Carpet bomb Alabama please.

[gopunk]

BLAH BLAH BLAH. Same stuff is being regurgitated with you playing semantics and games. My opinion remains the same. The Feds had no jurisdiction to rule on this case. Jurisdiction to hear but not Jurisdiction to rule. Plus, how do you get the idea that a state policy is covered? It says law and not policy. You are flexing the Constitution to fit your agenda.

the same stuff is being regurgitated because you refuse to listen to logic and reason. i am not playing any games, unless you count seeing the court system for what it is, a "game".

let me just ask you a question, do you think that the supreme court should not have been able to rule in brown vs board of education? that was policy, not law.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: gopunk

Umm... I NEVER said the supreme court didn't have the right to hear the case. I said their interpretation of things will be interesting because they might decide the ACLU case should have never been in federal court. I said that if the ACLU cased addressed a constitutional issue then the feds can look at it. That doesn't mean that because they look at the case it is automatically a constitutional issue. It almost seems like they took the ACLU's word on it and never really gave any reasoning for saying the case was valid. They decided in based on the Federal idea regarding religion, but never though to address the fact that they might not of had jurisdiction to decide the matter. They had jurisdiction to HEAR it(because it was filed) but in the prelim they should have kicked it back to the states.You kept saying I was wrong that that court had jurisdiction and I said wait on the USSC. Now you are saying the same yet I said that before? I don't understand what you were arguing about then?

ok first off, i don't know why you're replying to that post, because it was not about you at all. my post was in reply to cyberian, who was replying to me, and i was replying to mugsywwiii.

now then, i don't see how you can not think that federal courts have jurisdiction to make a decision. the question that the ACLU is asking the courts to decide is whether or not the practice is constitutional. this makes it a constitutional law case! it was not a constitutional issue, then it would not be in violation of the constitution, and therefore the court would have ruled against the ACLU.

Goddamit dude! You are ASSUMING the fed court made the correct RULING. How many times has an Appellate court overturned an initial ruling?

look, i'm trying my best not to lose my patience here. please read what i am writing.

i am not assuming anything of that nature.

you are saying that the federal court did not have the jurisdiction to make that ruling, because the case is not constitutional

i am showing that they did, because the case is explicitly constitutional in that it asks the court to make a decision on how to interpret the constitution

this says NOTHING about whether or not the ruling was correct. NOTHING.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: gopunk

Umm... I NEVER said the supreme court didn't have the right to hear the case. I said their interpretation of things will be interesting because they might decide the ACLU case should have never been in federal court. I said that if the ACLU cased addressed a constitutional issue then the feds can look at it. That doesn't mean that because they look at the case it is automatically a constitutional issue. It almost seems like they took the ACLU's word on it and never really gave any reasoning for saying the case was valid. They decided in based on the Federal idea regarding religion, but never though to address the fact that they might not of had jurisdiction to decide the matter. They had jurisdiction to HEAR it(because it was filed) but in the prelim they should have kicked it back to the states.You kept saying I was wrong that that court had jurisdiction and I said wait on the USSC. Now you are saying the same yet I said that before? I don't understand what you were arguing about then?

ok first off, i don't know why you're replying to that post, because it was not about you at all. my post was in reply to cyberian, who was replying to me, and i was replying to mugsywwiii.

now then, i don't see how you can not think that federal courts have jurisdiction to make a decision. the question that the ACLU is asking the courts to decide is whether or not the practice is constitutional. this makes it a constitutional law case! it was not a constitutional issue, then it would not be in violation of the constitution, and therefore the court would have ruled against the ACLU.

Goddamit dude! You are ASSUMING the fed court made the correct RULING. How many times has an Appellate court overturned an initial ruling?

look, i'm trying my best not to lose my patience here. please read what i am writing.

i am not assuming anything of that nature.

you are saying that the federal court did not have the jurisdiction to make that ruling, because the case is not constitutional

i am showing that they did, because the case is explicitly constitutional in that it asks the court to make a decision on how to interpret the constitution

this says NOTHING about whether or not the ruling was correct. NOTHING.

It asks that BUT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY to DECIDE whether or NOT it was a Constitutional issue. I have never seen where they debated or discussed that part.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: gopunk

BLAH BLAH BLAH. Same stuff is being regurgitated with you playing semantics and games. My opinion remains the same. The Feds had no jurisdiction to rule on this case. Jurisdiction to hear but not Jurisdiction to rule. Plus, how do you get the idea that a state policy is covered? It says law and not policy. You are flexing the Constitution to fit your agenda.

the same stuff is being regurgitated because you refuse to listen to logic and reason. i am not playing any games, unless you count seeing the court system for what it is, a "game".

let me just ask you a question, do you think that the supreme court should not have been able to rule in brown vs board of education? that was policy, not law.

I already said this wasn't a state policy but you skip right over that so what can I say? This was the act of one man and not the state in an official capacity.

Secondly the Feds are not going to do anymore than impose fines? Did you realize that? They will do nothing else to insure the removal of the monument. They said they don't want it turning into a state's right issue so they decided to make the ruling and then shut up. Doesn't that seem weird to you? They are purposely trying to limit the issues that Moore can raise... why do that? Why not let the argument get rehashed?

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: gopunk

Umm... I NEVER said the supreme court didn't have the right to hear the case. I said their interpretation of things will be interesting because they might decide the ACLU case should have never been in federal court. I said that if the ACLU cased addressed a constitutional issue then the feds can look at it. That doesn't mean that because they look at the case it is automatically a constitutional issue. It almost seems like they took the ACLU's word on it and never really gave any reasoning for saying the case was valid. They decided in based on the Federal idea regarding religion, but never though to address the fact that they might not of had jurisdiction to decide the matter. They had jurisdiction to HEAR it(because it was filed) but in the prelim they should have kicked it back to the states.You kept saying I was wrong that that court had jurisdiction and I said wait on the USSC. Now you are saying the same yet I said that before? I don't understand what you were arguing about then?

ok first off, i don't know why you're replying to that post, because it was not about you at all. my post was in reply to cyberian, who was replying to me, and i was replying to mugsywwiii.

now then, i don't see how you can not think that federal courts have jurisdiction to make a decision. the question that the ACLU is asking the courts to decide is whether or not the practice is constitutional. this makes it a constitutional law case! it was not a constitutional issue, then it would not be in violation of the constitution, and therefore the court would have ruled against the ACLU.

Goddamit dude! You are ASSUMING the fed court made the correct RULING. How many times has an Appellate court overturned an initial ruling?

look, i'm trying my best not to lose my patience here. please read what i am writing.

i am not assuming anything of that nature.

you are saying that the federal court did not have the jurisdiction to make that ruling, because the case is not constitutional

i am showing that they did, because the case is explicitly constitutional in that it asks the court to make a decision on how to interpret the constitution

this says NOTHING about whether or not the ruling was correct. NOTHING.

It asks that BUT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY to DECIDE whether or NOT it was a Constitutional issue. I have never seen where they debated or discussed that part.

yes, you are exactly right... if they decide that the monument had nothing to do with the constitution, ie, did not break it... the will rule that way.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: gopunk

BLAH BLAH BLAH. Same stuff is being regurgitated with you playing semantics and games. My opinion remains the same. The Feds had no jurisdiction to rule on this case. Jurisdiction to hear but not Jurisdiction to rule. Plus, how do you get the idea that a state policy is covered? It says law and not policy. You are flexing the Constitution to fit your agenda.

the same stuff is being regurgitated because you refuse to listen to logic and reason. i am not playing any games, unless you count seeing the court system for what it is, a "game".

let me just ask you a question, do you think that the supreme court should not have been able to rule in brown vs board of education? that was policy, not law.

I already said this wasn't a state policy but you skip right over that so what can I say? This was the act of one man and not the state in an official capacity.

Secondly the Feds are not going to do anymore than impose fines? Did you realize that? They will do nothing else to insure the removal of the monument. They said they don't want it turning into a state's right issue so they decided to make the ruling and then shut up. Doesn't that seem weird to you? They are purposely trying to limit the issues that Moore can raise... why do that? Why not let the argument get rehashed?

the thing is a courthouse. if they leave it there, that is a policy. if moore had put the thing in his front yard, or even on the hood of his car, i don't think there would be any problem here.

yes i realize that, what are the feds supposed to do? send in the national guard and fix bayonets against the people guarding the monument? i think a fine is the best solution.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: gopunk

BLAH BLAH BLAH. Same stuff is being regurgitated with you playing semantics and games. My opinion remains the same. The Feds had no jurisdiction to rule on this case. Jurisdiction to hear but not Jurisdiction to rule. Plus, how do you get the idea that a state policy is covered? It says law and not policy. You are flexing the Constitution to fit your agenda.

the same stuff is being regurgitated because you refuse to listen to logic and reason. i am not playing any games, unless you count seeing the court system for what it is, a "game".

let me just ask you a question, do you think that the supreme court should not have been able to rule in brown vs board of education? that was policy, not law.

I already said this wasn't a state policy but you skip right over that so what can I say? This was the act of one man and not the state in an official capacity.

Secondly the Feds are not going to do anymore than impose fines? Did you realize that? They will do nothing else to insure the removal of the monument. They said they don't want it turning into a state's right issue so they decided to make the ruling and then shut up. Doesn't that seem weird to you? They are purposely trying to limit the issues that Moore can raise... why do that? Why not let the argument get rehashed?

the thing is a courthouse. if they leave it there, that is a policy. if moore had put the thing in his front yard, or even on the hood of his car, i don't think there would be any problem here.

yes i realize that, what are the feds supposed to do? send in the national guard and fix bayonets against the people guarding the monument? i think a fine is the best solution.

Umm... even the 11th circuit didn't say they were taking it on the ground of policy. They took it as it was a violation of article vi only because moore took an oath to obey the constitution. they said he took the oath and understood ahead of time that he couldn't nullify a federal ruling just because of his office. they compared it to Sterling vs Constantin. Once again I said this is about state's rights and it is. moore played the religious card to the press but it is about state's rights. the 11th circuit said that a state official doesn't have the ability to ignore an order. I say they do whenever the plaintiff witness lied(they did) and whenever the court refuses to actually reconsider the idea of Sterling vs. Constantin. As I said before they supreme court will make the final decision and the 11th circuit's verdict is not that important. They don't have the ability or desire to decide some of the issues moore raised...namely the one about state's rights and the issue about whether or not the Lemon test is still applicable to this case.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: gopunk

Umm... I NEVER said the supreme court didn't have the right to hear the case. I said their interpretation of things will be interesting because they might decide the ACLU case should have never been in federal court. I said that if the ACLU cased addressed a constitutional issue then the feds can look at it. That doesn't mean that because they look at the case it is automatically a constitutional issue. It almost seems like they took the ACLU's word on it and never really gave any reasoning for saying the case was valid. They decided in based on the Federal idea regarding religion, but never though to address the fact that they might not of had jurisdiction to decide the matter. They had jurisdiction to HEAR it(because it was filed) but in the prelim they should have kicked it back to the states.You kept saying I was wrong that that court had jurisdiction and I said wait on the USSC. Now you are saying the same yet I said that before? I don't understand what you were arguing about then?

ok first off, i don't know why you're replying to that post, because it was not about you at all. my post was in reply to cyberian, who was replying to me, and i was replying to mugsywwiii.

now then, i don't see how you can not think that federal courts have jurisdiction to make a decision. the question that the ACLU is asking the courts to decide is whether or not the practice is constitutional. this makes it a constitutional law case! it was not a constitutional issue, then it would not be in violation of the constitution, and therefore the court would have ruled against the ACLU.

Goddamit dude! You are ASSUMING the fed court made the correct RULING. How many times has an Appellate court overturned an initial ruling?

look, i'm trying my best not to lose my patience here. please read what i am writing.

i am not assuming anything of that nature.

you are saying that the federal court did not have the jurisdiction to make that ruling, because the case is not constitutional

i am showing that they did, because the case is explicitly constitutional in that it asks the court to make a decision on how to interpret the constitution

this says NOTHING about whether or not the ruling was correct. NOTHING.

It asks that BUT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY to DECIDE whether or NOT it was a Constitutional issue. I have never seen where they debated or discussed that part.

yes, you are exactly right... if they decide that the monument had nothing to do with the constitution, ie, did not break it... the will rule that way.

I still don't see how you can support the 11th circuit's opinion when the plaintiffs lied.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: Millennium
(even though I still say the Feds have no business telling Alabama what to do).

Man, I can't believe I agree with Millennium. People always skip over the part of the first amendment that says "Congress shall make no law..."

a. The U.S. Congress didn't place the 10 commandments there.
b. Like Millennium has said, THERE IS NO LAW

It's unfortunate that the supreme court has taken the liberty of bastardizing the constitution in the last 70 or so years by interpreting it however they want.

Edit: Holy crap I suck at quoting.

no, people don't skip over that part, there's this little thing called "interpretation". people have different ways of interpreting the constitution... there are tons of people way more knowledgeable about law than you and i combined, and they can't even decide which way is right, so get over it and stop assuming your way is correct. the supreme court is the body that has the final say on the interpretation of the constitution, so whether you agree or not is really irrelevant.

1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How exactly does that get interpeted to apply to the decorations in a state courthouse? No matter how they twist it, you can't get rid of words like "congress" and "law." But you're right - it is the Supreme Court's duty to interpret the constitution. What is unfortunate is that since the Great Depression, the Supreme Court has chosen to interpret it entirely differently from what it actually says. They're not supposed to do that. The Supreme Court was not set up to create NEW laws, but that's essentially what they've done for years. That's a really bad thing. Why? There are no real checks and balances on the Supreme Court. Sure, the president gets to appoint new justices - and the congress has to approve them - but that's only when they die or retire. Once they're in there, they're there for life, and their rulings are final. Because of that, I think they should stick to interpreting the constitution the way it is written. If we wanted the constitution to be changed, we could change it the way it was intended to be chagned - through amendments. I'd rather have important decisions made by 3/4 of the state legislatures and 2/3 of the congress than 5 out of 9 men and women who are above reproach. But that's just me.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: Millennium
(even though I still say the Feds have no business telling Alabama what to do).

Man, I can't believe I agree with Millennium. People always skip over the part of the first amendment that says "Congress shall make no law..."

a. The U.S. Congress didn't place the 10 commandments there.
b. Like Millennium has said, THERE IS NO LAW

It's unfortunate that the supreme court has taken the liberty of bastardizing the constitution in the last 70 or so years by interpreting it however they want.

Edit: Holy crap I suck at quoting.

no, people don't skip over that part, there's this little thing called "interpretation". people have different ways of interpreting the constitution... there are tons of people way more knowledgeable about law than you and i combined, and they can't even decide which way is right, so get over it and stop assuming your way is correct. the supreme court is the body that has the final say on the interpretation of the constitution, so whether you agree or not is really irrelevant.

1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How exactly does that get interpeted to apply to the decorations in a state courthouse? No matter how they twist it, you can't get rid of words like "congress" and "law." But you're right - it is the Supreme Court's duty to interpret the constitution. What is unfortunate is that since the Great Depression, the Supreme Court has chosen to interpret it entirely differently from what it actually says. They're not supposed to do that. The Supreme Court was not set up to create NEW laws, but that's essentially what they've done for years. That's a really bad thing. Why? There are no real checks and balances on the Supreme Court. Sure, the president gets to appoint new justices - and the congress has to approve them - but that's only when they die or retire. Once they're in there, they're there for life, and their rulings are final. Because of that, I think they should stick to interpreting the constitution the way it is written. If we wanted the constitution to be changed, we could change it the way it was intended to be chagned - through amendments. I'd rather have important decisions made by 3/4 of the state legislatures and 2/3 of the congress than 5 out of 9 men and women who are above reproach. But that's just me.

Well the 11th circuit says you take congress and law in a broad sense and then other things in a strict sense. Read their actual opinion as it is quite silly how they shift their opinion just to fit their agenda. On one hand they say that the state falls under their jurisdiction because the amendment is supposed to be interpreted broadly, and then they go on to criticize several rebuttals Moore had by saying he was being too broad of a jurist.

Right...

 

[philmore47]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
Give me a break.

I don't see a problem with it. Haven't you heard of seperation of church and state?

The intentions of the seperation of church and state were to ensure the state couldn't force religious beliefs on people. That doesn't mean that a government official can't talk about God, or religion. It simply means that they can't tell other people what to believe. I don't think the display of the commandments or any other religious artifacts forces any kind of ideals on anybody. I think this issue has been blow way out of proportion

The reproductions of this event are going to be very great. It's not just about the Ten Commandments sitting in the court house.

Here's some food for thought: You can't have national morality apart from religious principle.

 

[Rayden]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
Give me a break.

I don't see a problem with it. Haven't you heard of seperation of church and state?

Well, God has been removed from the Pledge. Moment of silence banned from Classrooms, Ten Commandments now illegal, must make a legal motion that the Bible be declared illegal and no longer be used in the Courtroom, no longer place right hand on it and "swear to tell the truth and the whole truth so help you God", no one tells the truth or cares about the Bible anyway.

Where will it end? Time to declare all Religion illegal in the United States, ban all churches and shut them down, they don't pay taxes anyway.

ah let use just embrace the world of 1984 with open arms!

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: tRaptor

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: tRaptor
Surgeon General's Warning: Quitting Religion Now Greatly Increases the Chances of World Peace.

thanks for contributing

I try... I was brought up to be a Luthern, I guess I just never really accepted it. To me it just dosent seem real.


"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - - Stephen Robert

To paraphrase MachFive ...

Theist: "There IS a God!"
Atheist: "There is NO God!"
Nontheist: "You gonna eat that?"



- M4H

 

[gopunk]

Umm... even the 11th circuit didn't say they were taking it on the ground of policy. They took it as it was a violation of article vi only because moore took an oath to obey the constitution. they said he took the oath and understood ahead of time that he couldn't nullify a federal ruling just because of his office. they compared it to Sterling vs Constantin.

you asserted that the court had no jurisdiction because this was not "policy" that, it was the act of one man. the 11th circuit court of appeals (this case never went to the full court) did address this issue in their opinion. it is on pages 26-28:

The First Amendment does not say that no government official may take any
action respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof. It says that ?Congress shall make no law? doing that. Chief Justice Moore
is not Congress. Nonetheless, he apparently recognizes that the religion clauses of
the First Amendment apply to all laws, not just those enacted by Congress. See
Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 15, 67 S. Ct. 504, 511 (1947) (holding that the
Establishment Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment). Even with that concession, his position is still plenty
bold. He argues that because of its ?no law? language, the First Amendment
proscrib es only law s, which should be defined as ?a rule of civil co nduct . . .
commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong.? Brief of Appellant at
19 (quoting 1 W illiam Blackstone, Commentaries *44). Any governmental action
promoting religion in general or a particular religion is free from constitutional
scrutiny, he insists, so long as it does not command or prohibit conduct. The
monument does neither, but instead is what he calls ?a decorative reminder of the
moral foundation of American law.? Brief of Appellant at 19.

The breadth of the Chief Justice?s position is illustrated by his counsel?s
concession at oral argument that if we adopted his position, the C hief Justice would
be free to adorn th e walls of the Alabama Supreme Court?s courtroom with
sectarian religious murals and have decidedly religious quotations painted above
the bench. Every government building could be topped with a cross, or a menorah,
or a statue of Buddha, depending upon the views of the officials with authority
over the premises. A crèche could occupy the place of honor in the lobby or
rotunda of every municipal, county, state, and federal building. Proselytizing
religious messages could be played over the public address system in every
government building at the whim of the official in charge of the premises.

However appealing those prospects may be to some, the position Chief
Justice Moore takes is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. County of
Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 612, 109 S. Ct. at 3110, which held unconstitutional the
placement of a crèche in the lobby of a courthouse, stands foursquare against the
notion that the Establishment Clause permits government to promote religion so
long as it does not command or prohibit conduct. Id., 109 S. Ct. at 3110 (?To be
sure, some Christians may wish to see the government proclaim its allegiance to
Christianity in a religious celebration of Christmas, but the Constitution does not
permit the gratification of that desire, which would contradict ?the logic of secular
liberty? it is the purpose of the Establishment Clause to protect.?) (citation
omitted). To the same effect is the decision in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 587,
112 S. Ct. 2649, 2655 (1992), where the Supreme Court explained that, ?[ a ] school
official, the principal, decided that an invocation and a benediction should be
given; this is a choice attributable to the State, and from a constitutional
perspective it is as if a state statute decreed that the prayers must occur.? A nd in
Jaffree v. Wallace, 705 F.2d 1526 (11th Cir. 1983), prob. juris. noted and aff?d in
part, 466 U .S. 924, 104 S. Ct. 1704, cert. denied sub. nom. Bd. of Sch. Comm?rs of
Mobile County v. Jaffree, 466 U.S. 926, 104 S. Ct. 1707, and aff?d in part, 472
U.S. 38, 105 S . Ct. 2479 (1985), this Court concluded that ?[ I ]f a statute
authorizing the teachers? activities would be unconstitutional, then the activities, in
the absence of a statute, are also unconstitutional.? Id. at 1533-35.

it is very clear from this excerpt that the court of appeals DID view it as a governmental action. it is NOT just about article VI as you stated, that is wrong.

Once again I said this is about state's rights and it is. moore played the religious card to the press but it is about state's rights. the 11th circuit said that a state official doesn't have the ability to ignore an order. I say they do whenever the plaintiff witness lied(they did) and whenever the court refuses to actually reconsider the idea of Sterling vs. Constantin.

first off, i am interested in hearing what you think the plaintiff witness lied about.

secondly, that is great that you have your opinion, but unfortunately, this is america. we have a system of checks and balances and a highly structure legal system. there is no place for wannabe vigilantes.

As I said before they supreme court will make the final decision and the 11th circuit's verdict is not that important. They don't have the ability or desire to decide some of the issues moore raised...namely the one about state's rights and the issue about whether or not the Lemon test is still applicable to this case.

it's my understanding that the supreme court has already rejected the appeal. moore says he will try again, but in the case that they never accept it (which is quite possible), the 11th circuit court of appeals' verdit *is* important because that will be the final word.

 

[gopunk]

The reproductions of this event are going to be very great. It's not just about the Ten Commandments sitting in the court house.

did you mean "repercussions"? frankly, they aren't going to be very great if the existing rulings are upheld, because they are precisely consistent with previous rulings. only if they were overturned, would the repercussions be large.

Here's some food for thought: You can't have national morality apart from religious principle.

you say that like it's a fact... can you prove this? or is this one of those "say something often enough and people will start to believe it" things?

 

[gopunk]

Well the 11th circuit says you take congress and law in a broad sense and then other things in a strict sense. Read their actual opinion as it is quite silly how they shift their opinion just to fit their agenda.

i'm curious in hearing what you think "their agenda" is.

and FYI, it's not like the 11th circuit court of appeals is defining what to take in a broad sense and what not, if you read their actual opinion, they support all of this with ample judicial precedent.

On one hand they say that the state falls under their jurisdiction because the amendment is supposed to be interpreted broadly, and then they go on to criticize several rebuttals Moore had by saying he was being too broad of a jurist.
Right...

which rebuttals were these?

 

[KevinH]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
I am sick of Southern states disobeying the Federal courts, and generally screwing the constitution. We have had to send troops down there to get them to treat thier citizens equally (and not kill them) at least a half a dozen times in the last 50 years. That is unnacceptable. At least now it seems like the majority of them have realized that the law is the law, and that they do indeed have to abide by it.


Once a pack of traitors and malcontents, akways a pack of traitors and malcontents. I for one would gladly volunteer to do another Shermans march and really teach some of those people a lesson this time.

BAhahaha, classic.

 

[philmore47]

Originally posted by: gopunk

The reproductions of this event are going to be very great. It's not just about the Ten Commandments sitting in the court house.

did you mean "repercussions"? frankly, they aren't going to be very great if the existing rulings are upheld, because they are precisely consistent with previous rulings. only if they were overturned, would the repercussions be large.

Here's some food for thought: You can't have national morality apart from religious principle.

you say that like it's a fact... can you prove this? or is this one of those "say something often enough and people will start to believe it" things?

Well do you have some other source of morality you would like to share with the rest of humanity?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Well the 11th circuit says you take congress and law in a broad sense and then other things in a strict sense. Read their actual opinion as it is quite silly how they shift their opinion just to fit their agenda.

i'm curious in hearing what you think "their agenda" is.

and FYI, it's not like the 11th circuit court of appeals is defining what to take in a broad sense and what not, if you read their actual opinion, they support all of this with ample judicial precedent.

Man, 3 replies in a row but nothing in response to my comments about the dangers of the supreme court essentially writing new laws through legal precedent. This one even deals directly with that issue, but for some reason you ignored my comments. Must have gone over your head.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: philmore47

Originally posted by: gopunk

The reproductions of this event are going to be very great. It's not just about the Ten Commandments sitting in the court house.

did you mean "repercussions"? frankly, they aren't going to be very great if the existing rulings are upheld, because they are precisely consistent with previous rulings. only if they were overturned, would the repercussions be large.

Here's some food for thought: You can't have national morality apart from religious principle.

you say that like it's a fact... can you prove this? or is this one of those "say something often enough and people will start to believe it" things?

Well do you have some other source of morality you would like to share with the rest of humanity?

if i didn't, would that make you right? haha i think not. my inability to find an alternative source for morality does not say *anything* about whether or not such a source exists. logic 101.

i can not prove where morality comes from, and neither can you.

 

[hawkeye81x]

Go gopunk!

Morality is defined pretty much by societal beliefs which change with time.
It was of course once immoral for women to exercise any sort of independence but that has since changed.
To define morality in the strictest of rules would be impossible since individuals have varying principles and ideals and varying degrees of those as well.

This is not to say that I don't believe the Ten Commandments aren't good principles to live by.
But I believe it is a collective physical presence that must be removed to preserve seperation church and state.

And a question to the general group, do the courts still make people swear by the Bible?
If so, that needs to go too. I always believed that I might be in trouble if I ever had to take the stand because I would outright refuse to swear to "God."

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: gopunk

Well the 11th circuit says you take congress and law in a broad sense and then other things in a strict sense. Read their actual opinion as it is quite silly how they shift their opinion just to fit their agenda.

i'm curious in hearing what you think "their agenda" is.

and FYI, it's not like the 11th circuit court of appeals is defining what to take in a broad sense and what not, if you read their actual opinion, they support all of this with ample judicial precedent.

Man, 3 replies in a row but nothing in response to my comments about the dangers of the supreme court essentially writing new laws through legal precedent. This one even deals directly with that issue, but for some reason you ignored my comments. Must have gone over your head.

yea, see i have this thing called a "life", which means i have things to do other than engaging in a useless debate (yes, this is useless). writing on here is something i do when i have nothing else i care to do. i'm sorry you felt neglected, but i had to partake in a family activity, i do hope you can understand and forgive me

How exactly does that get interpeted to apply to the decorations in a state courthouse? No matter how they twist it, you can't get rid of words like "congress" and "law." But you're right - it is the Supreme Court's duty to interpret the constitution. What is unfortunate is that since the Great Depression, the Supreme Court has chosen to interpret it entirely differently from what it actually says. They're not supposed to do that. The Supreme Court was not set up to create NEW laws, but that's essentially what they've done for years. That's a really bad thing. Why? There are no real checks and balances on the Supreme Court. Sure, the president gets to appoint new justices - and the congress has to approve them - but that's only when they die or retire. Once they're in there, they're there for life, and their rulings are final. Because of that, I think they should stick to interpreting the constitution the way it is written. If we wanted the constitution to be changed, we could change it the way it was intended to be chagned - through amendments. I'd rather have important decisions made by 3/4 of the state legislatures and 2/3 of the congress than 5 out of 9 men and women who are above reproach. But that's just me.

i agree with you, the supreme court should not be making new laws. but i disagree with you when you say that's what they've been doing. they have not been doing that, they have interpreted laws. law can easily be interpreted to mean any sort of rule. as for "congress", i agree, the first amendment, as originally written clearly says "congress" and not "any government". and, this should make you happy, the supreme court interpreted it this way as well. but luckily, congress DID change it through an amendment, the fourteenth.

another thing you were wrong about, they are not necessarily in there for life... congress has the power to impeach judges and remove them. and their rulings are not final, they can be reversed by the court.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: gopunk

Well the 11th circuit says you take congress and law in a broad sense and then other things in a strict sense. Read their actual opinion as it is quite silly how they shift their opinion just to fit their agenda.

i'm curious in hearing what you think "their agenda" is.

and FYI, it's not like the 11th circuit court of appeals is defining what to take in a broad sense and what not, if you read their actual opinion, they support all of this with ample judicial precedent.

Man, 3 replies in a row but nothing in response to my comments about the dangers of the supreme court essentially writing new laws through legal precedent. This one even deals directly with that issue, but for some reason you ignored my comments. Must have gone over your head.

yea, see i have this thing called a "life", which means i have things to do other than engaging in a useless debate (yes, this is useless). writing on here is something i do when i have nothing else i care to do. i'm sorry you felt neglected, but i had to partake in a family activity, i do hope you can understand and forgive me

Sorry to inconvenience you, I thought your dozens of previous posts in this thread were an indication that you were interested in a debate.

And honestly... you have 31 posts per day, but you have no time?

How exactly does that get interpeted to apply to the decorations in a state courthouse? No matter how they twist it, you can't get rid of words like "congress" and "law." But you're right - it is the Supreme Court's duty to interpret the constitution. What is unfortunate is that since the Great Depression, the Supreme Court has chosen to interpret it entirely differently from what it actually says. They're not supposed to do that. The Supreme Court was not set up to create NEW laws, but that's essentially what they've done for years. That's a really bad thing. Why? There are no real checks and balances on the Supreme Court. Sure, the president gets to appoint new justices - and the congress has to approve them - but that's only when they die or retire. Once they're in there, they're there for life, and their rulings are final. Because of that, I think they should stick to interpreting the constitution the way it is written. If we wanted the constitution to be changed, we could change it the way it was intended to be chagned - through amendments. I'd rather have important decisions made by 3/4 of the state legislatures and 2/3 of the congress than 5 out of 9 men and women who are above reproach. But that's just me.

i agree with you, the supreme court should not be making new laws. but i disagree with you when you say that's what they've been doing. they have not been doing that, they have interpreted laws. law can easily be interpreted to mean any sort of rule. as for "congress", i agree, the first amendment, as originally written clearly says "congress" and not "any government". and, this should make you happy, the supreme court interpreted it this way as well. but luckily, congress DID change it through an amendment, the fourteenth.

another thing you were wrong about, they are not necessarily in there for life... congress has the power to impeach judges and remove them. and their rulings are not final, they can be reversed by the court.

By interpreting the constitution in any way other than literally, the supreme court essentially IS writing new law. Why should the supreme court change the constitution? Why not change it the way the constitution itself prescribed - through amendments. Your right, the 14th amendment does limit states' rights some (which is unfortunate, because this country was set up so that the federal government would have limited power). But the way the first amendment has been applied does exactly what it was intended to prevent - it restricts the free exercise of religion.

Yeah I know judges can be impeached - but no supreme court justice has ever been removed from office, and it'll never happen as a result of an "improper" ruling. So that's irrelevant, they're there for life. And you're right that supreme court rulings can be reversed - by the supreme court. Obviously that wouldn't happen until enough judges die or retire to change the vote. I felt it was safe to leave those two minor points out so that my post didn't seem rambling and incoherent.

 

[gopunk]

Sorry to inconvenience you, I thought your dozens of previous posts in this thread were an indication that you were interested in a debate.

And honestly... you have 31 posts per day, but you have no time?

i'm interested in a debate... when i have nothing better to do. don't roll your eyes at me when you're the one getting all b!tchy about your posts being neglected. get a dog if you need attention.

and ppd is calculated by taking the total number of posts and dividing by the number of days i have been a member. this means that i could be really bored and have nothing to do one day, sign up, post 100 times, then be really busy the next day and not be able to post at all and have 50 posts per day. sorry if my schedule isn't consistent enough for you

and to be honest, your post had a low priority compared to other posts because it was not relevant to what we were discussing. whether or not the federal court system has jurisidiction is one thing, whether or not they should, is another.

By interpreting the constitution in any way other than literally, the supreme court essentially IS writing new law. Why should the supreme court change the constitution? Why not change it the way the constitution itself prescribed - through amendments.

arguing about what way the constitution should be interpreted is like arguing about religion... lots of zealotry and nobody's mind gets changed. there are a lot of smart people that have spent a good deal of their lives arguing about this, and i don't think either of us can presume to be any more an expert on the matter than them. millenium was saying the federal courts do not have jurisdiction, and i said that they did. this is something that can be absolutely determined by looking at judicial precedence, the constitution, etc. i don't really wish to get into a discussion about constitutional interpretation because the answer to that can not be determined, it's purely a matter of opinion.

Your right, the 14th amendment does limit states' rights some (which is unfortunate, because this country was set up so that the federal government would have limited power). But the way the first amendment has been applied does exactly what it was intended to prevent - it restricts the free exercise of religion.

this would be an excellent example of why an interpretation other than a literal one might be useful... with a literal one, you're left with a catch 22. go one way, violate the first. go the other, also violate the first.

but i agree with you, with a literal interpretation, that is a violation of the first amendment... sort of like how the declaration of independance says that every man has the life, liberty, and happiness which finds a contradiction in a man who finds happiness in taking the lives of others.

Yeah I know judges can be impeached - but no supreme court justice has ever been removed from office, and it'll never happen as a result of an "improper" ruling. So that's irrelevant, they're there for life. And you're right that supreme court rulings can be reversed - by the supreme court. Obviously that wouldn't happen until enough judges die or retire to change the vote. I felt it was safe to leave those two minor points out so that my post didn't seem rambling and incoherent.

they're not minor at all... you have no evidence to show that the system of checks and balances is not working. you take the lack of a removal as a sign of failure, but others can just as easily take it as a sign of fair weather.

and supreme court rulings have been reversed in the past... i fail to see how this would be a minor point to your argument that their decisions are final.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: gopunk


i'm interested in a debate... when i have nothing better to do. don't roll your eyes at me when you're the one getting all b!tchy about your posts being neglected. get a dog if you need attention.

and ppd is calculated by taking the total number of posts and dividing by the number of days i have been a member. this means that i could be really bored and have nothing to do one day, sign up, post 100 times, then be really busy the next day and not be able to post at all and have 50 posts per day. sorry if my schedule isn't consistent enough for you

Wow, way to be an ass.

By interpreting the constitution in any way other than literally, the supreme court essentially IS writing new law. Why should the supreme court change the constitution? Why not change it the way the constitution itself prescribed - through amendments.

arguing about what way the constitution should be interpreted is like arguing about religion... lots of zealotry and nobody's mind gets changed. there are a lot of smart people that have spent a good deal of their lives arguing about this, and i don't think either of us can presume to be any more an expert on the matter than them. millenium was saying the federal courts do not have jurisdiction, and i said that they did. this is something that can be absolutely determined by looking at judicial precedence, the constitution, etc. i don't really wish to get into a discussion about constitutional interpretation because the answer to that can not be determined, it's purely a matter of opinion.

Can you point me to anything in the constitution that indicates it should be interpreted in any way other than literally? When congress passes new laws, do we interpret them in any way other than literally? Sure the constitution was written 200 years ago - but if it is outdated, it needs to be changed via the prescribed means.

this would be an excellent example of why an interpretation other than a literal one might be useful... with a literal one, you're left with a catch 22. go one way, violate the first. go the other, also violate the first.

Allowing the free practice of one religion is NOT the same as limiting other religions. I've heard snipets no the news lately about the Boy Scouts not being allowed to use public land out in California somewhere because they're a "religious organization." Give me a freaking break. That's what the first amendment is meant to protect AGAINST. If a Buddhist temple wants to have a picnic on public land, then darn it they should be allowed to, same as the Boy Scouts. This country is too politically correct for it's own good.

Yeah I know judges can be impeached - but no supreme court justice has ever been removed from office, and it'll never happen as a result of an "improper" ruling. So that's irrelevant, they're there for life. And you're right that supreme court rulings can be reversed - by the supreme court. Obviously that wouldn't happen until enough judges die or retire to change the vote. I felt it was safe to leave those two minor points out so that my post didn't seem rambling and incoherent.

they're not minor at all... you have no evidence to show that the system of checks and balances is not working. you take the lack of a removal as a sign of failure, but others can just as easily take it as a sign of fair weather.

My evidence is years of legal precedent that is in disagreement with the constitution. The lack of removal of judges has nothing to do with whether their decisions are right or wrong. A supreme court justice will never be removed from office because of a bad decision because essentially there is no such thing as a bad Supreme Court decision - they decide what is right and what is wrong. That's all well and good - it's great that they have life terms, it frees them from political pressure. The problem is that they've extended the bounds of what the Supreme Court is supposed to do.

and supreme court rulings have been reversed in the past... i fail to see how this would be a minor point to your argument that their decisions are final.

Well if you go back and read where I said that, you will see that it is in the context of the lack of checks and balances. Yeah I realize supreme court decisions can be overturned by the supreme court, but that has nothing to do with checks and balances. It is hardly "balance" when a decision can't be overturned until enough people die that the vote would change. A better argument would have been that supreme court decisions can be superceded by passing new amendments. Yeah, they can do that - and then the supreme court can interpret it however they please.

Do you even GET my point? Let me sum it up for you very simply - In light of the fact that the supreme court is essentially above reproach, the scope of their actions should be limited to what is prescribed by the constitution; they should not take it upon themselves to essentially write new law by interpreting the constitution in any way other than literally. They HAVE done that. That bothers me. It should bother everyone.

I'm thinking this argument is pointless, because I'm saying things shouldn't be the way they are, and you're apparantly content with the supreme court bastardizing the constitution.