U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down!

PostmodernProphet said:
If I recall that was liberal fauxrage.....
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the pentacle?

"...it was a matter of litigation and intense public pressure that got the pentacle approved. For nine years the VA ignored filed requests, “lost” applications, punted, and stalled. The Pagan community marshaled every interfaith ally it could, and was met by continual stonewalling. In that time, several other emblems were approved, while outright misinformation was given to Pagan applicants. It wasn’t until Roberta Stewart, widow of Sgt. Patrick Stewart, with the help of Americans United, took the government to court did things progress, and even then the VA tried to have the case dismissed, or delayed with the promise of policy changes. Ultimately, it wasn’t internal “debate” that won Wiccan veterans the pentacle, it was the discovery of damning evidence by Americans United.

“Lawyers familiar with the case said that some documents suggested the VA had political motives for rejecting the pentacle … During his first campaign for president, then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush told ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ in 1999 that he was opposed to Wiccan soldiers practicing their faith at Fort Hood, Tex. ‘I don’t think witchcraft is a religion, and I wish the military would take another look at this and decide against it,’ he said. Lynn, of Americans United, said references to Bush’s remarks appeared in memos and e-mails within the VA. ‘One of the saddest things is to learn that this wasn’t just a bureaucratic nightmare, there was a certain amount of bigotry,’ he said. ‘The president’s wishes were interpreted at a pretty high level. . . . It became a political judgment, not a constitutional judgment.’”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wildhu...lington-and-why-litigation-was-necessary.html
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
I will give you the cases. Everson vs BoE is a good start.

But, the debates show they intended to do more than prohibit congress from establishing a religion. If that's all they intended they would have stated it just that way.
Click to expand...

Why are you giving me a court case from 1947 to make your case for the intent of the establishment clause?

I will stick with only originalism since that is what was used in Everson. Originalism would be the original intent as discovered by what was the purpose, what they said they intended, etc. The court attempted to use the positive interpretative theory of original intent, but actually used a normative interpretative method. With the positive method, the goal is the original meaning regardless of whether it is desirable or not desirable; it would be an unbiased interpretative methodology.

The opposite is a normative method, which seeks an interpretation that is desirable to the interpreter, which was the method used in Everson.

The use of Jefferson's 1803 letter and the fact he had no influence on the Constitution or the Bill of Rights,and Madison's writing prior to the Constitution, and the negating affect his compromise with the anti-federalists and Ames makes the interpretation normative.
 
christiefan915 said:
TD I took you off ignore when I saw my name in your reply to someone.

You add absolutely zero to this forum. You're rude, insulting, bigoted and uninformed. Worst of all, you're B O R I N G. If we take all the nastiness out of every one of your posts, we're left with comments as flimsy and insubstantial as cotton candy. Maybe you think the "in your face" style of posting shows superiority but you're wrong. It just shows a paucity of intellect and a reliance on shock value.

You really are that tedious.
Click to expand...

Your selective outrage had been noted; but if you did that to your fellow libtards, and many of your own comments as well, you would be left with LESS than zero.

Now run back into that hole you crawled out of and spare me any more of your absurd hypocrisy dimwit.
 
Asa said:
Why are you giving me a court case from 1947 to make your case for the intent of the establishment clause?

I will stick with only originalism since that is what was used in Everson. Originalism would be the original intent as discovered by what was the purpose, what they said they intended, etc. The court attempted to use the positive interpretative theory of original intent, but actually used a normative interpretative method. With the positive method, the goal is the original meaning regardless of whether it is desirable or not desirable; it would be an unbiased interpretative methodology.

The opposite is a normative method, which seeks an interpretation that is desirable to the interpreter, which was the method used in Everson.

The use of Jefferson's 1803 letter and the fact he had no influence on the Constitution or the Bill of Rights,and Madison's writing prior to the Constitution, and the negating affect his compromise with the anti-federalists and Ames makes the interpretation normative.
Click to expand...

You asked what it means not what I think it meant.

But you have not established your case for what it meant. The clause "establishing a religion" was considered and rejected for the broader "respecting an establishment of religion."
 
Asa said:
Why are you giving me a court case from 1947 to make your case for the intent of the establishment clause?

I will stick with only originalism since that is what was used in Everson. Originalism would be the original intent as discovered by what was the purpose, what they said they intended, etc. The court attempted to use the positive interpretative theory of original intent, but actually used a normative interpretative method. With the positive method, the goal is the original meaning regardless of whether it is desirable or not desirable; it would be an unbiased interpretative methodology.

The opposite is a normative method, which seeks an interpretation that is desirable to the interpreter, which was the method used in Everson.

The use of Jefferson's 1803 letter and the fact he had no influence on the Constitution or the Bill of Rights,and Madison's writing prior to the Constitution, and the negating affect his compromise with the anti-federalists and Ames makes the interpretation normative.
Click to expand...
I guess you are unaware of Constitutional history and law, but since Marbury v. Madison the court gets to interpret the Constitution. Sometimes they get it wrong, like Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson and sometimes they get it right. If we looked at the Constitution in your narrow way, then no state would be bound to the 4th amendment. Cops could kick in your door take things and prosecute you. They could coerce confessions out of you. Keep you for hours and even days without food, water sleep or bathroom breaks. People who interpret the Constitution the way you do are the reason that schools were segregated for so long. Why black people couldn't vote unless they passed complex tests. People like you would allow states to regulate speech they just didn't like. Some states spent over a century denying people their basic rights because people like you had such narrow views of freedom and the belief that majoritarianism controls who gets what rights.
 
christiefan915 said:
Are you talking about the pentacle?

"...it was a matter of litigation and intense public pressure that got the pentacle approved. For nine years the VA ignored filed requests, “lost” applications, punted, and stalled. The Pagan community marshaled every interfaith ally it could, and was met by continual stonewalling. In that time, several other emblems were approved, while outright misinformation was given to Pagan applicants. It wasn’t until Roberta Stewart, widow of Sgt. Patrick Stewart, with the help of Americans United, took the government to court did things progress, and even then the VA tried to have the case dismissed, or delayed with the promise of policy changes. Ultimately, it wasn’t internal “debate” that won Wiccan veterans the pentacle, it was the discovery of damning evidence by Americans United.

“Lawyers familiar with the case said that some documents suggested the VA had political motives for rejecting the pentacle … During his first campaign for president, then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush told ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ in 1999 that he was opposed to Wiccan soldiers practicing their faith at Fort Hood, Tex. ‘I don’t think witchcraft is a religion, and I wish the military would take another look at this and decide against it,’ he said. Lynn, of Americans United, said references to Bush’s remarks appeared in memos and e-mails within the VA. ‘One of the saddest things is to learn that this wasn’t just a bureaucratic nightmare, there was a certain amount of bigotry,’ he said. ‘The president’s wishes were interpreted at a pretty high level. . . . It became a political judgment, not a constitutional judgment.’”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wildhu...lington-and-why-litigation-was-necessary.html
Click to expand...

I'm talking about "outrage"......I recall some liberals being bent out of shape because it hadn't happened yet.....I recall lots of liberal "outrage" over it not being approved.....I seem to have missed any "outrage" on the part of people who objected to it.....perhaps you can refresh my memory......were there demonstrations?......vandalism?......maybe even a law suit?......maybe a yawn, at least?......
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
You asked what it means not what I think it meant.

But you have not established your case for what it meant. The clause "establishing a religion" was considered and rejected for the broader "respecting an establishment of religion."
Click to expand...

What the intent of the establishment clause and a judicial activism ruling in 1947 are mutually exclusive.

Why do you just fabricate history?

Madison proposed the following establish clause to the House:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience in any manner or in any respect be infringed.
Now compare that to what we have in the Constitution.​

There were eight revisions to this clause that make it unrecognizable to the original:

The select committee changed it to this:

No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.
​

A third revision was submitted by Livermore:

Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience​
.


Ames submitted a version:

Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.​


The committee produced this from the versions:

Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.​


Then the Senate took their turn:

Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.​


Then changed it to:

Congress shall not make any law, infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any Religious Sect or Society​


Then this:

Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another, or prohibiting free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.​


Then we ended up with this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
​
 
Socrtease said:
I guess you are unaware of Constitutional history and law, but since Marbury v. Madison the court gets to interpret the Constitution. Sometimes they get it wrong, like Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson and sometimes they get it right. If we looked at the Constitution in your narrow way, then no state would be bound to the 4th amendment. Cops could kick in your door take things and prosecute you. They could coerce confessions out of you. Keep you for hours and even days without food, water sleep or bathroom breaks. People who interpret the Constitution the way you do are the reason that schools were segregated for so long. Why black people couldn't vote unless they passed complex tests. People like you would allow states to regulate speech they just didn't like. Some states spent over a century denying people their basic rights because people like you had such narrow views of freedom and the belief that majoritarianism controls who gets what rights.
Click to expand...

Judicial review started before Marbury.

Why was Dred Scott wrong? Don't get me wrong regarding slavery, but as a matter of law, the court was correct.
The separate but equal ruling in Plessy was the correct ruling also in the context of prior rulings and the intent of the 14th Amendment.

My view isn't narrow, you are getting your timeline wrong; the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, and the 14th Amendment did not apply it to the states. It was 20th century judicial activism that created the incorporation doctrine.

It is not my interpretation, that's how it is. Madison tried to slip into the Bill of Rights a clause that applied them to the states: it was soundly rejected, and the Constitution would not have been ratified if left in. Starting with Marshal, the court ruled the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states; paraphrasing Marshal, " if they had intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, they would have said so."

There is no narrow view, just the actual intent.
 
Threedee said:
Actually, Incorporation began just prior to the 20th Century (1897) with Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Co. v Chicago.
Click to expand...

I didn't take the Chicago ruling into account because the ruling stayed inside the very narrow confines of the intent of the 14th Amendment.
 
Asa said:
What the intent of the establishment clause and a judicial activism ruling in 1947 are mutually exclusive.

Why do you just fabricate history?

Madison proposed the following establish clause to the House:
The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience in any manner or in any respect be infringed.
Now compare that to what we have in the Constitution.​

There were eight revisions to this clause that make it unrecognizable to the original:

The select committee changed it to this:
No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.
​

A third revision was submitted by Livermore:
Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience​
.


Ames submitted a version:
Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.​


The committee produced this from the versions:
Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.​


Then the Senate took their turn:
Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.​


Then changed it to:
Congress shall not make any law, infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any Religious Sect or Society​


Then this:
Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another, or prohibiting free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.​


Then we ended up with this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
​
Click to expand...

I did not say they were mutually exclusive. I have fabricated nothing.

The records show that Madison said that he understood it to mean that Congress should not compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
so, what was mandatory......did they make you climb the hill and look at the cross?.......
Click to expand...

Who said anything about that?

USF said...
USFREEDOM911 said:
And you are absolutely correct.
It doesn't say the government can't support a religion, it just says it can't make a religion mandatory.
Click to expand...

I said...
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
It says the government can't support a religion.
Click to expand...

USF said...
USFREEDOM911 said:
Care to show me where the the word "support" is used.
Click to expand...

So I am turning his stupid and dishonest strawman back on him and asking him where it says "mandatory." Your response shows only that you are lazy, stupid and dishonest.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I'm talking about "outrage"......I recall some liberals being bent out of shape because it hadn't happened yet.....I recall lots of liberal "outrage" over it not being approved.....I seem to have missed any "outrage" on the part of people who objected to it.....perhaps you can refresh my memory......were there demonstrations?......vandalism?......maybe even a law suit?......maybe a yawn, at least?......
Click to expand...

Why did it take years to approve the symbol of a legitimate religious belief? If the cross and Star of David is permitted, why not the pentacle?

Seems to me the outrage started on the right long before liberals got involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top