Did congress make a law? (Establishment Clause)

You guys are quick on the draw.O well... Well, it doesn't really violate the 14th simply because it doesn't violate the 1st. But anyway, nothing says that a school has to divide up it's classes into distinct subjects, and in elementary school it's not, so what if the creation story were just taught in "class." It's not "science class" or "biology", just class. Is it still a disservice? If your opinion is Yes, then I can find ten more people who would say No, and also say that teaching evolution is a disservice, so that one is just a matter of subjective opinion. Ok, thanks for re-stating the topic of the debate.
Yes, courts read things into the law that are not there.
Thank who? Was he? I guess so, if that's you're opinion.
Yes, Jackson was the worst, so what should we do to end this discrimination against native americans? Oh, I forgot, it's not discrimination to teach that these presidents were so great and to forget all about their humanitarian crimes. Yes, let's keep the old lies. Or are they lies? Are they just inaccuracies? Is a preacher lying to you when he says "Jesus loves you" or is he sincere and perhaps inaccurate? I would think that a teacher teaching creationism that was sincere about it wouldn't be lying to her students. She would just be, in my opinion, wrong.

It evolves through ammendments.
Maybe we need an ammendment to thoroughly forbid mixing of church and state, since there is no such thing as of now.Judges' interpreatations of the law can always evolve, but these interpretations really should stick to the letter and not embellish the law so much that it doesn't mean what it says anymore.I think this is the case with the establishment clause. I never said science was a religion or that creationism should be taught as science.The whole point of this thread is to show that establishment by a state does not violate the establishment clause in the 1st ammendment and that any judge who rules against a state's establishment is not follwing the letter of the law.

Well, that may be the case, but the rulings have all cited the 'clear viloation of the establishment clause' as the reason for banning teaching of creationism. O, I don't know. I barely remember elementary school. I just remember there is one class you sit in with one teacher. That one teacher divides the day up into subjects, but it's not a separate class. There was no definitive line between one subject and another. I was just saying that a teacher in this format could go from teaching about reading a book one minute and be teaching about dinosaurs (the subject of the book) in the next and then tie that into creationism without 'teaching religion in science class.' Ok, there's no law to say that one opinion must be taught over another opinion, no matter how much of the public shares that opinion. We like to think of things being taught in classrooms as facts, but they are usually facts spun around a particular perspective or opinion. You could say that the 1st ammendment is the law that forbids it, but that's the whole point of this thread. The 1st ammendment does not prohibit a state from establishing religion or teaching creationism in public schools. Well, since I was using it as an illustration of different perspectives leading to different lesson plans, it seemed to be on topic, but whatever. {shrug}

I find it amusing that you are an anarchist!Rick quotes:"I hope you're satisfied, Thatcher!"
"Just because you've done loads and loads of work just like a girl and just because I'm so hard and street and cool that I've done absolutely bugger all..."
"Oh, shut up, Neil! Shut up! Shut up. It's pathetic. I mean, what about radical magazines? What about Kicker boots?! Can we grow them? No, we can't, can we?! They beauty of your plan, Neil, seems to rest on everyone being really into seeds."

Ok, in a case of a state establishing a religion NO RIGHT guaranteed by the constitution has been violated. Congress didn't make a law so the first ammendment does not forbid it. The wording says "congress" and for a purpose.Actually the supreme court ruling is unconstitutional by the fact that it violates the 10th ammendment.

quote:

---

Amendment X

​

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

---

Let's break it down:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the ConstitutionThe power of a judge to prohibit a state establishing a religion is not delegated to the US.nor prohibited by it to the states,
again, nothing in the consituion prohibits a state from establishing a religion as long as congress doesn't make a laware reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The power for a state to establish a religion without any input of congress, since it is not expressly forbidden anywhere in the consitution, is reserved to the states.I don't know why any of you can't see how plainly the 1st ammendment is written. I don't know why you can't see that the 1st ammendment is not violated by a state establishing a religion.

Because that's their JOB.
A judge's job is to enforce the law as he interprets it, but he can't interpret it so wildly that his interpretation no longer reflect the "words on paper." The "words on paper" were put there by the people whose job it is to write those words.There is an appeals process that makes sure that a judge doesn't do this. But, if every judge in the country is in concensus or if the Supreme Court rules that the interpretation is valid then there's not much anyone can do about it, but that doesn't at all mean the law was interpretaed accurately or fairly. So you are saying that no matter what the law says, a judge can make it say whatever he feels like making it say? That may be happeneing more and more lately, but it is not the job of a judge to re-write the law, only to interpret it and enforce it.

Edwards v. Aguillard

quote:

---

The Establishment Clause forbids the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion" (4).

---

First of all the Establishment clause does NOT say "enactment of any law." Show me where it says that. The judge just re-wrote the law.It then refers to a precedent from 1940:
CANTWELL et al. v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

quote:

---

2. The enactment by a State of any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof is forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 303.

---

WRONG. It doesn't even say anything about religion. It says everyone is protected equally under the federal US law. The US law in question here, the 1st ammendment, says nothing about a state law, it doesn't say that everyone has a right to his own religion AT ALL, it only talks about what congress can do with regard to religion, speech, and the press.Judges are re-writing the constitution to say things that it doesn't say.

Ugh, you know what I mean.
Unless you mean that judges have the ultimate power and that nothing they rule is within reproach. The right to equal protection was NOT violated.
There is no law protecting anyone from a state imposing religion on them. if a state starts a religion and forces all its citizens to follow it, they still have equal protection under the law because it was none of congress's doing. Technically it only violates the 14th if it violates the 1st, so technically it didn't violate the 14th.

Hehe, I think it means exactly what it says.
It doesn't say "no state legislature shall make a law" or
"no metro council will enact an ordinance"
it says "CONGRESS!" very specifically and for a reason! Then let's abolish all state legislatures. Obviously there is no need for them. The 1st ammendment does apply to state legislatures.
It says "Congress shall make no law" and the state legislatures abide by those words. They make laws without congress all the time.

No and no. Then please show me the right granted in the consitution that says you have freedom of religion. Nope, not there. All it says is what congress can do with regard to religion. That's all. The constitution DOES NOT provide "freedom of religion", despite the phrase being part of our upbringing. I think it was part of the judges upbringing too and that's why they read the words through their mental filter. I can read, and apparently better than these judges.
I said I wasn't even close to a lawyer (and I suppose you are :rolleyes but the document says what it says in no uncertain terms. It is QUITE PLAINLY STATED what congress can't do with regard to religion. It is not stated at all what a state legislature can do with it. The only way it says anything with regard to a state legislature and religion is if you reword the first ammendment to make it say something that it doesn't.

Again, another apeal for the abolishment of states!

No American is explicitly granted the privileges or immunities of freedom of religion, speech, or press by the US constitution. The US consitution only restricts what Congress can do wrt to these "rights." It does not grant citizens immunity or priveledge wrt to these rights.The concept that Americans are granted the rights to "free speech" or "freedom of religion" by the constitution is a deeply entrenched misconception that everyone in this country has grown up with.When someone says "That violates my 1st ammendment right to free speech" they are misguided. There is no such right granted.If you have that right granted in your state consitution, then you should say "That violates my random article or ammendment rights to free speech," but reference to the US constitution is unwarranted. No state did. The La. law was not in conflict with the 1st ammendment. Where did you get that?They may not be able to determine ALL the rights and responsibilities. They can't make a law saying that all their citizens don't have to pay federal income taxes.But, state laws (any laws really) are precisely there to dictate the rights and responsibilities of citizens. And as "The Fist Ammendment" puts it. So to you, this is why there are states? To fix the roads?
O-K! Then with separation, his brother could do the same by EO? Is that what you are saying? I don't know what powers are granted to each governor wrt what they can do with an EO. Maybe roads are in there or not, but this has got jack to do with the first ammendment. It's not MY idea. It's anyone's idea who agrees with these supreme court rulings. The court can just go ahead and make up whatever it wants as long as it's pretty close to what the wording says.Ok, I'll just go ahead and break it down.There are 2 main ways judges have interpreted the constitution.
There are originalists who believe, as I, that judges do not make the law. When legislators make the law, they spend a long time working on the wording, especially in the drafting of a constitution. If the people want the law changed, they do it through legislation, not through litigation.Then there is the living consitution crowd who believe that laws should be interpreted as the times change, as society changes. They believe that the law should be loosely interpreted to fit the current social climate, as if there was one opinion held by the people at any given time. The wording of the law isn't so important to them as much as the "spirit" of the law, as they see it.I just happen to agree with the originalist perspective. It only makes sense to have a separation of powers. One body makes the law, the other enforces it fairly as it is written. The enforcement branch should not interpret the law so loosley that it no longer fits its original wording. This is the case with these supreme court rulings.

The stipulation of "congress" was to make room for states' rights.
We no longer recognize states' rights apparently. Then they should have had another ammendment to change the wording of the 1st ammendment. Without this the ammendment cannot apply to state legislatures. See, you're doing it to.
You are reading what you want to read when your eyes pass over the words "Congresss shall make no law." Then we need an ammendment to the US consitution explicitly protecting these rights you speak of. Or at least a federal law. Until then, these rights are not protected, except through judicial proxy.Hey, I'm the one arguing FOR states' rights. You guys want to abolish them and have the supreme court legislate from the bench. You have yet to show me where this "civil right" is codified.
You don't have that right. You've just been "lucky" so far.
We've all lucked out with this living consitution stuff.
But, what if the zeitgeist changed? What if 30 years from now, the society has the opinion that a state should establish a religion. Too bad the law doesn't explicitly protect us from that happening.

If you had that right then why didn't they chose the wording "The rights of the people for free speech, press, and religion shall not be restricted." and leave it at that? What is the need to mention congress at all?Look at some of the others in the Bill of Rights:
Example:

quote:

---

Amendment IV

​

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

---

It explicitly says that the people have these rights. It doesn't specify anything about congress or any law-making body. It just says that the people have these rights and these rights are not to be violated. Now do you see that your "right" to free speech or religion is NOT mentioned in the constitution.What IS mentioned is what congress can do wrt to speech and religion.
That's it.

What great choice in wording.If only it were true.It is the supreme law of the land, but that in no way implies that restrictions on congress should be applied to the states.This message has been edited by gnojek, 04-15-2005 01:58 PM