Bitter Irony
-
Brandon Haase wrote: the US Justice system is more concerned with legal precedent Isn't that one of the ways that laws and their interpretation evolve?
I think the laws should evolve, not the interpretation of them. Considering the legislative branch seems to be paralyzed when it comes to many issues, it's no surprise the way things have turned out... oh well... hindsight is 20/20. Although, I would say it is probably a good thing the process is slow. Take a look at the laws that have passed relatively quickly in recent days... DMCA, PATRIOT, etc. Which do you think is more important, the letter of the law or one judge's (or panel of judges) interpretation of it?
-
The really amusing part is that for a couple of seconds, I thought you were talking favourably about Michael Moore[^]. Yawn. It's a tablet with some words on it. Who cares? If the guy is that wild about Christianity, he should have become a minister. I guess he's got some time on his hands now. Always a silver lining. Eco
he's probably gonna run for governor. and he'll probably win. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Taka Muraoka wrote: Taken to extremes, you would have each state an entity unto itself and passport controls on every border While I can understand the distrust that states may have had in the past of an all-powerful, far-away, centralized government, don't you, at some point, have to say "well, we're part of one country, the United States of America." But the constitution legitimately covers those extremes. The constitution has been appropriately amended to cover such contingencies. (I have no problem with amending the constitution as a means of evolving our political system.) Does Utah have the right to become a theocracy? Well, yeah. But so does the federal government and it would be much easier to deal with Utah as a theocracy than with the federal government. Centralized political power, as the founders recognized, is a dangerous thing. They fought a revolution to free themselves (and me) from it. The irony is that we are going to become exactly what the lefties fear most, precisely because of the power they have allowed to accrue in the hands of an elite judiciary in a foolish attempt to protect their own secular agenda.
Hmmm.... Something to ponder over (instead of working :rolleyes: ) Thanks :-)
"Sucks less" isn't progress - Kent Beck [^] Awasu 1.1.3 [^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
-
LunaticFringe wrote: I don't see it that way Yeah, I know. LunaticFringe wrote: and jurists in this country haven't seen it that way either Hence the problem. LunaticFringe wrote: The separation of church and state is a basic principle of the law of the land. A mechanism for invalidating the letter of the constitution itself in order to promote their own (and your's I imagine) religious agenda. LunaticFringe wrote: I don't see how you can possibly state that Moore's attempt to dominate the Alabama Court with his own personal religion is anything but an arrogant attempt to overturn what has been proven, time and again, to be an appropriate removal of religion from the realm of government. The constitution of the state of Alabama, which Moore swore an oath to, requires recognition of religion. Just as the state of Virginia's did when Thomas Jefferson swore his oath upon becoming governor. Jefferson didn't seem to have a problem with it. LunaticFringe wrote: I believe one of the founders stated that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of individuals from an 'arrogant majority'. I would suggest that Moore's tantrum was precisely the sort of thing this statement had in mind. The Bill or Rights was never intended to protect individual liberties but to stipulate the relationship between the states and the newly formed federal government. The founder's were far more concerned about abuse of power on the part of the federal government than they were about the states the were from. The saw the states as having a much greater vested interest in protecting the rights of their citizens than the federal government did. Is your argument supported by many years of legal precedent? Yes it is. I do not deny that. But precendent or no, the greatest threats to our civil liberties is coming from the federal judiciary which no longer has any constintutional restrictions of any kind on its power. That should concern you far more than some bone headed Attorny General who will be replaced in some upcoming election.
Stan Shannon wrote: greatest threats to our civil liberties is coming from the federal judiciary which no longer has any constintutional restrictions of any kind on its power. Totally agree. It is not the right of judges to make law; their sole power is to interpret the laws passed by the Legislative branch, and executed by the Executive branch of the Federal government to ensure that such laws and the application of them do not conflict in intention or application with the Constitution. They have no right to create law, nor to reinterpret the Constitution as they please. The Constitution further states that every single power not specifically granted to the Federal government by the Constitution is reserved exclusively to the States, or to the People. That portion of the law of the land has been consistently ignored for the past 70 years or more, and the abuse has accelerated during the past 30 years. "Your village called -
They're missing their idiot." -
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031113/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments_25&cid=519[^] Moore is thrown off the court for placing himself above the law? No, Moore took a stand against judges who have placed them selves above the law. He was thrown off the court for having the audacity to stand up to a legal system which no longer recognizes any legal or constitutional restraint of any kind. It now has the power to do what ever it please and has perverted this nation into the very thing its founders were most fearful it would become. And there are those who a fearful of Bush and Ashcroft! God bless Judge Moore, I wish him the best. I also hope Ashcroft has his way with this nation - it deserves him.
I believe John F. Kennedy wrote an excellent book about political courage. This story sounds like JFK gave examples of in his book, Politicians making unpopular decisions, but necessary for checks and balances. I truly believe this is why the framers decided to implement the importance of God in our society. I found this interesting part of that article standing out to support this concept: ""They stole my vote. The judiciary stole my vote. I voted for Roy Moore," he said. Moore said he had no animosity toward the panel. But, he said, unless the states stand up, "public acknowledgment of God will be taken from us. `In God we trust' will be taken from our money and `one nation under God' from our pledge." " I mean, he did actually brought something religious based into a court of law, but he does have a point that "It's about whether or not you can acknowledge God as a source of our law and our liberty." Whether he is right or wrong, his actions are politically courageous. And are important ideas to be debated for this self-government nation, imo. There are religious people in the USA, and they need to be represented in the Federal Judiciary Branch also. Later, JoeSox One thing vampire children have to be taught early on is, don't run with wooden stakes. --Jack Handy Deep Thoughts www.joeswammi.com ↔ www.humanaiproject.org
-
LunaticFringe wrote: I don't see it that way Yeah, I know. LunaticFringe wrote: and jurists in this country haven't seen it that way either Hence the problem. LunaticFringe wrote: The separation of church and state is a basic principle of the law of the land. A mechanism for invalidating the letter of the constitution itself in order to promote their own (and your's I imagine) religious agenda. LunaticFringe wrote: I don't see how you can possibly state that Moore's attempt to dominate the Alabama Court with his own personal religion is anything but an arrogant attempt to overturn what has been proven, time and again, to be an appropriate removal of religion from the realm of government. The constitution of the state of Alabama, which Moore swore an oath to, requires recognition of religion. Just as the state of Virginia's did when Thomas Jefferson swore his oath upon becoming governor. Jefferson didn't seem to have a problem with it. LunaticFringe wrote: I believe one of the founders stated that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of individuals from an 'arrogant majority'. I would suggest that Moore's tantrum was precisely the sort of thing this statement had in mind. The Bill or Rights was never intended to protect individual liberties but to stipulate the relationship between the states and the newly formed federal government. The founder's were far more concerned about abuse of power on the part of the federal government than they were about the states the were from. The saw the states as having a much greater vested interest in protecting the rights of their citizens than the federal government did. Is your argument supported by many years of legal precedent? Yes it is. I do not deny that. But precendent or no, the greatest threats to our civil liberties is coming from the federal judiciary which no longer has any constintutional restrictions of any kind on its power. That should concern you far more than some bone headed Attorny General who will be replaced in some upcoming election.
I'll admit I'm as uncomfortable as you with the increasing power of the Federal government, but I would argue that the separation of church and state is more than an abuse of power by the judiciary. I did a quick search on the phrase 'arrogant majority', because I wasn't certain of the source. In the process, I came up with this. I'm pretty certain that Scott wasn't the first to use it, but I thought it interesting and relevant to the discussion. The US House of Representatives voted Thursday, June 4, 1998 to reject (224-203) an amendment to the Constitution that was designed to bring prayer back into public schools and other forms of public religious activities now deemed to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The amendment, HJR78, sponsored by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-OK stated that the government may not infringe on “people’s right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage or traditions on public property, including schools.” The amendment also opened the door for federal taxes funding of religious activities. The amendment was heavily opposed by religious groups from many different denominations and theological perspectives, including Catholics, Jews, Seventh-day Adventists, Presbyterians, and Muslims. It was the consensus of these groups that the amendment was unnecessary as the First Amendment already protected religious freedom adequately and prevented a majoritarium domination of minorities. “This amendment strips the individual of his or her rights to pick his or her own prayer or to practice his or her own religion without having to subject their beliefs to the manipulation and interference of an arrogant majority,” said Rep. Robert Scott, D-VA. ... The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of religion and forbids any “establishment” of religion by the government. Through the years the Supreme Court has wisely held that the government should maintain a “benevolent neutrality” toward religion, neither advancing nor hindering it.
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031113/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments_25&cid=519[^] Moore is thrown off the court for placing himself above the law? No, Moore took a stand against judges who have placed them selves above the law. He was thrown off the court for having the audacity to stand up to a legal system which no longer recognizes any legal or constitutional restraint of any kind. It now has the power to do what ever it please and has perverted this nation into the very thing its founders were most fearful it would become. And there are those who a fearful of Bush and Ashcroft! God bless Judge Moore, I wish him the best. I also hope Ashcroft has his way with this nation - it deserves him.
Stan Shannon wrote: has perverted this nation into the very thing its founders were most fearful it would become I thought this was the fault of the liberal treehuggers :confused:
"Vierteile den, der sie Hure schimpft mit einem türkischen Säbel."
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen -
The really amusing part is that for a couple of seconds, I thought you were talking favourably about Michael Moore[^]. Yawn. It's a tablet with some words on it. Who cares? If the guy is that wild about Christianity, he should have become a minister. I guess he's got some time on his hands now. Always a silver lining. Eco
Eco Jones wrote: It's a tablet with some words on it. Who cares? A tablet with "Fuck you. my wife didn't let me last night" right at the judges desk would likely make an impression... Point being the "It's just words who cares?" is very MTV Generation (if a bit long for their attention span), but utterly inappropriate.
"Vierteile den, der sie Hure schimpft mit einem türkischen Säbel."
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen -
I think the laws should evolve, not the interpretation of them. Considering the legislative branch seems to be paralyzed when it comes to many issues, it's no surprise the way things have turned out... oh well... hindsight is 20/20. Although, I would say it is probably a good thing the process is slow. Take a look at the laws that have passed relatively quickly in recent days... DMCA, PATRIOT, etc. Which do you think is more important, the letter of the law or one judge's (or panel of judges) interpretation of it?
Brandon Haase wrote: Which do you think is more important, the letter of the law or one judge's (or panel of judges) interpretation of it? I sense a trick of semantics here, but... :) My response would be that by setting precedent, the decision (interpretation) of a judge, or panel of judges, effectively becomes the law of the land; ie, the new letter of the law. Neat dodge, huh? :)
-
Brandon Haase wrote: Which do you think is more important, the letter of the law or one judge's (or panel of judges) interpretation of it? I sense a trick of semantics here, but... :) My response would be that by setting precedent, the decision (interpretation) of a judge, or panel of judges, effectively becomes the law of the land; ie, the new letter of the law. Neat dodge, huh? :)
Ah, a suspicious one :-D No trick; I just wanted your opinion, and I agree with you. In today's society, the interpretation is everything. And I think this is A Bad Thing. The fact that the new "letter of the law" is based on some one else's interpretation that was likely based on another interpretation and so on... Scary stuff.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The federal court has, for a good long while now, placed itself above that very clear legal sanction placed upon the federal government at its founding. I don't see it that way, and jurists in this country haven't seen it that way either. The separation of church and state is a basic principle of the law of the land. I don't see how you can possibly state that Moore's attempt to dominate the Alabama Court with his own personal religion is anything but an arrogant attempt to overturn what has been proven, time and again, to be an appropriate removal of religion from the realm of government. Stan Shannon wrote: The Bill of Rights was put in the Constitution specifically to weaken the federal government's power in regard to the state's not to strengthen it. I believe one of the founders stated that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of individuals from an 'arrogant majority'. I would suggest that Moore's tantrum was precisely the sort of thing this statement had in mind.
LunaticFringe wrote: I believe one of the founders stated that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of individuals from an 'arrogant majority'. I would suggest that Moore's tantrum was precisely the sort of thing this statement had in mind. Actually, from my point of view, the individual's (Moore) rights were swept aside and buried without proper examination to placate the desires of the majority who have become xenophobic towards anything that has a whiff of judaeo-christian values. In this time it seems the "arrogant majority" has won.
-
Ah, a suspicious one :-D No trick; I just wanted your opinion, and I agree with you. In today's society, the interpretation is everything. And I think this is A Bad Thing. The fact that the new "letter of the law" is based on some one else's interpretation that was likely based on another interpretation and so on... Scary stuff.
I'm no constitutional scholar, but I think the balance of power between the various branches is much the same as it's always been. Taking the particular case of separation of church and state, it may be judicial decisions forming the current laws, but as I noted below to Stan, the legislative branch has also repeatedly voted on whether or not they wanted to overturn/modify the position of the courts, and those proposals have been defeated. The legislative branch has not been idle on the issue, but the democratic process upheld the position of the courts.
-
LunaticFringe wrote: I believe one of the founders stated that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of individuals from an 'arrogant majority'. I would suggest that Moore's tantrum was precisely the sort of thing this statement had in mind. Actually, from my point of view, the individual's (Moore) rights were swept aside and buried without proper examination to placate the desires of the majority who have become xenophobic towards anything that has a whiff of judaeo-christian values. In this time it seems the "arrogant majority" has won.
But he wasn't acting in the role of an individual. No-one told him he couldn't put his sculpture on his front yard; while acting in his official role, he attempted to place it on public property, in as visible and controversial a location as possible. That sort of behavior has been repeatedly found to be unconstitutional. This isn't a product of recent xenophobia - this debate has been going on for decades. And Alabama is one of the most thoroughly conservative Christian states in the country. In local terms, it was the majority position that he represented.
-
I'll admit I'm as uncomfortable as you with the increasing power of the Federal government, but I would argue that the separation of church and state is more than an abuse of power by the judiciary. I did a quick search on the phrase 'arrogant majority', because I wasn't certain of the source. In the process, I came up with this. I'm pretty certain that Scott wasn't the first to use it, but I thought it interesting and relevant to the discussion. The US House of Representatives voted Thursday, June 4, 1998 to reject (224-203) an amendment to the Constitution that was designed to bring prayer back into public schools and other forms of public religious activities now deemed to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The amendment, HJR78, sponsored by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-OK stated that the government may not infringe on “people’s right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage or traditions on public property, including schools.” The amendment also opened the door for federal taxes funding of religious activities. The amendment was heavily opposed by religious groups from many different denominations and theological perspectives, including Catholics, Jews, Seventh-day Adventists, Presbyterians, and Muslims. It was the consensus of these groups that the amendment was unnecessary as the First Amendment already protected religious freedom adequately and prevented a majoritarium domination of minorities. “This amendment strips the individual of his or her rights to pick his or her own prayer or to practice his or her own religion without having to subject their beliefs to the manipulation and interference of an arrogant majority,” said Rep. Robert Scott, D-VA. ... The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of religion and forbids any “establishment” of religion by the government. Through the years the Supreme Court has wisely held that the government should maintain a “benevolent neutrality” toward religion, neither advancing nor hindering it.
I would have opposed any such amendment for precisely the reasons stated. Ultimtately, however, any civil society must be based upon some form of political tyranny, in the sense that some agency must possess the authority to set rules and standards of conduct. But, when push comes to shove, would you rather have that power thinly distributed amongst your many neighbors (an 'arrogant majority') or concentrated in the hands of a small group of federal judges ( an 'arrogant minority' if you please). Our founders clearly appreciated the dangers inherent in majority rule and tried to account for it. Still, they thought the notion of commen people working away in millions of little hamlets to decide amongst themselves what the limits of freedom should be was a better system than having it dictated to them from on high. I, for one, do not believe that the ten commandments should be on public property for precisely the reasons that most people state, and would have voted against it. But, it is an issue to be decided locally, not by the federal courts. If the federal government desires to have the power to make a law regarding the free exercise of religion than they should amend the constitution to give themselves that power. Then, and only then, could Moore possible have been acting above the law.
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031113/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments_25&cid=519[^] Moore is thrown off the court for placing himself above the law? No, Moore took a stand against judges who have placed them selves above the law. He was thrown off the court for having the audacity to stand up to a legal system which no longer recognizes any legal or constitutional restraint of any kind. It now has the power to do what ever it please and has perverted this nation into the very thing its founders were most fearful it would become. And there are those who a fearful of Bush and Ashcroft! God bless Judge Moore, I wish him the best. I also hope Ashcroft has his way with this nation - it deserves him.
He decided to link the curch and the state. It wasn't about taking that stone down, but putting it there in the first place. And he sneaked it in one night - so much for an honest and open judiciary ! The tigress is here :-D
-
LunaticFringe wrote: I believe one of the founders stated that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of individuals from an 'arrogant majority'. I would suggest that Moore's tantrum was precisely the sort of thing this statement had in mind. Actually, from my point of view, the individual's (Moore) rights were swept aside and buried without proper examination to placate the desires of the majority who have become xenophobic towards anything that has a whiff of judaeo-christian values. In this time it seems the "arrogant majority" has won.
I see from the article that that stone was placed at night with noone around - if he was so right then why go behind peoples backs like this ? Now if he had a monument which represented a range of beliefs rather then just his and was open about it in the first place it might have been different, but he was trying to impose is own views in what is supposed to be a place of objective justice. The tigress is here :-D
-
He decided to link the curch and the state. It wasn't about taking that stone down, but putting it there in the first place. And he sneaked it in one night - so much for an honest and open judiciary ! The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote: He decided to link the curch and the state And what law is there that says he can't do that?
-
Trollslayer wrote: He decided to link the curch and the state And what law is there that says he can't do that?
Ah, the good old "Trample all over other people as long as you can get away with it" The tigress is here :-D
-
I believe John F. Kennedy wrote an excellent book about political courage. This story sounds like JFK gave examples of in his book, Politicians making unpopular decisions, but necessary for checks and balances. I truly believe this is why the framers decided to implement the importance of God in our society. I found this interesting part of that article standing out to support this concept: ""They stole my vote. The judiciary stole my vote. I voted for Roy Moore," he said. Moore said he had no animosity toward the panel. But, he said, unless the states stand up, "public acknowledgment of God will be taken from us. `In God we trust' will be taken from our money and `one nation under God' from our pledge." " I mean, he did actually brought something religious based into a court of law, but he does have a point that "It's about whether or not you can acknowledge God as a source of our law and our liberty." Whether he is right or wrong, his actions are politically courageous. And are important ideas to be debated for this self-government nation, imo. There are religious people in the USA, and they need to be represented in the Federal Judiciary Branch also. Later, JoeSox One thing vampire children have to be taught early on is, don't run with wooden stakes. --Jack Handy Deep Thoughts www.joeswammi.com ↔ www.humanaiproject.org
JoeSox wrote: politically courageous Hmm... then why not debate it first ? And who paid for it ? JoeSox wrote: There are religious people in the USA, and they need to be represented in the Federal Judiciary Branch also. Except he seems to plan on turning it into a system biased towards one group of religous people. Justice should be objective. Now if he had similar quote from the talmud, koran etc... but it was for his group of people. The tigress is here :-D
-
I see from the article that that stone was placed at night with noone around - if he was so right then why go behind peoples backs like this ? Now if he had a monument which represented a range of beliefs rather then just his and was open about it in the first place it might have been different, but he was trying to impose is own views in what is supposed to be a place of objective justice. The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote: I see from the article that that stone was placed at night with noone around - if he was so right then why go behind peoples backs like this ? Is it so unusual to perform labor that would interfere with the workings of a government building after hours? Trollslayer wrote: Now if he had a monument which represented a range of beliefs rather then just his and was open about it in the first place it might have been different, but he was trying to impose is own views in what is supposed to be a place of objective justice. Since when was our government founded under a "range of beliefs"? Granted, the people of this nation have the right to a range of beliefs, but that doesn't change the fact that the Ten Commandments are a historical foundation of the modern justice system.