A Victory For Freedom

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, I think we established somewhere back that Dissident or Berzerker brought it up

But why?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who the **** knows?

[Berzerker]

As I've said before, it doesn't have to infringe upon his freedom, it just has to be unconstitutional.

Does that mean you agree this guy's plaque doesn't violate anyone's freedom? If it doesn't, how does it qualify as an establishment of religion? Freedom was what the establishment clause was designed to protect, it wasn't a protection against hearing or seeing religious expressions.

[Berzerker]

Actually, I think we established somewhere back that Dissident or Berzerker brought it up

But why?

The issue being debated was whether or not this guy's plaque established religion, I said no and offered an example of a law - blue laws - that does establish religion.

[Kuciwalker]

Restricting freedom isn't a defining quality of an establishment of religion. He is, in his capacity as a government official, putting a blatantly religious symbol in his court. Hence, he is establishing a government religion. Hence, he is violating the constitution.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well we didn't discuss that... but I don't think a blue law does 'establish' religion, unless the Bill itself said it was doing it because of a certain religion .

[Berzerker]

skywalker -

Restricting freedom isn't a defining quality of an establishment of religion. He is, in his capacity as a government official, putting a blatantly religious symbol in his court. Hence, he is establishing a government religion. Hence, he is violating the constitution.

There are religious symbols all over government buildings etc., in Washington including the SCOTUS. Your interpretation requires us to believe the Framers wanted to ban expressions of religion from government when they were concerned with the church having so much influence as to get religious doctrine enacted into law... The standard oath of office included placing one's hand on the Bible, but the Framer's understood that some people, including members of Christianity, practiced religions (and non-believers) that prohibited such oaths. Now, what were they concerned wrt the oath? Religious expression or compelling people to affirm those expressions, i.e, a violation of their freedom?

Imran -

but I don't think a blue law does 'establish' religion, unless the Bill itself said it was doing it because of a certain religion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think the main problem was that this Alabama SC Chief Justice was a jackass. I mean, sneaking it in the middle of the night, not telling anyone esle.

If I was in the statehouse, I'd have told him to take it out, because he ain't allowed to make additions to public property by himself.

[Kuciwalker]

Berzerker - I can prove to you that the founding fathers meant that the founding fathers meant it in exactly the way that the Supreme Court interpreted it - the Supreme Court interpreted it that way

If the Supreme Court interpreted it as "skywalker should get free pizza for the rest of his life", that's what it would mean. Not only does the Supreme Court interpret the constitution - it's interpretations are DEFINITIVE.

Just like "the Pope is never wrong" (about the Catholic faith), because he DEFINES it.

[Berzerker]

Umm...skywalker, does that mean women had a constitutional right to abortion in 1974 but not in 1972? Perhaps you can explain how the Framers intent changed in those 2 years.

The changing opinions of the SCOTUS do not prove anything about what the Framers meant. Btw, where exactly in the Constitution does it say only the SCOTUS has the power to tell us what the Constitution says? And how do you explain the oath of office not even mentioning the SCOTUS when requiring members of Congress to uphold the Constitution?

When Thomas Jefferson became President, he ceased enforcing the Alien and Sedition Act because HE said it was unconstitutional. He didn't ask the SCOTUS to read to him what the Constitution said on the matter. One reason why we no longer have constitutional government is because far too many people think the SCOTUS exists to tell us how to read the Constitution. Btw, were you one of those people complaining about the SCOTUS' decision regarding Bush and Gore in Florida?

[Kuciwalker]

No, they always did, because the supreme court says so, because they DEFINE what the constitution means!

It's sort of like minitru

[Berzerker]

I see you're not much into answering questions...oh well...

[Kuciwalker]

I was answering the first one... I didn't read beyond.

Hey, it's midnight.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The changing opinions of the SCOTUS do not prove anything about what the Framers meant. Btw, where exactly in the Constitution does it say only the SCOTUS has the power to tell us what the Constitution says?

When Thomas Jefferson became President, he ceased enforcing the Alien and Sedition Act because HE said it was unconstitutional. He didn't ask the SCOTUS to read to him what the Constitution said on the matter. One reason why we no longer have constitutional government is because far too many people think the SCOTUS exists to tell us how to read the Constitution.

Ahh...Now we are getting somewhere. How exactly did the court aquire this unmandated power?

[Berzerker]

I was answering the first one... I didn't read beyond.

Hey, it's midnight.

Ahh...Now we are getting somewhere. How exactly did the court aquire this unmandated power?

I believe an early SCOTUS decision, Marlbury v Madison I think.
The 11th Amendment restricted the authority of the SCOTUS, but as I mentioned, even Jefferson didn't think the SCOTUS was the final authority as his refusal to enforce the Alien & Sedition Act shows. Members of Congress took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the changing opinions of the SCOTUS.