAUSES, NO PRECEDENT
http://intranet.lls.edu/reviews/sample2.pdf
[EXCERPT]
Advocates of school prayer invariably appeal to majority
religiosity and invoke fears of a disintegrating moral fabric to garner
support.9 While recent polls demonstrate overwhelming support for either
prayer in public schools or a Constitutional amendment allowing such 10 ,
this ignores a fundamental protection against tyranny that is afforded all
citizens by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.11 In all of the recent
cases discussed below, the preponderance of the student body desired
student prayer at non-compulsory school activities. Majority rule has never
been and cannot now be allowed to undermine the rights of a minority.
Student-initiated prayer, whether elected by a majority of the student body
or offered individually in a non-public forum, violates both the
Establishment Clause and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
9. See Norman L. Geisler, 10 Reasons for Voluntary School Prayer,
(visited Apr. 24, 2000) <web site name>
<http://www.softdisk.com/comp/shume/politics/pray1.html> (article
originally appeared in The Shreveport Humanist Bulletin, August 1995).
10. See Viewpoints: Religious Freedom Amendment (visited Apr. 25,
2000) <http://religiousfreeom.house.gov/natpolls.htm>.
11 See, e.g., ACLU Bulletin, supra note 2, at 6.
http://intranet.lls.edu/reviews/sample2.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|THE PROTECTIONS OF THE FIRST OR THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS DO NOT
>:|EXTEND TO ACTIONS BY THE PEOPLE.
Actually he has said this before and I posted information that shows that
even actions by people against people are sometimes covered by the BORs
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|Said "Family Man" <nos...@nospam.com> :
>:|
>:|
>:|>Your're right! It does! It also gaurantees freedom FROM religion.
>:|
>:|I don't see that written anywhere in the Amendment. Care to expound ?
A Discussion of Freedom of Religion And Freedom From Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/freefrom.htm
Ultimately what will happen here, as always happens with Alberto is there
will be a non ending trolling on his part, as one can see examples of in
the threads on AIDS, marriage, recently and has taken place with him on
topics of the Constitution, church state separation, our legal system, the
founding of this nation, etc over the years
These discussions with him have gone on, that I am aware of since 98 or 99.
No matter what sort of evidence is offered, Alberto will not alter his
position. You will find him at some future point in time him posting or
replying with the exact same statement that was shot down this time.
There was a time back then, that I actually thought it was merely a case he
didn't understand. It took me awhile to understand, he didn't understand
AND HE DIDN'T WANT TO UNDERSTAND.
In other words, he was chock full of himself and his opinions and no one
was going to tell him any different.
If you provide a valid respected accepted source, Alberto would reject or
ignore same. In short, no source knew more than Alberto did on any topic he
decided to post or reply on.
I don't mess with him much anymore. He has become too much like Dana, JD,
Idontreply, (KC), Strickland, etc, but have fun with him.
Thomas P.
You are correct. A society can commit suicide. In the meantime even
minorities have rights, and we can hope that everyone (or, going along
with your point, a sufficient number) remembers that they are all part
of some minority and benefit from the protections afforded minorities.
Alan Lichtenstein
Alberto Moreira wrote:
True, Alberto. However, the means to produce an amendment are so
difficult, that what is needed amounts to a 'super' majority. That
process was envisioned to prevent the majority from easily trampling on
the rights of the minority.
Alan
Alan Lichtenstein
bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
> junk...@moreira.mv.com (Alberto Moreira) wrote:
>
> >:|Said Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> :
> >:|
> >:|
> >:|>The Bill of Rights exists specifically to protect the minority from the
> >:|>tyranny of the majority.
> >:|
> >:|Wrong. The Bill of Rights exists to protect INDIVIDUALS from the
> >:|government: and it protects the majority as well as the minority. A
> >:|majority citizen gets precisely THE SAME PROTECTION from the Bill of
> >:|Rights as a minority citizen.
> >:|
> >:|Furthermore, there's no such a concept as "the" majority - there is
> >:|rather the concept of "a" majority, and every different issue will
> >:|have its own majority, and the majorities for two issues will seldom
> >:|be the same.
> >:|
> >:|The principle of majority is enshrined in the political machine of
> >:|this country, just about everywhere.
>
> >:|I wasn't educated in the U.S., therefore I have the ability to look at
> >:|it critically and with a high degree of emotional, intellectual and
> >:|ideological detachment.
> >:|
>
> One can pay attention to Alberto, who has shown time and time again he
> doesn't understand American law and our legal system in general, doesn't
> understand AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, nor Americans love affair or
> obsession with our Constitution, our founding, our founders, our history,
> etc and so on or one can consider what those who do happen to have insight
> into such things have to say on the matter.
>
> Alberto's problem is not that he doesn't understand American Constitutional Law, although that may
> indeed be true. Alberto's problem is that he refuses to modify anything he said, once he says it,
> even when he is shown to be wrong. Always some arguement to twist reason and defend himself. For
> example, as far as Alberto is concerned, he refutes the fact that a majority cannot trample on the
> rights of a minority, and goes to great lengths to demonstrate that such is the case. Using the
> processof amending the constitution, or the implied processof holding a constitutional convention(
> which I believe Alberto is similarly ignorant of )he attempts to conclude that a majority is all
> that is needed. I suppose that in a strict sense of the word, he is correct. And in Alberto's
> mind, that makes him correct. But Alberto dismisses the fact that the amendment process requires
> what amounts to a very super majority, and not the simple majority that he had in mind when he made
> his original post. He could have avoided this whole thing by just admitting that.
And all this to prove to himself that the majority can trample on the rights of the minority. He
always gets himself in deeper by his failure to defend the indefensible and to admit to some
modification of what he has said. Alberto is of the belief, "I said it, and that's that. Now I've got
to stick with it." Hardly productive.
Alan
Roger
Not a "suitable" majority, but a super majority. And this has happened how
many times? 1.
Alberto Moreira
>People are free to pray. Government is prohibited from promoting prayer. It's
>quite simple, really.
The Constitution says "free EXERCISE". That's a lot more than just
prayer.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
>
>Well, Alberto, by your reasoning, if government through the constitutional
>process of majority rule then violates the rights of an individual through a
>perfectly constitutional and permitted process, then you would say that the
>system is not set up to ejudicate that?
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. There are two legit
ways to address an issue that raises doubts at Constitution level:
either pass it to the courts, or change the Constitution. But if the
Constitution doesn't say it's an individual right, who says it is, but
the courts ?
>Alberto, don't back yourself into a corner on this one. Don't you see that
>regardless of HOW you answer, you cone out on the short end of the stick? Our
>system is indeed set up to protect the individual or minority individuals from
>the tyranny of the majority.
It's just as important to protect the majority from the cabals of the
few. The law must protect EVERY individual, not must the minority.
But I believe you have things in the wrong order here. It's not that
the people must be subject to the law and hence to those who wield it,
it's that the law must be subjected to the will of the people, and
that must include those who wield it.
So, rights are only rights to the extent we the people say they are -
there's no such a thing as an absolute right to anything. If it is a
right, it'd better be written in some legal document, or established
as such by the courts based on some legal document - which will have
become legally binding because Congress - the representatives of the
people - so stated, and that is supposed to be the political mechanism
through which the will of the people manifests itself.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
>That does not make much difference. Some people are not willing to
>accept what the Constitution says; that also makes little difference.
>The Constitution is the basic law of the US, and the interpretations
>of that Constitution made by the Supreme Court have the force of law.
Yet the Constitution says that making new law is an exclusive power of
the Congress.
>That is how the system works. It is far from perfect, but a piece of
>paper is quite worthless by itself. If one feels his Constitutional
>rights have been violated, how is he/she to seek redress; unless there
>is such a body as the Court to appeal to? If you choose to not
>respect the decisions of the Court, who will protect you from
>governments who choose to ignore the Court's decisions that have
>benefitted you? The Constitution by itself certainly will not protect
>anyone.
That's fine provided the text of the Constitution itself is not either
contradicted or extended through a court decision: it should take a
representative of the people to extend the text of the Constitution.
>No, actually it is not written there. It is your interpretation of
>what is written there.
The words are clear: Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. Written in the very text.
> It does not specifically say that other
>bodies, such as state governments, cannot establish religions or
>outlaw other religions.
This country doesn't have a national government, remember ? It has a
FEDERAL one. Meaning, the Constitution addresses things that have to
do with the organization and powers of the FEDERAL government. It
should not address things at state level, and the tenth amendment says
it so, loud and clear - and it hasn't been removed as yet.
>It is the interpretations made by the Supreme
>Court that have drawn those conclusions from the amendment. That is
>why no government authority in the US can legally support any religion
>or any religious practice; and why people are free to exercise their
>religions or to not exercise any religion at all - because the Supreme
>Court has decided the Constitution guarantees those rights.
But that emanates from Court interpretations, which by their very
nature are different from what's written in the text of the
Constitution - which was what has been ratified by the states. The
boundary line is razor thin but razor sharp: the moment something is
stated by a court, however high, it's no longer the Constitution: it's
the courts. And as I said before, I believe that the text of the
Constitution is the only ultimate defense we the people have against
our government.
If we cannot keep our government from issuing opinions and orders that
bypass or extend the text of the Constitution, through interpretation
or loophole, what's the point of a political process ? Might as well
give up and say, well, you guys do whatever you want, we'll just
watch, like sheep going to the slaughterhouse.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
>You are correct. A society can commit suicide. In the meantime even
>minorities have rights,
CITIZENS have rights. Majority or minority, makes no difference.
>and we can hope that everyone (or, going along
>with your point, a sufficient number) remembers that they are all part
>of some minority and benefit from the protections afforded minorities.
They may be part of some majority too, and they'll benefit from the
protections afforded to ALL citizens, including majority ones.
We enjoy our Constitutional protections because we are INDIVIDUALS,
not because we are majorities or minorities. And a majority citizen
has no less rights than a minority one.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
>True, Alberto. However, the means to produce an amendment are so
>difficult, that what is needed amounts to a 'super' majority. That
>process was envisioned to prevent the majority from easily trampling on
>the rights of the minority.
A super majority is a majority too, so, the statement that majorities
cannot do away with Constitutional rights is plainly not true. The
process has been made harder not so much to protect "minorities" -
because if nothing else it protects majorities just the same - but to
force some stability into the Constitution and prevent wanton changing
whenever the political winds shift.
It is just as important to prevent the minority from trampling on the
rights of the majority - and it isn't a legitimate government if it
does not have the agreement of the majority.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
Irrelevant. It's possible. It happened with the prohibition amendment.
So, the Constitution is setup so that, indeed, a suitable majority can
deny any Constitution rights to the American people.
Alberto.
Alberto Moreira
>One can pay attention to Alberto, who has shown time and time again he
>doesn't understand American law and our legal system in general, doesn't
>understand AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, nor Americans love affair or
>obsession with our Constitution, our founding, our founders, our history,
>etc and so on or one can consider what those who do happen to have insight
>into such things have to say on the matter.
Let me put it this way. I'm as American as you. But now that I'm here,
the political landscape will have shifted, if ever so slightly, in a
way that it hadn't shifted before. Furthermore, on a political terms,
Alberto's rights aren't subject to interpretations of pundits and
experts, but to Alberto's vote and political opinions and action.
Now, integrate it over this nation of immigrants, and you'll have the
real picture. Whatever America was there and then, this is here and
now.
[snip...]
Alberto.
Alan Lichtenstein
Alberto Moreira wrote:
Your problem, Alberto, is that you're STUBBORN. You refuse to back away from
something once you've said it, even when it becomes obvious that your remarks
did not consider every possible ramification and variable. Witmess the
discussion regarding trampling on rights of the minority. You have been quoted
evidence where it was clear that the Framers did intend that such not occur in
their document, while preserving the concept of majority( democracy )rule.
Perhaps if you were better read on some of the related documents written by the
Framers, some of which were cited to you, you would not get yourself into the
fixes you do.
Alan
Alan Lichtenstein
Alberto Moreira wrote:
And Your free exercise ends at the point when it intrudes on someone else's
rights.
Alan
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|Said bucke...@nospam.net :
>:|>One can pay attention to Alberto, who has shown time and time again he
>:|>doesn't understand American law and our legal system in general, doesn't
>:|>understand AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, nor Americans love affair or
>:|>obsession with our Constitution, our founding, our founders, our history,
>:|>etc and so on or one can consider what those who do happen to have insight
>:|>into such things have to say on the matter.
>:|
>:|Let me put it this way. I'm as American as you. But now that I'm here,
>:|the political landscape will have shifted, if ever so slightly, in a
>:|way that it hadn't shifted before. Furthermore, on a political terms,
>:|Alberto's rights aren't subject to interpretations of pundits and
>:|experts, but to Alberto's vote and political opinions and action.
I have no interest in your smoke screen or your soapbox.
The question is really very simple. Who is most likely to know what they
are talking about with regards to the following?
>:|Said Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> :
>:|>The Bill of Rights exists specifically to protect the minority from the
>:|>tyranny of the majority.
>:|[Alberto said]
>:|Wrong. The Bill of Rights exists to protect INDIVIDUALS from the
>:|government: and it protects the majority as well as the minority. A
>:|majority citizen gets precisely THE SAME PROTECTION from the Bill of
>:|Rights as a minority citizen.
You or the people named below?
I will make it real simple, it isn't you.
==================================================
One can pay attention to Alberto, who has shown time and time again he
doesn't understand American law and our legal system in general, doesn't
understand AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, nor Americans love affair or
obsession with our Constitution, our founding, our founders, our history,
etc and so on or one can consider what those who do happen to have insight
into such things have to say on the matter.
The following made him out to be incorrect:
A FOUNDER, WHICH ALBERTO IS NOT, HAD THIS TO SAY:
The Question of a Bill of Rights
Letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 17, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/jm/17881017_bor.txt
Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of
oppression. In our Government, the real power lies in the majority of the
Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended,
not from acts of government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but
from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major
number of Constituents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AS WELL AS THE FOLLOWING PERTAINING TO THIS TOPIC:
Dangers and Comments
"We the People;" Factions, Including Religious Sects, & Denominations;
Local & State Governments; Majority v. Minority; Common Law and Other
Things of Importance
Selections from James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson,
Congressional Debates and other sources.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/dangers.htm
***************************************************************
A PRACTICING ATTORNEY, WHICH ALBERTO IS NOT, HAD THIS TO SAY:
Removed From The Legislative Province by Neal Blanchett, Esq.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/blanchrt.htm
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|Said Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> :
Free Exercise is absolute only with regards to beliefs, not actions that
might be based on those beliefs.
You have been told that, and provided the evidence that is so a "zillion"
times already, as well.
>:|
>:|Alberto.
>:|
>:|
Thomas P.
Yes it is. So what?
Thomas P.
Moreira) wrote:
>Said Thomas P. <tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk> :
>
>
>>That does not make much difference. Some people are not willing to
>>accept what the Constitution says; that also makes little difference.
>>The Constitution is the basic law of the US, and the interpretations
>>of that Constitution made by the Supreme Court have the force of law.
>
>Yet the Constitution says that making new law is an exclusive power of
>the Congress.
And the Court has the right to rule on a law's Constitutionality in
cases brought before it. That is how it works despite your feelings
about it.
>
>>That is how the system works. It is far from perfect, but a piece of
>>paper is quite worthless by itself. If one feels his Constitutional
>>rights have been violated, how is he/she to seek redress; unless there
>>is such a body as the Court to appeal to? If you choose to not
>>respect the decisions of the Court, who will protect you from
>>governments who choose to ignore the Court's decisions that have
>>benefitted you? The Constitution by itself certainly will not protect
>>anyone.
>
>That's fine provided the text of the Constitution itself is not either
>contradicted or extended through a court decision: it should take a
>representative of the people to extend the text of the Constitution.
I am sorry to have to tell you that you are not any part of the
system. The Supreme Court operates within its rights and obligations
when it determines the Constitutionality of a law.
>
>>No, actually it is not written there. It is your interpretation of
>>what is written there.
>
>The words are clear: Congress shall make no law respecting an
>establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
>
>FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. Written in the very text.
>
>> It does not specifically say that other
>>bodies, such as state governments, cannot establish religions or
>>outlaw other religions.
>
>This country doesn't have a national government, remember ? It has a
>FEDERAL one.
The Federal government is the national goverenment. It was not the
states that ordained and established the Constitution; it was the
"People of the United States. The Federal Government is their
national government.
>Meaning, the Constitution addresses things that have to
>do with the organization and powers of the FEDERAL government. It
>should not address things at state level, and the tenth amendment says
>it so, loud and clear - and it hasn't been removed as yet.
Sorry, your opinion has no validity. No government power in the US
has the right to establish religions or to outlaw others. Numerous
Court decisions have determined that that is forbidden by the
Constitution, so that is how it is.
>
>>It is the interpretations made by the Supreme
>>Court that have drawn those conclusions from the amendment. That is
>>why no government authority in the US can legally support any religion
>>or any religious practice; and why people are free to exercise their
>>religions or to not exercise any religion at all - because the Supreme
>>Court has decided the Constitution guarantees those rights.
>
>But that emanates from Court interpretations, which by their very
>nature are different from what's written in the text of the
>Constitution - which was what has been ratified by the states.
Sorry, the Court has the right to determine the Constitutionality of
laws in cases brought before it. That is the way the system is. Your
opinion to the contrary is meaningless.
The
>boundary line is razor thin but razor sharp: the moment something is
>stated by a court, however high, it's no longer the Constitution: it's
>the courts.
Once again, you do not have the power to define how the system works
in the US, and your opinion is totally wrong.
>And as I said before, I believe that the text of the
>Constitution is the only ultimate defense we the people have against
>our government.
>
Unfortunately for you, not for the US, you are wrong.
>If we cannot keep our government from issuing opinions and orders that
>bypass or extend the text of the Constitution, through interpretation
>or loophole, what's the point of a political process ? Might as well
>give up and say, well, you guys do whatever you want, we'll just
>watch, like sheep going to the slaughterhouse.
You certainly have a right to any opinion you like. You are not,
however, describing the system in the US. Whether you approve or not,
the Constitution's meaning has been interpreted and even expanded by
the Court, and the Court has authority to do so.
Thomas P.
Moreira) wrote:
>Said Thomas P. <tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk> :
>
>
>>You are correct. A society can commit suicide. In the meantime even
>>minorities have rights,
>
>CITIZENS have rights. Majority or minority, makes no difference.
Exactly! I am glad that you finally see that.
>
>>and we can hope that everyone (or, going along
>>with your point, a sufficient number) remembers that they are all part
>>of some minority and benefit from the protections afforded minorities.
>
>They may be part of some majority too, and they'll benefit from the
>protections afforded to ALL citizens, including majority ones.
>
>We enjoy our Constitutional protections because we are INDIVIDUALS,
>not because we are majorities or minorities. And a majority citizen
>has no less rights than a minority one.
I am glad that you admit it.
Don Kresch
junk...@moreira.mv.com (Alberto Moreira) let us all know that:
And the 14th Amendment says that the states can't violate your
rights, either.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|
>:|Yet the Constitution says that making new law is an exclusive power of
>:|the Congress.
Courts by their very nature make law under our system..
When a court sets out a rule of law, that is making law. When a court hands
down its ruling in a matter that is making law.
All of this has been shown to you, not by Usenet lay people espousing their
personal opinions but by actual valid knowledgable documentation.
You do not understand, nor want to understand the nuances of the American
legal system. You prefer to make your inaccurate claims then defend them
till hell freezes over against any and all, even though that are trained
in and earn their living in that very system.
>:|That's fine provided the text of the Constitution itself is not either
>:|contradicted or extended through a court decision: it should take a
>:|representative of the people to extend the text of the Constitution.
That is part of the system. Those 4440 words that make up the Constitution
were never intended to be all their was. The men who framed it understood
the role courts played in the legal system they had learned and many
practiced in.
They deliberately left it to the COURTS, legislature and even executive
branches to do their jobs with regards to applying those 4440 words to any
and all situations that would come along an in during so they would add to
the laws of this nation, with the ultimate root being the Constitution.
"The basic pattern of legal reasoning id reasoning by example. 2 It is
reasoning from case to case. It is a three-step process described by the
doctrine of precedent in which a proposition descriptive of the first case
is made into a rule of law and then applied to a next similar situation.
The steps are these: similarity is seen between cases; next the rule of law
inherent in the first case is announced; then the rule of law is made
applicable to the second case. This is a method of reasoning necessary for
the law, but it has characteristics which under other circumstances might
be considered imperfections.
2 "Clearly then to argue by example is neither like reasoning from part to
whole, nor like reasoning from whole to part, but rather reasoning from
part to part, when both particulars are subordinate to the same term and
one of them is known. It differs from induction, because induction
starting from all the particular cases proves . . . that the major term
belongs to the middle and does not apply the syllogistic conclusion to the
minor term, whereas argument by example does make this application and does
not draw its proof from all the particular cases." Aristotle, Analytica
Priora 69a (McKeon ed., 1941).
SOURCE: An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, Edward H. Levi, The University
of Chicago Press, (1949) p. 1-2
You have also been told a number of times that actual word or text is only
one of a number os standard and acceptable methods of Constitution and
Statute interpretation/application.
But like all the rest it passes through without even slowing down. No one
tells Alberto anything.
>:|The words are clear: Congress shall make no law respecting an
>:|establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
You have been shown that all three branches are meant, that Madison who
actually proposed the amendment/article picked the legislative branch to
single out since it was the most powerful but meant all three.
Legislatures and courts are co-operative law-making bodies.
SOURCE: An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, Edward H. Levi, The University
of Chicago Press, (1949) p 32
>:|FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. Written in the very text.
Which is absolute only with regards to beliefs and not actions based on
those beliefs. Which is nothing more than saying your rights end at the end
of your arm reach or the tip of the nose of another person.
>:|
>:|This country doesn't have a national government, remember ? It has a
>:|FEDERAL one. Meaning, the Constitution addresses things that have to
>:|do with the organization and powers of the FEDERAL government. It
>:|should not address things at state level, and the tenth amendment says
>:|it so, loud and clear - and it hasn't been removed as yet.
LOL
Mr read the actual words/text Alberto forgets this:
When the words work for you, you yell text but when they bite you on the
ass you forget such text.
Article. VI.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption
of this Constitution shall be as valid against the United States under this
Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the
Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in
the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,
both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath
or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test
The Tenth Amendment didn't do away with the above. It has been pointed out
to you more than one time that the Tenth Amendment was deliberately watered
down with the removal of the word EXPRESSLY.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some scholars believe that those who wrote the Tenth Amendment
purposely made it vague, or fuzzy. Why would they want to do that?
Article 11 of the Articles of Confederation (ratified in 1781) will help
to explain this. Article 11, like the Tenth Amendment that came after it,
deals with the power of state governments and the federal government. But
Article 11 includes a key word that is not found in the Tenth Amendment.
Pay special attention -to the underlined [capitalized] word as you read the
Article:
Each State retains its sovereignty [power not controlled by any other
power], freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right,
which is not by this confederation EXPRESSLY delegated to the United
States, in Congress assembled. [underlining-capitalized- added]
The word expressly means " directly " or " specifically. " A sign in a
restaurant that sets aside one area expressly for nonsmokers means "Keep
out of this area if you wish to smoke!" A Congress that has only those
powers expressly delegated to itself is also limited. It may do only those
things that the Constitution actually names as its fight. It may not do
anything more. The U.S. government under the Articles of Confederation was
called a body without a head. It was the word expressly that had chopped
the head off that national body.
Those who were present at the 1787 Constitutional Convention knew
how Article II of the Articles of Confederation had weakened the federal
government earlier. Delegates who attended the state conventions to ratify
the Constitution probably knew it, too. The word expressly didn't bother
the Anti-Federalists. In fact, they pressed hard to have the word
expressly included in any amendment about the "reserved powers" of the
states.
After the Constitutional Convention had approved the Constitution,
the states held their own conventions to make decisions about ratifying it.
The Federalists had tried hard to persuade state delegates to vote for the
Constitution. They convinced the delegates that amendments should be
decided on separately from the Constitution itself. The states therefore
came up with various ideas for amendments. Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New York, South Carolina, and Virginia all wrote amendments that reserved
to the states those powers not delegated to the central government. Except
for Virginia, all of these states wanted the new amendment to keep for the
states all powers ,"expressly " or "clearly," delegated to the federal
government.
On June 8, 1789, James Madison introduced the various state
amendments to Congress. His wording for the "reserved powers" amendment
stated: "The powers not delegated to this constitution, nor prohibited by
it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively." When the Senate
approved the amendment on September 7, 1789, it included the words "or to
the people." Both the Senate and the House of Representatives accepted the
amendment as the twelfth and last one. Then, after two other amendments
were rejected, the "reserved powers" amendment moved up two places and
became the tenth amendment in the list. After Congress voted to propose
the ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights, it was up to the states to
ratify these amendments. In 1791 the Tenth Amendment and the other nine
amendments were finally ratified.
Remember, the Tenth Amendment did not include the word expressly.
What effect would this have on the way in which the amendment was received?
As you may have guessed, it left the door wide open for different
interpretations of federal powers.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The American Heritage History of the Bill of Rights,
The Tenth Amendment, Judith Adams, Silver Burdett Press. (1991) pp 31-36
*******************************************************************
>:|
>:|But that emanates from Court interpretations, which by their very
>:|nature are different from what's written in the text of the
>:|Constitution - which was what has been ratified by the states. The
>:|boundary line is razor thin but razor sharp: the moment something is
>:|stated by a court, however high, it's no longer the Constitution: it's
>:|the courts. And as I said before, I believe that the text of the
>:|Constitution is the only ultimate defense we the people have against
>:|our government.
That is the way the American system works. Has worked that way from
colonial times and will continue to work that way.
Gregory Gadow
The Constitution says, "shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of
religion." Funny how neo-con ignore that part and scream "FREE EXERCISE!" when
they want to establish their religion as the State Church.
--
Gregory Gadow
tech...@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Gregory Gadow
> Said Thomas P. <tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk> :
>
>
> >That does not make much difference. Some people are not willing to
> >accept what the Constitution says; that also makes little difference.
> >The Constitution is the basic law of the US, and the interpretations
> >of that Constitution made by the Supreme Court have the force of law.
>
> Yet the Constitution says that making new law is an exclusive power of
> the Congress.
The Constitution also says that it is the Supreme Law of the Land. Laws and
treaties "shall be made in pursuance thereof" in order to be valid,
according to Article VI, paragraph 2. When Congress passes laws which
violate the US Constitution -- or, in light of the 14th Amendment, any
state or local government passes laws that abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States, deprive any person of life,
liberty or property without due process of law or deny any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws -- such laws are, by
definition, invalid.
Also, you are totally in error when you say that "making new law is an
exclusive power of the Congress." Congress only makes FEDERAL law.
According to the 10th Amendment, all other legislative powers reside with
the States and the People, that is to say, with state and local
governments.
Come on, this is basic civics. I can't imagine that any American could be
so ignorant.
Ken Smith
> junk...@moreira.mv.com (Alberto Moreira) wrote:
>
>>:|Yet the Constitution says that making new law is an exclusive power of
>>:|the Congress.
>
> Courts by their very nature make law under our system..
....but *only* within prescribed limits. Once they exceed those bounds,
they have become legislators, violating their charter under Article III.
See, Anastasoff v. U.S. (8th Cir 2000; don't have a precise cite
handy).
> When a court sets out a rule of law, that is making law. When a court hands
> down its ruling in a matter that is making law.
No, no, and NO!!!!!
Whenever a court hands down a ruling, it is DECLARING the law. Read
Federalist #78, Marbury v. Madison, and Blackstone. And, at least in
theory, if the legislature doesn't like that declaration, it can pass a
law telling us what the law is now.
And to disregard the plain meaning of a statute and say that it means
what it most emphatically does not and cannot is a "flagrant perversion
of the judicial power." Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312, 331 (1932).
> All of this has been shown to you, not by Usenet lay people espousing their
> personal opinions but by actual valid knowledgable documentation.
> You do not understand, nor want to understand the nuances of the American
> legal system. You prefer to make your inaccurate claims then defend them
> till hell freezes over against any and all, even though that are trained
> in and earn their living in that very system.
Alberto may not have the requisite technical education to articulate
what has happened and how our entire Constitution has been trashed, but
he has the substance. The judiciary has inexorably expanded its role,
relegating the other branches to dickering over who will elect our new
unelected and unaccountable super-legislators.
>>:|That's fine provided the text of the Constitution itself is not either
>>:|contradicted or extended through a court decision: it should take a
>>:|representative of the people to extend the text of the Constitution.
>
> That is part of the system. Those 4440 words that make up the Constitution
> were never intended to be all their was. The men who framed it understood
> the role courts played in the legal system they had learned and many
> practiced in.
And Thomas Jefferson correctly spotted the Achilles heel of the
system two centuries ago.
> They deliberately left it to the COURTS, legislature and even executive
> branches to do their jobs with regards to applying those 4440 words to any
> and all situations that would come along an in during so they would add to
> the laws of this nation, with the ultimate root being the Constitution.
>
> "The basic pattern of legal reasoning id reasoning by example. 2 It is
> reasoning from case to case. It is a three-step process described by the
> doctrine of precedent in which a proposition descriptive of the first case
> is made into a rule of law and then applied to a next similar situation.
> The steps are these: similarity is seen between cases; next the rule of law
> inherent in the first case is announced; then the rule of law is made
> applicable to the second case. This is a method of reasoning necessary for
> the law, but it has characteristics which under other circumstances might
> be considered imperfections.
Defend Pierson v. Ray. Go ahead. Try to tell us how "any person"
can possibly be read as "any person except us judges."
> 2 "Clearly then to argue by example is neither like reasoning from part to
> whole, nor like reasoning from whole to part, but rather reasoning from
> part to part, when both particulars are subordinate to the same term and
> one of them is known. It differs from induction, because induction
> starting from all the particular cases proves . . . that the major term
> belongs to the middle and does not apply the syllogistic conclusion to the
> minor term, whereas argument by example does make this application and does
> not draw its proof from all the particular cases." Aristotle, Analytica
> Priora 69a (McKeon ed., 1941).
> SOURCE: An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, Edward H. Levi, The University
> of Chicago Press, (1949) p. 1-2
Looks good on paper. Problem is, that's not how it works in the REAL
world. Judges usually "reason" to the answer they want, inventing facts
along the way as necessary. Stare decisis be damned! See, e.g., Bush
v. Gore; People ex rel. Salazar v. Davidson, 79 P.3d 1221 (Colo. 2003).
> You have also been told a number of times that actual word or text is only
> one of a number os standard and acceptable methods of Constitution and
> Statute interpretation/application.
> But like all the rest it passes through without even slowing down. No one
> tells Alberto anything.
The "plain meaning" is where you necessarily have to start. Statutes
are supposed to mean what they say and say what they mean; whenever you
deviate from that, you have to have to have a fairly compelling reason.
Unfortunately, judges don't bother with that crap any more.
>
>>:|The words are clear: Congress shall make no law respecting an
>>:|establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
>
> You have been shown that all three branches are meant, that Madison who
> actually proposed the amendment/article picked the legislative branch to
> single out since it was the most powerful but meant all three.
This is technically true, in the sense that courts develop the common
law at the state level -- but I can't think of a common-law ruling that
would infringe upon First Amendment free exercise rights off the top of
my head, and there is so little of the common law left (outside of tort
law) that it is hardly worth delving into.
> Legislatures and courts are co-operative law-making bodies.
That's not what they were hired for; if we authorize them to write
our laws, they have to be accountable to us, and if the only way we can
fire them is with bullets, they have become despots. This simply cannot be.
> SOURCE: An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, Edward H. Levi, The University
> of Chicago Press, (1949) p 32
>
>>:|FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. Written in the very text.
>
> Which is absolute only with regards to beliefs and not actions based on
> those beliefs. Which is nothing more than saying your rights end at the end
> of your arm reach or the tip of the nose of another person.
"Free exercise" necessarily contemplates actions -- because it cannot
contemplate thoughts by definition. :) Justice Frankfurter's aphorism
stands, though.
[snipped; I agree with Buck's reading of the Tenth]
>>:|But that emanates from Court interpretations, which by their very
>>:|nature are different from what's written in the text of the
>>:|Constitution - which was what has been ratified by the states. The
>>:|boundary line is razor thin but razor sharp: the moment something is
>>:|stated by a court, however high, it's no longer the Constitution: it's
>>:|the courts. And as I said before, I believe that the text of the
>>:|Constitution is the only ultimate defense we the people have against
>>:|our government.
>
> That is the way the American system works. Has worked that way from
> colonial times and will continue to work that way.
As Jefferson wrote -- and has been proven out -- the courts are quite
dangerous to our liberties. When a court steps over the line, becoming
a legislator, our Republic is placed in grave peril.
Ken Smith
> Alberto Moreira wrote:
>>Said Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> :
>>
>>>People are free to pray. Government is prohibited from promoting prayer. It's
>>>quite simple, really.
>>
>>The Constitution says "free EXERCISE". That's a lot more than just
>>prayer.
He's right -- but you are, too.
>
> The Constitution says, "shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of
> religion." Funny how neo-con ignore that part and scream "FREE EXERCISE!" when
> they want to establish their religion as the State Church.
It is -- "any religion, as long as it is Christian."
The states were originally at liberty to establish state churches,
but the Civil War amendments did away with that nonsense -- by extending
the protections of the BoR to citizens as against their state governments.
Except, OC, that thorny issue of the right to a grand jury indictment.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:| As Jefferson wrote -- and has been proven out -- the courts are quite
>:|dangerous to our liberties. When a court steps over the line, becoming
>:|a legislator, our Republic is placed in grave peril.
While Jefferson was a very smart man, was right about a number of things,
he wasn't infallible and the nation he envisioned wouldn't have been nearly
as great as the one that eventually evolved.
In addition, Jefferson had a dark side and Jefferson felt it was perfectly
fine to violate rights of others when it served his purpose.
He could not control the courts and he and Marshall did not like each
other, nor did he like Story. That is part of the context that one has tp
place his writings on courts etc in when reading those writings.
As far as the rest of the information I posted, you can disagree if you
like. It doesn't change that that is how the system in this country works.
==================================================
Courts by their very nature make law under our system..
When a court sets out a rule of law, that is making law. When a court hands
down its ruling in a matter that is making law.
All of this has been shown to you, not by Usenet lay people espousing their
personal opinions but by actual valid knowledgable documentation.
You do not understand, nor want to understand the nuances of the American
legal system. You prefer to make your inaccurate claims then defend them
till hell freezes over against any and all, even though that are trained
in and earn their living in that very system.
[alberto]
>:|That's fine provided the text of the Constitution itself is not either
>:|contradicted or extended through a court decision: it should take a
>:|representative of the people to extend the text of the Constitution.
That is part of the system. Those 4440 words that make up the Constitution
were never intended to be all their was. The men who framed it understood
the role courts played in the legal system they had learned and many
practiced in.
They deliberately left it to the COURTS, legislature and even executive
branches to do their jobs with regards to applying those 4440 words to any
and all situations that would come along an in during so they would add to
the laws of this nation, with the ultimate root being the Constitution.
"The basic pattern of legal reasoning id reasoning by example. 2 It is
reasoning from case to case. It is a three-step process described by the
doctrine of precedent in which a proposition descriptive of the first case
is made into a rule of law and then applied to a next similar situation.
The steps are these: similarity is seen between cases; next the rule of law
inherent in the first case is announced; then the rule of law is made
applicable to the second case. This is a method of reasoning necessary for
the law, but it has characteristics which under other circumstances might
be considered imperfections.
2 "Clearly then to argue by example is neither like reasoning from part to
whole, nor like reasoning from whole to part, but rather reasoning from
part to part, when both particulars are subordinate to the same term and
one of them is known. It differs from induction, because induction
starting from all the particular cases proves . . . that the major term
belongs to the middle and does not apply the syllogistic conclusion to the
minor term, whereas argument by example does make this application and does
not draw its proof from all the particular cases." Aristotle, Analytica
Priora 69a (McKeon ed., 1941).
SOURCE: An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, Edward H. Levi, The University
of Chicago Press, (1949) p. 1-2
You have also been told a number of times that actual word or text is only
one of a number os standard and acceptable methods of Constitution and
Statute interpretation/application.
But like all the rest it passes through without even slowing down. No one
tells Alberto anything.
[alberto]
>:|The words are clear: Congress shall make no law respecting an
>:|establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
You have been shown that all three branches are meant, that Madison who
actually proposed the amendment/article picked the legislative branch to
single out since it was the most powerful but meant all three.
Legislatures and courts are co-operative law-making bodies.
SOURCE: An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, Edward H. Levi, The University
of Chicago Press, (1949) p 32
[alberto]
>:|FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. Written in the very text.
Which is absolute only with regards to beliefs and not actions based on
those beliefs. Which is nothing more than saying your rights end at the end
of your arm reach or the tip of the nose of another person.
[alberto]
Article. VI.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:| The states were originally at liberty to establish state churches,
>:|but the Civil War amendments did away with that nonsense -- by extending
>:|the protections of the BoR to citizens as against their state governments.
it could be argued that beyond the original 13, those states created under
the formula of the land ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance were
not at liberty to establish state churches. For sure, they were not at
liberty to enter the union with a legalized state established church. Utah
was a good example of that.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
>
>>:| As Jefferson wrote -- and has been proven out -- the courts are quite
>>:|dangerous to our liberties. When a court steps over the line, becoming
>>:|a legislator, our Republic is placed in grave peril.
>
> While Jefferson was a very smart man, was right about a number of things,
> he wasn't infallible and the nation he envisioned wouldn't have been nearly
> as great as the one that eventually evolved.
But he was spot-on with this one -- as he usually was. And if it can
no longer preserve our basic liberties, our nation isn't worth bragging
about. Hell, we don't even live up to international human rights norms!
> In addition, Jefferson had a dark side and Jefferson felt it was perfectly
> fine to violate rights of others when it served his purpose.
And he knew that judges would be equally inclined to do so. He had a
reflective side to him, and understood the need for checks and balances
in the new government. Because people *were* like him. :)
> He could not control the courts and he and Marshall did not like each
> other, nor did he like Story. That is part of the context that one has tp
> place his writings on courts etc in when reading those writings.
Whether he "liked" Marshall or Story is beside the point. The simple
fact is that power corrupts -- and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
With apologies to Professor Gilmore, it's about the obscure and complex
process by which liberty becomes tyranny, while maintaining the illusion
of democratic government. Jefferson understood that without a realistic
check on the judicial power, it would eventually overwhelm the other two
branches.
My question to you: Why don't YOU understand it?
The British system is probably the best, truth be told. See Anti-Fed
78-79 for how it gets around our system's fatal flaw.
Alberto is right in substance, and I've told you why. All you can do
is clip my argument, declare victory, and run like a chicken-shit toad?
If I'm wrong, you ought to be able to address my arguments directly
and tell me why.
Come correct, Buck! You're usually BETTER than that! Not your
normal style....
> As far as the rest of the information I posted, you can disagree if you
> like. It doesn't change that that is how the system in this country works.
Okay, then let us dispense with the crap about our being a republic
governed by the rule of law, and admit that we are now a dictatorship
governed by a band of home-grown Ba'athists in black robes.
[Reattached material buck was too chicken-shit to respond to]
Ken Smith
IIRC, Utah entered the Union in the 1890s.
The point is that, in its original form, the Constitution was
supposed to reserve an awful lot to the States. The Civil War made this
concept untenable, and the Reconstruction Amendments fixed the problem.
IMHO, it was the correct outcome.
Dana
news:mopu905j46oo6jmvg...@4ax.com...
> junk...@moreira.mv.com (Alberto Moreira) wrote:
>
> >:|
> >:|Yet the Constitution says that making new law is an exclusive power of
> >:|the Congress.
>
> Courts by their very nature make law under our system..
And that is where you are wrong. Our courts cannot make law, that is clearly
stated in the Constitution.
The fact that you believe that the courts should be able to make law, marks
you as a statist, a person who thinks the government only has a persons best
interest in mind.
People that think like you are a direct danger and threat to freedom and
liberty.
Carol Lee Smith
> > Courts by their very nature make law under our system..
> And that is where you are wrong. Our courts cannot make law, that is clearly
> stated in the Constitution.
Here is the Constitution:
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
or
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
It should be a piece of cake for you to find the article/clause. Good
luck.
> The fact that you believe that the courts should be able to make law,
He said he "believe(s) that the courts should be able to make law" ??
No kidding.
Where did he say that?
> marks you as a statist, a person who thinks the government only has a persons best
> interest in mind.
a statist is an advocate of statism:
Main Entry: statism
Pronunciation: 'stA-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly
centralized government
> People that think like you are a direct danger and threat to freedom and
> liberty.
Hardly.
It is folks exhibiting persistent and constant ignorance who are a direct
danger and threat.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The most solid pleasure in this life is
the empty pleasure of illusion.
---Giacomo Leopardi
Thomas P.
>bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
>> Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
snip
> Whether he "liked" Marshall or Story is beside the point. The simple
>fact is that power corrupts -- and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
>With apologies to Professor Gilmore, it's about the obscure and complex
>process by which liberty becomes tyranny, while maintaining the illusion
>of democratic government. Jefferson understood that without a realistic
>check on the judicial power, it would eventually overwhelm the other two
>branches.
There are checks on the judicial power in the US.
>
snip
>
> Okay, then let us dispense with the crap about our being a republic
>governed by the rule of law, and admit that we are now a dictatorship
>governed by a band of home-grown Ba'athists in black robes.
>
The Supreme Court does not appoint its own members; it does not have
absolute power; and the power it has can be checked. Your comparison
is not valid.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:| Whether he "liked" Marshall or Story is beside the point.
Actually, it can be very much the point. in 1787 Jefferson was an advocate
of judicial review. When he was elected president he and his party took
control of the legislative branch and executive branch. He could not get
control of the judicial branch and at times it foiled him in various
efforts.
He hated the move Adams pulled before leaving office. He hated Marshall,
Marshall hated him. he hated Story, Story didn't like him.
Those events did color a lot of feelings, thoughts, writings etc .
Here is the only other point of yours I care to address. I have zilch
interest in the rest of your opinion.
[me]
> Courts by their very nature make law under our system..
[you[
....but *only* within prescribed limits. Once they exceed those bounds,
they have become legislators, violating their charter under Article III.
See, Anastasoff v. U.S. (8th Cir 2000; don't have a precise cite
handy).
[me]
> When a court sets out a rule of law, that is making law. When a court hands
> down its ruling in a matter that is making law.
[you]
No, no, and NO!!!!!
[me]
Sorry, I take the following from several sources over your comments;
"The basic pattern of legal reasoning id reasoning by example. 2 It is
reasoning from case to case. It is a three-step process described by the
doctrine of precedent in which a proposition descriptive of the first case
is made into a rule of law and then applied to a next similar situation.
The steps are these: similarity is seen between cases; next the rule of law
inherent in the first case is announced; then the rule of law is made
applicable to the second case. This is a method of reasoning necessary for
the law, but it has characteristics which under other circumstances might
be considered imperfections.
2 "Clearly then to argue by example is neither like reasoning from part to
whole, nor like reasoning from whole to part, but rather reasoning from
part to part, when both particulars are subordinate to the same term and
one of them is known. It differs from induction, because induction
starting from all the particular cases proves . . . that the major term
belongs to the middle and does not apply the syllogistic conclusion to the
minor term, whereas argument by example does make this application and does
not draw its proof from all the particular cases." Aristotle, Analytica
Priora 69a (McKeon ed., 1941).
SOURCE: An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, Edward H. Levi, The University
of Chicago Press, (1949) p. 1-2
======================================================
English Common Law revolved heavily around the concept of "Judge made law."
Judge-made law. A Phrase used to indicate judicial decisions which construe
away the meaning of statutes, or find meanings in them the legislature
never intended.Its perhaps more commonly used as meaning, simply, the law
established by judicial precedent and decisions. Laws having their source
in judicial decisions as opposed to laws having their source in statutes or
administrative regulations.
Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, Centennial Edition,
(1891-1991) West Publishing Company, (1991) p. 585-86
======================================================
SOURCES OF LAW
THE UNITED STATES has many sources of law because of our federal
system. The United States Constitution is the nation's charter and the
source of authority for federal laws and the federal courts. The
Constitution delineates the limits of federal power and reserves
considerable authority to the states. Each state has authority over persons
and activities within its boundaries. State governments, in turn, delegate
some authority to local governments. Each of these governmental units may,
within certain constraints, make law.
Understanding how laws arise and how they affect our activities
requires an understanding of two key concepts: (1) the relationships among
laws within a single jurisdiction and (2) the relationships among federal,
state, and local governments in the system. This chapter describes these
two concepts and briefly describes source material for researching the
law.
The Hierarchy of Laws
Four basic kinds of laws exist: constitutions, statutes or
ordinances, administrative regulations, and judge-made law. [NOTE, JUDGE
MADE LAW] These sources form a hierarchy with constitutions at the top and
judge-made laws at the bottom. Constitutions include the United States
Constitution as well as state constitutions. Within a jurisdiction, the
constitution is the highest authority; statutes, regulations, and common
law must not conflict with the constitution.
Statutes create categorical rules to address particular problems.
The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, for example, was adopted by Congress to
ensure the safety and healthfulness of the nation's food supply. A statute
is controlling as to the subject it encompasses, unless the statute is
unconstitutional.
The federal government and most states have many agencies with
diverse responsibilities (e.g., labor, veterans' affairs, transportation,
commerce, environmental protection). Administrative regulations are rules
promulgated by such agencies to help implement specific statutes. For
example, the "laws" relating to declarations of nutritional information
required on the packages of certain foods are largely administrative
regulations promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration under the Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, Properly adopted administrative regulations have
the same legal effect as statutes, so long as they are consistent with the
Constitution and relevant statutes.
Judicial decisions often interpret or apply constitutions,
statutes, or regulations. At other times, when such law is not applicable,
they interpret or apply a body of judge-made law known as the common law.
In either situation, law is made whenever a court decides a case. Once a
constitutional provision, statute, or regulation has been construed by a
court, that construction of the statute becomes law.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: A Practical Guide to legal Writing & Legal Method,
Second edition. John C. Dernbach, Richard V. Singleton II, Cathleen S.
Wharton, Joan M. Ruhtenberg, Fred B. Rothman & Co. (1994) pp 9-10)
[NOTE: IN EITHER SITUATION, LAW IS MADE WHENEVER A COURT DECIDES A CASE..]
=====================================================================
LAW. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method
according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other. Law,
in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by
controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be
obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences
is a law. Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of
the State.
Calif.Civil Code, p 22.
The "law" of a state is to be found in its statutory and constitutional
enactments, as interpreted by its courts, and, in absence of statute
law, in rulings of its courts (i.e. case law).
[NOTE, AS INTERPRETED BY ITS COURTS, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF STATUE LAW, IN
RULINGS OF ITS COURTS.- This is where the original poster is getting
into problems with his understanding of law.]
The word may mean or embrace: body of principles, standards and rules
promulgated by government constitution or constitutional provision; statute
or enactment of legislative body; administrative agency rules and
regulations; judicial decisions, judgments or decrees; municipal
ordinances; or, long established local custom which has the force of law.
[NOTE, JUDICIAL DECISIONS- again the same problem area for the original
poster]
With reference to its origin, "law" is derived either from judicial
precedents, from legislation, or from custom.
[NOTE, JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS- same problem area for the original poster]
As to the different kinds of law, or law regarded in its different
aspects, see Absolute law; Adjective law; Administrative law; Bankruptcy
Code; Canon (Canon law); Case law; Civil law; Commercial
law; Common law; Conclusion of law; Conflict of laws; Constitutional law;
Criminal law; Custom and usage; Ecclesiastical law; Edict; Enabling
statute; Equity; Evidence, law of; Flag, law of; Foreign laws; General law;
International law; Local law; Maritime; Maritime law; Marque, law of;
Martial law; Mercantile law; Military law; Moral law; Municipal law;
Natural law; Ordinance; Organic law, Parliamentary law; Penal laws;
Positive law; Private law; Probate; Procedural law; Prospective law;
Public law; Remedial laws and statutes; Retrospective law; Revenue law or
measure; Road (Law of the road); Roman law; Special law; Statute;
Substantive law; Unwritten law; War; Written law.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Black's Law Dictionary, abridged Sixth Edition,
Centennial Edition (1891-1991) West Publishing, St paul Minn, (1991) pp
612)
=====================================================================
There is the legislature. They "make" law.
The president can "make" law by executive orders.
Various agencies can "make" law and is usually called administrative law
Then each time a court makes a ruling it has "made" law.
=====================================================================
bucke...@nospam.net
Oh yea, I forgot this one:
Legislatures and courts are co-operative law-making bodies.
SOURCE: An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, Edward H. Levi, The University
of Chicago Press, (1949) p 32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:| Whether he "liked" Marshall or Story is beside the point.
Actually, it can be very much the point. in 1787 Jefferson was an advocate
of judicial review. When he was elected president he and his party took
control of the legislative branch and executive branch. He could not get
control of the judicial branch and at times it foiled him in various
efforts.
He hated the move Adams pulled before leaving office. He hated Marshall,
Marshall hated him. he hated Story, Story didn't like him.
Those events did color a lot of feelings, thoughts, writings etc .
Here is the only other point of yours I care to address. I have zilch
interest in the rest of your opinion.
[me]
> Courts by their very nature make law under our system..
[you[
....but *only* within prescribed limits. Once they exceed those bounds,
they have become legislators, violating their charter under Article III.
See, Anastasoff v. U.S. (8th Cir 2000; don't have a precise cite
handy).
[me]
> When a court sets out a rule of law, that is making law. When a court hands
> down its ruling in a matter that is making law.
[you]
No, no, and NO!!!!!
[me]
Sorry, I take the following from several sources over your comments;
"The basic pattern of legal reasoning id reasoning by example. 2 It is
reasoning from case to case. It is a three-step process described by the
doctrine of precedent in which a proposition descriptive of the first case
is made into a rule of law and then applied to a next similar situation.
The steps are these: similarity is seen between cases; next the rule of law
inherent in the first case is announced; then the rule of law is made
applicable to the second case. This is a method of reasoning necessary for
the law, but it has characteristics which under other circumstances might
be considered imperfections.
2 "Clearly then to argue by example is neither like reasoning from part to
whole, nor like reasoning from whole to part, but rather reasoning from
part to part, when both particulars are subordinate to the same term and
one of them is known. It differs from induction, because induction
starting from all the particular cases proves . . . that the major term
belongs to the middle and does not apply the syllogistic conclusion to the
minor term, whereas argument by example does make this application and does
not draw its proof from all the particular cases." Aristotle, Analytica
Priora 69a (McKeon ed., 1941).
SOURCE: An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, Edward H. Levi, The University
of Chicago Press, (1949) p. 1-2
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
>:|> Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
>:|>
>:|>>:| The states were originally at liberty to establish state churches,
>:|>>:|but the Civil War amendments did away with that nonsense -- by extending
>:|>>:|the protections of the BoR to citizens as against their state governments.
>:|>
>:|> it could be argued that beyond the original 13, those states created under
>:|> the formula of the land ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance were
>:|> not at liberty to establish state churches. For sure, they were not at
>:|> liberty to enter the union with a legalized state established church. Utah
>:|> was a good example of that.
>:|
>:| IIRC, Utah entered the Union in the 1890s.
>:|
Yep, something like that.
But I say again, no state that petitioned Congress to enter the union under
the formula that was established by the land ordinance of 1785 and
Northwest Ordinance could have an established church.
>:| The point is that, in its original form, the Constitution was
>:|supposed to reserve an awful lot to the States. The Civil War made this
>:|concept untenable, and the Reconstruction Amendments fixed the problem.
Actually beginning with the Marshall court the supremacy of the general
government was being established.
That was the primary differences between the two parties strong national
government v states rights. Madison switched back and forth a few times on
the issue, strong national government in the 1780s. Less so in the 1790 and
into the 1800s back to a version of his original position later in life in
retirement.
Most conservatives today who point to Joseph Story as their hero for his
belief in established religions right up to his death do not understand he
was anti states right big time. Him and Marshall both.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
>
> Oh yea, I forgot this one:
>
> Legislatures and courts are co-operative law-making bodies.
What on earth Levi means by that is, of course, anyone's guess. If
he means that courts are supposed to fill in the gaps where statutes
cannot reach, more-or-less (see, my caveat below). When courts go
beyond that, it becomes problematic.
> SOURCE: An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, Edward H. Levi, The University
> of Chicago Press, (1949) p 32
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>:| Whether he "liked" Marshall or Story is beside the point.
>
> Actually, it can be very much the point. in 1787 Jefferson was an advocate
> of judicial review. When he was elected president he and his party took
> control of the legislative branch and executive branch. He could not get
> control of the judicial branch and at times it foiled him in various
> efforts.
> He hated the move Adams pulled before leaving office. He hated Marshall,
> Marshall hated him. he hated Story, Story didn't like him.
> Those events did color a lot of feelings, thoughts, writings etc .
Irrelevant, as demonstrated by Pierson v. Ray. When a judge gets to
decide that the "every person" in 42 U.S.C. 1983 *really* means "every
person but us judges," without any basis in the statute or legislative
history for so doing, he is legislating -- NOT judging.
Judging is like umpiring. The rule tells me what a "strike" is, and
I have to tell whether that pitch met the definition of a strike.
> Here is the only other point of yours I care to address. I have zilch
> interest in the rest of your opinion.
>
> [me]
>
>>Courts by their very nature make law under our system..
>
> [you[
> ....but *only* within prescribed limits. Once they exceed those bounds,
> they have become legislators, violating their charter under Article III.
> See, Anastasoff v. U.S. (8th Cir 2000; don't have a precise cite
> handy).
>
> [me]
>
>>When a court sets out a rule of law, that is making law. When a court hands
>>down its ruling in a matter that is making law.
>
> [you]
> No, no, and NO!!!!!
>
> [me]
> Sorry, I take the following from several sources over your comments;
Your position is a trifle too simplistic. As Lord Mansfield put it,
"the reason and spirit of cases make law; not the letter of particular
precedents." Fisher v. Prince, 97 Eng. Rep. 876, 876 (K.B. 1762).
Every word of a statute is law; *NO* word of a judge is. What we call
"judge-made laws" are really rules of prediction, which can only become
law if we adopt an iron-clad interpretation of stare decisis, and that
the facts of the case are precisely on all fours with the precedent at
hand. If the rule in case A is "x," and my facts are the same, then I
have a reliance and equal protection interest in the judge applying "x"
in my case. But because I have no assurance of that, that "judge-made
law" is not and cannot be law.
It sounds as if our dispute here is semantic, in the sense that what
you would call "making law," I would call "applying the rules of law."
Specifically, when you determine that a Chevy Tahoe is a "car" while a
Suburban is a "truck," you could call that making law; on that, I won't
quibble.
Where I have a problem with it is when a judge ignores the canons of
construction and binding precedent we are normally entitled to rely on.
When a judge disregards the clear plain meaning of a statute and/or the
legislative history of a statute and/or binding precedent on point, it
ceases to be judging and becomes legislating (thereby violating Art. 1,
sec. 1 of the federal constitution and Art. III of Colorado's; I'm sure
your state has a similar provision).
> "The basic pattern of legal reasoning id reasoning by example. 2 It is
> reasoning from case to case. It is a three-step process described by the
> doctrine of precedent in which a proposition descriptive of the first case
> is made into a rule of law and then applied to a next similar situation.
> The steps are these: similarity is seen between cases; next the rule of law
> inherent in the first case is announced; then the rule of law is made
> applicable to the second case. This is a method of reasoning necessary for
> the law, but it has characteristics which under other circumstances might
> be considered imperfections.
IRAC. No dispute here. The question is whether it is "declaring" or
"making" law; I concur with Judge Arnold here. However, the term "rule
of law" is a misnomer, which we nonetheless accept as a convention.
> 2 "Clearly then to argue by example is neither like reasoning from part to
> whole, nor like reasoning from whole to part, but rather reasoning from
> part to part, when both particulars are subordinate to the same term and
> one of them is known. It differs from induction, because induction
> starting from all the particular cases proves . . . that the major term
> belongs to the middle and does not apply the syllogistic conclusion to the
> minor term, whereas argument by example does make this application and does
> not draw its proof from all the particular cases." Aristotle, Analytica
> Priora 69a (McKeon ed., 1941).
> SOURCE: An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, Edward H. Levi, The University
> of Chicago Press, (1949) p. 1-2
> ======================================================
> English Common Law revolved heavily around the concept of "Judge made law."
>
> Judge-made law. A Phrase used to indicate judicial decisions which construe
> away the meaning of statutes, or find meanings in them the legislature
> never intended.
You don't find this problematic? Parsing out the meaning of a
statute and applying it consistent with that meaning is the essence of
judging: "That was not a strike." Redefining "strike" to mean "that
toss over to first base" is rewriting the rules and therefore, is not
judging.
> Its perhaps more commonly used as meaning, simply, the law
> established by judicial precedent and decisions. Laws having their source
> in judicial decisions as opposed to laws having their source in statutes or
> administrative regulations.
> Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, Centennial Edition,
> (1891-1991) West Publishing Company, (1991) p. 585-86
No dispute with this here. Judges were supposed to harmonize
statutes and fill in the gaps that legislators couldn't reasonably
anticipate.
> ======================================================
> SOURCES OF LAW
>
> THE UNITED STATES has many sources of law because of our federal
> system. The United States Constitution is the nation's charter and the
> source of authority for federal laws and the federal courts. The
> Constitution delineates the limits of federal power and reserves
> considerable authority to the states. Each state has authority over persons
> and activities within its boundaries. State governments, in turn, delegate
> some authority to local governments. Each of these governmental units may,
> within certain constraints, make law.
> Understanding how laws arise and how they affect our activities
> requires an understanding of two key concepts: (1) the relationships among
> laws within a single jurisdiction and (2) the relationships among federal,
> state, and local governments in the system. This chapter describes these
> two concepts and briefly describes source material for researching the
> law.
>
> The Hierarchy of Laws
> Four basic kinds of laws exist: constitutions, statutes or
> ordinances, administrative regulations, and judge-made law. [NOTE, JUDGE
> MADE LAW]
Meaning the English common law, which is basically the same as it was
a hundred years ago. Criminal law is now the stuff of statute, and most
commercial law is governed by statute and uniform codes. Property law
is the province of statute, as well. Tort law has basically been static
since Cardozo. What's left -- in terms of creating new law -- is almost
superfluous.
I am surprised you didn't mention jus cogens international law, which
is a part of our law. See, The Paqueete Habana (cite not handy); also,
the Charming Betsy rule (again, won't bother to look it up). [Not that
I could ever persuade any court to consider international law, although
SCOTUS precedent requires them to....] It exists in theory, but it is
the rare judge who will give that argument the time of day.
> These sources form a hierarchy with constitutions at the top and
> judge-made laws at the bottom. Constitutions include the United States
> Constitution as well as state constitutions. Within a jurisdiction, the
> constitution is the highest authority; statutes, regulations, and common
> law must not conflict with the constitution.
Yup. Again, how *do* you justify Pierson v. Ray?
> Statutes create categorical rules to address particular problems.
> The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, for example, was adopted by Congress to
> ensure the safety and healthfulness of the nation's food supply. A statute
> is controlling as to the subject it encompasses, unless the statute is
> unconstitutional.
> The federal government and most states have many agencies with
> diverse responsibilities (e.g., labor, veterans' affairs, transportation,
> commerce, environmental protection). Administrative regulations are rules
> promulgated by such agencies to help implement specific statutes. For
> example, the "laws" relating to declarations of nutritional information
> required on the packages of certain foods are largely administrative
> regulations promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration under the Food,
> Drug, and Cosmetic Act, Properly adopted administrative regulations have
> the same legal effect as statutes, so long as they are consistent with the
> Constitution and relevant statutes.
> Judicial decisions often interpret or apply constitutions,
> statutes, or regulations. At other times, when such law is not applicable,
> they interpret or apply a body of judge-made law known as the common law.
"Interpret or apply" is the key. Again, for the most part, we are
debating semantics, and are on all fours in substance. We have an idea
as to what rule the judge should apply, but a few thousand in unmarked
Benjamins often changes that in a hurry.
Again, it's semantics. Judges don't "make" law, but rather, resolve
disputes. When judges resolve them consistently, we call it a rule of
law. When they resolve them haphazardly, we call it America.
Ken Smith
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 18:05:45 GMT, Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
>>bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
>>>Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
>>
> snip
>
>> Whether he "liked" Marshall or Story is beside the point. The simple
>>fact is that power corrupts -- and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
>>With apologies to Professor Gilmore, it's about the obscure and complex
>>process by which liberty becomes tyranny, while maintaining the illusion
>>of democratic government. Jefferson understood that without a realistic
>>check on the judicial power, it would eventually overwhelm the other two
>>branches.
>
> There are checks on the judicial power in the US.
There are? Tell me *what* they are. And, more to the point, tell me
how I can actually USE them.
Impeachment? A farce. Passing a constitutional amendment?
Extremely difficult. An action for damages for willful violations of
civil rights by a judge? Basically, over their dead bodies. Passing a
mere law? If Pierson v. Ray is any example, they'll ignore it if they
need to ("Every person" really means "every person but us judges" --
judicial canons be damned). Stare decisis? Not in the real world of
unpublished opinions. Appellate review? Over 90% of Ninth Circuit
cases are unpublished, and Judge Kozinski admits that they average less
than ten minutes reviewing the average appeal. Criminal prosecution?
Any U.S. Attorney who tried and failed would be 'whacked' --
figuratively speaking, of course -- so they don't often try.
About the closest you can come is the law review articles; like their
al-Qaeda brethren, judges hate being publicly embarrassed. :)
> snip
>
>> Okay, then let us dispense with the crap about our being a republic
>>governed by the rule of law, and admit that we are now a dictatorship
>>governed by a band of home-grown Ba'athists in black robes.
>
> The Supreme Court does not appoint its own members; it does not have
> absolute power; and the power it has can be checked. Your comparison
> is not valid.
If the court can refuse to enforce your rights at need, you don't
have any. Compare Roe v. Ogden, 253 F.3d 1225 (10th Cir. 2001) with
Smith v. Mullarkey, No. 02-1481 (10th Cir. Jun 11, 2003), and take
notice of the actual complaint
(http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/fac.htm). [Just a little white
judicial lie, and it looks to the casual eye that the law hasn't really
been changed, but Marbury v. Madison has been in substance overturned.
Amazing!] At the end of the day, if *you* have *no* power, they have
all of it.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
>>:|bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
>>:|> Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
>>:|>
>>:|>>:| The states were originally at liberty to establish state churches,
>>:|>>:|but the Civil War amendments did away with that nonsense -- by extending
>>:|>>:|the protections of the BoR to citizens as against their state governments.
>>:|>
>>:|> it could be argued that beyond the original 13, those states created under
>>:|> the formula of the land ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance were
>>:|> not at liberty to establish state churches. For sure, they were not at
>>:|> liberty to enter the union with a legalized state established church. Utah
>>:|> was a good example of that.
>>:|
>>:| IIRC, Utah entered the Union in the 1890s.
>
> Yep, something like that.
>
> But I say again, no state that petitioned Congress to enter the union under
> the formula that was established by the land ordinance of 1785 and
> Northwest Ordinance could have an established church.
And that makes sense when you think about it. The original Colonies
were in most cases religious colonies, and if the new states all began
being Quakers, it would be a bad business for the rest of them. (Sort
of like how the balance between slave and non-slave states had to be
maintained.]
>
>>:| The point is that, in its original form, the Constitution was
>>:|supposed to reserve an awful lot to the States. The Civil War made this
>>:|concept untenable, and the Reconstruction Amendments fixed the problem.
>
> Actually beginning with the Marshall court the supremacy of the general
> government was being established.
"Good judging is expanding your jurisdiction?" That's what Jefferson
feared. :)
> That was the primary differences between the two parties strong national
> government v states rights. Madison switched back and forth a few times on
> the issue, strong national government in the 1780s. Less so in the 1790 and
> into the 1800s back to a version of his original position later in life in
> retirement.
>
> Most conservatives today who point to Joseph Story as their hero for his
> belief in established religions right up to his death do not understand he
> was anti states right big time. Him and Marshall both.
Again, I don't disagree with you on that reading.
The practical problem was in consolidating the Union without any
legal mechanism for doing it. The original Union contemplated a weak
federal government -- the first confederation was too weak, which was
why it had to fail -- and that balance couldn't change materially before
the Civil War. But the gradual emergence of a mercantile economy
demanded more of our federal government -- a trend continuing to this
day. Law adapts to meet the needs of society, which is why a global
body of law is emerging to meet our common needs.
stoney
<tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk>, Message ID:
<4rts90dukn05naeue...@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>On Sun, 09 May 2004 14:20:11 GMT, junk...@moreira.mv.com (Alberto
>Moreira) wrote:
>
>>Said Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> :
>>
>>
>>>People are free to pray. Government is prohibited from promoting prayer. It's
>>>quite simple, really.
>>
>
>>The Constitution says "free EXERCISE". That's a lot more than just
>>prayer.
>
>Yes it is. So what?
He expects an exemption based on his brand of superstition.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
Thomas P.
>On Sun, 09 May 2004 21:31:40 +0200, Thomas P.
><tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk>, Message ID:
><4rts90dukn05naeue...@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>
>>On Sun, 09 May 2004 14:20:11 GMT, junk...@moreira.mv.com (Alberto
>>Moreira) wrote:
>>
>>>Said Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> :
>>>
>>>
>>>>People are free to pray. Government is prohibited from promoting prayer. It's
>>>>quite simple, really.
>>>
>>
>>>The Constitution says "free EXERCISE". That's a lot more than just
>>>prayer.
>>
>>Yes it is. So what?
>
>He expects an exemption based on his brand of superstition.
>
It is hard to figure out what he believes. There does not seem to be
much consistency in his presentation. He believes in religious
freedom for all, but he believes it is okay for a State to establish a
religion. He believes the Constitution protects people, but he
doesn't believe anyone has the right to interpret it. Very strange!
Scott Box
don't want that to happen and yeah we all need a day for prayer the way
this world is gettin so if you want to go ahead but you would have to go
through the christians first!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!