Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did congress make a law? (Establishment Clause)
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 61 of 103 (195476)
03-30-2005 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by gnojek
03-30-2005 12:43 PM


no, you're wrong. the 14th ammendment has been interpretted to mean that no right quarranteed by the federal government can be denied by the state government. thus, freedom from the government establishing a religion, is thus incorporated (or applied to) the states. the states cannot break the federal constitution. therefore, they cannot establish a religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by gnojek, posted 03-30-2005 12:43 PM gnojek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by gnojek, posted 04-01-2005 6:48 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 62 of 103 (195499)
03-30-2005 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by gnojek
03-30-2005 12:43 PM


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.
Why? That's an interpretation of judicial powers that's neither supported by the constitution nor has enjoyed any serious support since the 1800's.
I mean, what's the point in having an enormous judiciary just to read words on paper? I mean, if I want to see what the Constitution says by itself, I can download it in seconds. What's the purpose of the judiciary if not to fill their constitutional role to interpret the law in the context of history?
AbE: Did you ever play the card game Magic: The Gathering? It's like training camp for lawyers. And not just because you have to be rich to win at it. Maybe later I can pose an example of how restricting yourself to the letter of the rules in front of you, and failing to consider the larger context, hamstrings you.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-30-2005 03:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by gnojek, posted 03-30-2005 12:43 PM gnojek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by gnojek, posted 04-01-2005 6:57 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 103 (196109)
04-01-2005 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by mick
03-17-2005 7:00 PM


Re: strange question...
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by mick, posted 03-17-2005 7:00 PM mick has not replied

  
gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 103 (196113)
04-01-2005 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by macaroniandcheese
03-30-2005 2:48 PM


brennakimi writes:
no, you're wrong. the 14th ammendment has been interpretted to mean that no right quarranteed by the federal government can be denied by the state government. thus, freedom from the government establishing a religion, is thus incorporated (or applied to) the states. the states cannot break the federal constitution. therefore, they cannot establish a religion.
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 Constitution
The 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 law
are 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-30-2005 2:48 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2005 6:53 PM gnojek has replied
 Message 67 by Brad McFall, posted 04-01-2005 7:07 PM gnojek has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 65 of 103 (196116)
04-01-2005 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by gnojek
04-01-2005 6:48 PM


Actually the supreme court ruling is unconstitutional by the fact that it violates the 10th ammendment.
Supreme Court rulings cannot be unconstitutional as they are not laws.
Ok, in a case of a state establishing a religion NO RIGHT guaranteed by the constitution has been violated.
Yes, it has. The right to equal protection under the law, as outlined in the 14th amendment.
again, nothing in the consituion prohibits a state from establishing a religion as long as congress doesn't make a law
Yes, it does - the equal protection under the law as laid out in the 14th amendment.
I don't know why you can't see that the 1st ammendment is not violated by a state establishing a religion.
Technically, it's not. But the 14th amendment is violated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by gnojek, posted 04-01-2005 6:48 PM gnojek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by gnojek, posted 04-01-2005 7:21 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 69 by gnojek, posted 04-01-2005 7:26 PM crashfrog has replied

  
gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 103 (196118)
04-01-2005 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by crashfrog
03-30-2005 3:45 PM


crashfrog writes:
I mean, what's the point in having an enormous judiciary just to read words on paper?
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.
crashfrog writes:
Why? That's an interpretation of judicial powers that's neither supported by the constitution nor has enjoyed any serious support since the 1800's.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 03-30-2005 3:45 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 67 of 103 (196122)
04-01-2005 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by gnojek
04-01-2005 6:48 PM


I think people are generally missing your point because we get this all high and national minded critical attitude by watching CSPAN etc and think we can speak of "the nation" when we are really speaking as residents of different states.
I had read
quote:
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 law
slightly differently in that it might be the judiciary as well as congress that must be excluded in "making a law" ( as to whatever not being prohibited to the states. I had wondered if EARLY STATE Briefs to the US Supreme Court might have lead to a case history wherein justices did not rule for "people" (of particular states) but had to historicize the particular states that petitioned the court.) Thus Massachusetts went a lot etc. So for your point to be driven home PEOPLE would have to petition the courts from individual states and win sans prior claims of STATES on what it can have had judicially prohibited. The schivo case just shows that we have the national feeling OVER what the law actually is(and at that coming from Pres/Executive Branch). Thus issues that seem to be IN THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE are not structured properly in law (again Schivo etc)and with Judges' not longer simply interpreting the words today as you have done ,it looks like we will not get here, short of major biowarfare changing things radically from religion rather than secular perturbations of infinity as the international pressure is against the traditions of Nature's God amazingly so very strongly sad to say today.
So... when some one points to the 1st or 14th ammendement the posters are placing their "legal theory" on sustaining particular cases out of those ammendements rather than this one you cited and I would have also.
This failure to appreciate your point seems to be a consequence of technology and not particular materialist philosophies. I have never studied how technology affects case law. So it seems to me.
It does indeed seem that what might be reserved is indeed being inhibited. It certainly was not being reserved that I must be ill. I am not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by gnojek, posted 04-01-2005 6:48 PM gnojek has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-01-2005 10:49 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 103 (196130)
04-01-2005 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by crashfrog
04-01-2005 6:53 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2005 6:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2005 7:35 PM gnojek has replied

  
gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 103 (196132)
04-01-2005 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by crashfrog
04-01-2005 6:53 PM


Supreme Court rulings cannot be unconstitutional as they are not laws.
Ugh, you know what I mean.
Unless you mean that judges have the ultimate power and that nothing they rule is within reproach.
es, it has. The right to equal protection under the law, as outlined in the 14th amendment.
The right to equal protection was NOT violated.
There is no law protecting anyone from a state imposing religion on them.
Yes, it does - the equal protection under the law as laid out in the 14th amendment.
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's not. But the 14th amendment is violated.
Technically it only violates the 14th if it violates the 1st, so technically it didn't violate the 14th.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2005 6:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2005 7:40 PM gnojek has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 70 of 103 (196134)
04-01-2005 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by gnojek
04-01-2005 7:21 PM


First of all the Establishment clause does NOT say "enactment of any law."
"Congress shall make no law..." What did you think that means?
It says everyone is protected equally under the federal US law.
Right. Which means that the states can't make a law that Congress wouldn't be able to make.
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.
Right. And the 14th amendment means that the first amendment applies to the state governments, as well, or else people aren't equally protected under the law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by gnojek, posted 04-01-2005 7:21 PM gnojek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by gnojek, posted 04-07-2005 4:21 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 71 of 103 (196136)
04-01-2005 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by gnojek
04-01-2005 7:26 PM


The right to equal protection was NOT violated.
There is no law protecting anyone from a state imposing religion on them.
Yes, there is. The first and 14th amendments.
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.
That's obviously not what "equal protection under the law" means. It means that the state governments can't make any laws that would infringe on rights granted to people by the US Constitution.
Technically it only violates the 14th if it violates the 1st, so technically it didn't violate the 14th.
Oh, "technically", eh? And this stems from your extensive training and practice as a lawyer and constitutional scholar?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by gnojek, posted 04-01-2005 7:26 PM gnojek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by gnojek, posted 04-07-2005 4:28 PM crashfrog has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 72 of 103 (196147)
04-01-2005 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Brad McFall
04-01-2005 7:07 PM


i appreciate his point, however. the united states ceased to be such and became a federal state somewhere around world war 2. so while his point is valid under a union it is not under federalism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Brad McFall, posted 04-01-2005 7:07 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Brad McFall, posted 04-02-2005 7:28 AM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 78 by gnojek, posted 04-07-2005 4:43 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 73 of 103 (196190)
04-02-2005 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by macaroniandcheese
04-01-2005 10:49 PM


I guess that makes sense as I am basing my idea on the reading of powers of the US on what I learned from Grandfather (before WW2). It seems that we might need some better feds to seperate triple powers(legislative,executive,judicial) from personal combinations of them OR powers in a non-political sense altogether. States wouldnt like that reserved too much I guess. I recall Conneticut getting pissed or therabouts about something about 800numbers and interstate commerce. When Bill Clinton gave last years' Cornell commencement speech, he was arguing for a more perfect "Union". I could only guess that is how he justified his move to NY. Such hopes are inscribed on the side of a building in ALBANY.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-02-2005 07:48 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-01-2005 10:49 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-02-2005 12:53 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 74 of 103 (196222)
04-02-2005 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Brad McFall
04-02-2005 7:28 AM


well. the perfect union thing is in the constitution.
we the people of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america.
(mostly from memory hehe. i just forget the order.)
but the idea then was that the states reigned supreme and the federal government was only around to, you know, do the above, not to rule the people. obviously, the state is very different now. the switch happened in 1922 (ok first world war) with Meyer v Nebraska when the court struck down a law forbidding the teaching of foreign languages in schools. gee. this seems like pretty solid precedence. in other words. governments cannot withold our children in the search for knowledge be it of language or science. now maybe evolution is just a theory, but so are a ton of huge math problems that we know have to be true but we haven't yet solved. but yes. now you know. gee whiz it's good to open up my conlaw books This message has been edited by brennakimi, 04-02-2005 12:54 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Brad McFall, posted 04-02-2005 7:28 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Brad McFall, posted 04-02-2005 1:55 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 75 of 103 (196229)
04-02-2005 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by macaroniandcheese
04-02-2005 12:53 PM


ok ok,
Still even if the difference goes back further in fact, the fact remains that I was prosecuted BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA because on a winter break with my NJ Drivers' Liscence expiring(I never lived in Florida (at that time)) (I was going to renew it in NY where I now(then) lived)my parents offered TO DRIVE me to the Motor Vehicle Office (I could have taken the bus) so I decided to reup sooner and more conviently than later from my Dorm Room.
The state of Florida's only jurisdiction OVER ME AGAINST MY WILL was the fact that I HAD a Florida Drivers' Liscence but had in fact never lived in the state (only visiting the state twice before for less than two weeks each) So...either the STATE OF FLORIDA still "reigned supreme" and the federal goverment via giving me free $ thru SSI relieved this false supremity which you assert went by the books now in WW1 not WW2 or else "the government" ( in granting Lisences that work in multiple states and I have not needed to get a Drivers' liscence since) attempted to withold the search for knowledge IN A STUDENT (every student has parents - we cant divorcethem but not every student has to go to a mental hospital because they are capable of taking classes under large pressures (well known for causing suicide at Cornell))as Cornell on the basis of ONE DAY the State of Florida had in the sun, said that this choice, I BSM made, of where I got my Drivers' Liscence prevented me from finishing my degree, as it was, because I was locked up in another state when the school had a meeting on my education to which I was to have attended if not held by the government of the other state. The only knowledge I did not have then was the difference of classical and quantum physics as it applies to biology. But geezs I was just a college student then.
It seems to me that NEITHER the states nor the federal government can mess up a person's power to chose which of two states' drivers lisences are applied to/for, as the student does not have a "permanent" residence as of yet. I clearly no longer lived in New Jersey but it was my parents not me who "moved". I was off at school. And the relevance is that my understanding of these quirky ideas on biological change I present here on EVC were "prima facie" evidence that I was ill. I was only ill in the sense that people couldnt understand what I said. We can all drive cars despite the facts that someone might be lipsinking to a heavy metal song while another is trying to brain out one of those math problems you mentioned, but this difference does not effect whether we both know when to stop (when there is red light). The state did not. That is in the power of the people not reserved to the states by law as far as I know/think and was still happening in the 80s no matter when the union went "out" of fashion as you think on second thought.
The point is is that neither the State of Florida nor Cornell University had any idea if I was "speaking a foreign language of a future science of evolution" or was expressing delusional thoughts and yet there clearly was not "equal protection" as Crashfrog wants to insist on. Cornell got away with an arbitrary and capricous action while the State of Florida permanently destroyed my personal relations (and even CAUSED some new ones for me).
In academic fact, Cornell had already approved of the general outline(for instance one- it was already approved to investigate the possible relation of Kant's proof of God by the difference of left and right and the origin of bilateral symmetry, and for two- it was approved to try to relate quantum electrodynamics to melanin distributions somatically through an adjudication of the Goethe-Newton subjective difference on color perception, three-it was approved to develop an incidence geometry of snake traits in the family Xenodontidae, four-it was approved to investigate Croizat's panbiogeography), so there is little basis beyond the financial gains of a Jewish doctor in Florida that the law protected unequally(because my proposal was so strong I was even being considered in recommendations to get a scholarship to Oxford for graduate work- I would not have gone because of how I saw developemental biology being done there). Distributive Justice in Aristotle's sense did not exist then but this was not WW1 or WW2. So despite any changes in the Federal Government these had not affected my life especially as if they had I would at least have been able to convince reasonable people in NY (Florida was not reasonable) of the falsity of that cultural event but alass once I tried to seperate the State of NY at Cornell from the PRIVATE SCHOOL in my case even they called in the police (not the doctors)(I just wanted to know in what offices my files were being saved at but apparently because the State of Florida illegally made a law suit I would have to make a spurious law suit just to get information on what happened because of criminal or illegal activity made in my name)( that doesnt form a more perfect union, necessarily establish justice, nor insure domestic tranquility at all). Apparently the economic relations of Darwinism to the economics of interstate commerce could not be differentiated by the state while they could be by the school. This is obviously not why the feds gave me dough though. There were also faked records by doctors in addition. So I cant say for certain what "government" is to blame. That would be up to the courts.
All I CAN say, is that I talked MORE about evolution in high school(and I obviously had understood far less at that time) and this problem NEVER came up, neither in school with other students, nor with teachers, nor in public where I talked on it, nor in 4-H where it was objective to a club I started. Seems like my imagination grew faster than the rest of us were ready to realize. In fact I would guess that the Federal Government role of supporting science post Sputnick was responsbile for me haveing as much success in high school as I did.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-02-2005 02:09 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-02-2005 12:53 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024