|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
i'm not defending the clinton admin. i'm saying the bush admin shoulders some of the responsibility as well, there were warning signs they were aware of and action wasn't taken on those until after 9/11.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Our failure to counter 9/11 is MUCH broader than which political party was in office. Both Bush and Clinton made tactical and strategic errors in responding to a growing threat. This is undeniable.
it looks like we're saying the same thing. it's just that everytime this topic comes up the conservative mouthpieces of ceg only state one side of the story.
Originally posted by JaTo:
No one to this day has answered my question of why Hussein still refuses to discuss WMD with US interrogators. Why does he still remain silent on this?
probably because he doesn't want to incriminate himself. this doesn't go against any of what i've said before as far as iraq probably having wmds. that is far different from the bush ascertions that iraq was still producing wmds, linked to al qaeda, and an immediate threat to our homeland safety.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Again, I'm not through the entire 9/11 report as of yet, but I've read little that tosses the BULK of the concern and fallout on the Bush administration, as you so ignorantly suggest here.
show me where i place the BULK of the fall out of 9/11 on the bush admin because i'd really like to see this. all i've ever suggested is that the blame is to be distributed instead of constantly pushed back on the clinton admin. especially when the bush admin was briefed about terrorists planning operations in the US possibly using hi-jacked airplanes.
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678 |
Originally posted by BOFH:
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Originally posted by PackRat:
Originally posted by 99MystiqueATX:
What happened to separation of church and state??
It never existed as a law.
No, not unless you count the United States CONSTITUTION (specifically the 1st Amendment)as law - as well as dozens and dozens of judicial opinions (otherwise known as the "common law").
Ok, show me the phrase separation of church and state in the constitution or amendments.
I'll save you the trouble, you cannot.
You may quote the "establishment clause" however, that by no way precludes elected officials, nor those appointed or hired bureaucrats from espousing a religious belief or even making policy based on those beliefs.
There is not constitutional requirement for the seperation of religious thought from government activity, period.
TB
============================================================
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
If you would read the Constitution (and the famous case of Marbury v. Madison), you would know that the United States Supreme Court is given the final authority to interpret the Constitution. One of the primary means which the Supreme Court uses in interpreting the Constitution is to refer to the writings of our founding fathers.
According to Thomas Jefferson (you may have heard of him), the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to "erect a wall of separation between Church and State". If you are interested, check out the 1947 US Supreme Court case of Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1.
Depending on the circumstances, the First Amendment generally prohibits ANY govt action which endorses or promotes religion or a religion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127 |
I have read the constitution, so again, I ask my question, where in the constitution does the phrase "separation of church and state" appear? Now you are back pedaling and citing interpretations of the constitution by courts as well as quoting a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote. I didn't realize that private letters by presidents automatically became law. We should alert CNN and let President Bush know that asking congress to submit a bill is overkill, he needs only to write a letter. I understand the role of the Judiciary branch in determining if a law is constitutional, but they do NOT have the power to change the constitution, period. A subsequent court can re-interpret law and decide. In fact, the case you cite (Marbury v. Madison) is an example of the court addressing taking powers not explicitly enumerated. Specifically, they call into question the wisdom of the legislature allowing the supreme court to issue writs of mandamus and declared it null and void in light of the constitutional, specifically Article III. The majority opinion further stated that it has the role to interpret law in light of the consititution, and if I read correctly, they argue that the constitution is the ultimate law of the land, and all laws passed by normal means (I.E. not amendments to the constitution) are inferior to the constitution and subsequent amendments that are successfully ratified. Quote:
If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. [5 U.S. 137, 178] So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.
So the court establishes that it has the right to strike down laws that are unconstitutional, and do this by striking down the portion of a law that gives the court more power.
Ok, let's go look at a more recent case, as you cited, Everson v. Board of Education
A summary of the majority opinion in that case...
Quote:
Paying for the busing of parochial school students does not breach the Establishment Clause. Even though the assistance might make parents more likely to send their children to such schools, the authorization does not unduly assist the schools. The policy is general because it applies to public and private school students and does not single out those attending religious schools. The funding of busing is similar to the public payment of policemen and firemen who protect parochial school students.
and
Quote:
Using the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court applied the Establishment Clause to the states. However, it was not violated so long as money was not given directly to religious schools or gave them specific benefits.
I see nothing in this that prevents the president or any elected official from holding religious beliefs or promoting policy based on those beliefs. They simply cannot hand government cash to churches or other religious organizations.
But nothing I've read indicates that the separation of church and state you cite is consitution, but rather is a matter of precidence and may still need some interpretation as it is misunderstood by so many.
TB
"Seems like our society is more interested in turning each successive generation into cookie-cutter wankers than anything else." -- Jato 8/24/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,193
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,193 |
I think voting against a bill because it although it does some of what you want, it does not do enough is about the craziest reason I have ever heard. I do not consider it valid.
Take what you can get, then push for more...
Brad "Diva": 2004 Mazda 6s 5-door, Volcanic Red
Rex: 1988 Mazda RX-7 Vert, Harbor Blue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678 |
Originally posted by BOFH:
I have read the constitution, so again, I ask my question, where in the constitution does the phrase "separation of church and state" appear?
You may have read the Constitution but apparently still have no understanding as to what a constitiution is or how it works.
Originally posted by BOFH:
Now you are back pedaling and citing interpretations of the constitution by courts as well as quoting a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote.
I didn't realize that private letters by presidents automatically became law. We should alert CNN and let President Bush know that asking congress to submit a bill is overkill, he needs only to write a letter.
OK, I hope you're kidding here. Do you have any idea who Thomas Jefferson is or why he is even relevant to this topic? Didn't your high school require some sort of history course? I'll give you a hint. There is a very good reason why judges will cite to Jefferson's writings when dealing with Constitutional interpretation, but that they will never do so concerning modern presidents.
* * *
Originally posted by BOFH:
I see nothing in this that prevents the president or any elected official from holding religious beliefs or promoting policy based on those beliefs. They simply cannot hand government cash to churches or other religious organizations.
The Constitution does not prevent any elected official from holding religious beliefs. Any law that attempted to prevent any elected official from holding releigious beliefs would be struck down as being blatantly unconstitutional. Enacting or attempting to enact any law which had as its primary purpose the promotion of religion or religious policy would also be immediately struck down as a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
Last edited by 96RedSE5Sp; 07/31/04 11:42 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,899 |
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Originally posted by BOFH:
I have read the constitution, so again, I ask my question, where in the constitution does the phrase "separation of church and state" appear?
You may have read the Constitution but apparently still have no understanding as to what a constitiution is or how it works.
Nice dance around the question Mr. Bojangles.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127 |
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Originally posted by BOFH:
I have read the constitution, so again, I ask my question, where in the constitution does the phrase "separation of church and state" appear?
You may have read the Constitution but apparently still have no understanding as to what a constitiution is or how it works.
Originally posted by BOFH:
Now you are back pedaling and citing interpretations of the constitution by courts as well as quoting a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote.
I didn't realize that private letters by presidents automatically became law. We should alert CNN and let President Bush know that asking congress to submit a bill is overkill, he needs only to write a letter.
OK, I hope you're kidding here. Do you have any idea who Thomas Jefferson is or why he is even relevant to this topic? Didn't your high school require some sort of history course? I'll give you a hint. There is a very good reason why judges will cite to Jefferson's writings when dealing with Constitutional interpretation, but that they will never do so concerning modern presidents.
* * *
Originally posted by BOFH:
I see nothing in this that prevents the president or any elected official from holding religious beliefs or promoting policy based on those beliefs. They simply cannot hand government cash to churches or other religious organizations.
The Constitution does not prevent any elected official from holding religious beliefs. Any law that attempted to prevent any elected official from holding releigious beliefs would be struck down as being blatantly unconstitutional. Enacting or attempting to enact any law which had as its primary purpose the promotion of religion or religious policy would also be immediately struck down as a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
I dunno, I seemed to get A's in high school, A's in my courses at a top 25 university in the US, including a few history courses. I even got an A in the one law course I've taken.
So I have a pretty good grasp of who Thomas Jefferson was and how the constitution works.
I also understand an ad hominem attack, so would you like to answer my questions or continue your feeble assault on my character because answering my question does not further your arguement?
(I briefly considered asserting that it is too difficult a question for you, but then that would also be an ad hominem attack. For those unfamiliar with such a debate strategy, see here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html )
It is clear from the post that none of my points were addressed, instead we see this great comeback:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 96RedSE5Sp
[qb]You may have read the Constitution but apparently still have no understanding as to what a constitiution is or how it works.[/qb]
There is nothing in that statement that addresses my argument, he simply makes an unsubstantiated claim that I do not understand the constitution, or how law is crafted in the United States. Yet again, provides no concrete example. We may disagree about things, but in no way does a disgreement about policy merit calling into question what the other person knows or doesn't know.
In my writings, I'm asking him to back up his assertion, to demonstrate that seperation of church and state is part of the constituion, the foundation document for our nations laws.
I further submit that Thomas Jefferson submitted a bill in Virginia in 1779 regarding religious freedom that was finally passed in 1786. I'll submit the text here:
Quote:
The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free;
that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do;
that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time;
that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;
that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind;
that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry;
that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right;
that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it;
that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;
that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;
that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;
and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
Seems to me that Jefferson simply wanted freedom for men of any faith, including faith that there was NO higher power to have the same rights to live, work and even serve in official capacities. In other words, religion or lack of religion could not be used to judge the merits of a man (or woman) for any position.
So, even if you argue that Jefferson wanted a separation of church and state, it is difficult to argue that what he wanted and what the phrase separation of church and state means is a government free from those who hold and act upon their religious beliefs.
It seems clear to me that what he wanted was a government that would not discriminate based on religious belief.
Ironically, it seems many who cite Jefferson's call for separation of church and state are practicing the type of discrimination Jefferson was trying to prevent.
So 96RedSE5Sp Asserts:
Quote:
Originally asserted by 96RedSE5Sp:
[qb]
OK, I hope you're kidding here. Do you have any idea who Thomas Jefferson is or why he is even relevant to this topic? Didn't your high school require some sort of history course? I'll give you a hint. There is a very good reason why judges will cite to Jefferson's writings when dealing with Constitutional interpretation, but that they will never do so concerning modern presidents.
[/qb]
I think I've demonstrated more than a passing knowledge of Thomas Jefferson, and have even provided examples of his writings to back up my points.
So I will simply wait to see if 96RedSE5Sp can provide a cogent argument, or will simply continue to attack me and try to paint a false picture of my intellect.
So I'm simply asking you to back up your post regarding the question posted earlier in the thread, "W, and I'll quote it here for you.
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Originally posted by PackRat:
Originally posted by 99MystiqueATX:
What happened to separation of church and state??
It never existed as a law.
No, not unless you count the United States CONSTITUTION (specifically the 1st Amendment)as law - as well as dozens and dozens of judicial opinions (otherwise known as the "common law").
So you brought up the Constitution, and I asked the legitimate question where does this phrase exist in the constitution or the amendments to the constitution.
Answer the question, please.
TB
"Seems like our society is more interested in turning each successive generation into cookie-cutter wankers than anything else." -- Jato 8/24/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,149
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,149 |
maybe it should be 96YellowSE5sp?
-- 1999 SVT #220 --
In retrospect, it was all downhill from here. RIP, CEG.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by bigMoneyRacing:
maybe it should be 96YellowSE5sp?
Own3d.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by Dick Morris:
The fact is, that the reason we have not been attacked in the United States is that the terrorists are fleeing from cave to cave in Afghanistan and from building to building in Iraq
Sweet, I guess we can do away with the terrorist threat warning system! Someone tell Ridge his new warnings aren't needed.
In all seriousness, the attitude exemplified in Morris' comment is dangerous. Do people really think there aren't terrorists waiting here in the US for instructions?
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
