Nothing in the Constitution about that though. Read it.
Where does it say that anywhere in the Constitution? Now you have to go find it. Have fun.
But you get my point about burkas anyway. You won't admit it, but you do.
I would define thinkheaded as someone who read the posts (well I hope you did) in which we discussed the decorations not being bought ON BUDGET and then still trying to ram that point home...
Surely that is the apex of jesting. Obama is the king communist. Down with Obama and up with The Pope.
"Intervene"? In what? This is the government's actions we're talking about in the first place.
The federal issue is a non-issue. The First Amendment binds the states too.
By that standard, I could set up a complete theocracy, with Imams running the government and making the laws, and as long as you weren't "forced" to worship anything, it would be constitutional.
9th and 10th amendment
9th and 10th amendment
Wrong. They can't violate anyone's rights.
Dear God, I've already explained in detail that the states are also bound by the Federal Bill of Rights.
Sidewalks are public land.
But never mind. Can the people vote to ban any religious practice by individuals on public land?
That's just one issue. Even if something is paid for with private funds, it is authorized by a law to be put on public land.
But yeah, I'd say its "thinkheaded" of me. :lol:
Of course they can't.
Displaying a religious symbol on public land does not violate anyone's rights.
People are free to do as they like so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others in the process.
Anyone can just say that, over and over.
I do hope you fully support Roe v. Wade.
You just insisted that they could do anything they want.
Sometimes it does.
Yes, so stop yammering about "their land, their choice" and all that crap.
haha Good catch, consider it edited.However, you still have yet to prove (that means other than just saying it or using talking points) that decorations = law. Give us some links or something man. Back up your talk.
Everything the government does, it has done because the People have authorized it. Nothing you have says why the People can't put up religious displays of their choosing on their public land. It's not law. Acts of Congress, even acts of the Judiciary these days (sadly) can be laws. The People choosing to put up religious displays of their choosing on their public land is not. It's the freedom of the community, of the individuals comprising that community, to use their property and money as they see fit. And so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others, there's nothing the government can rightfully do about it.
well that would work if people used there money properly that is why we need to control how people spend there money so it is used properly.
I'm not sure I follow. People can use their money as they see fit. If they use it irresponsibly, that's their business too. They are, of course, accountable for the repercussions there of; but otherwise they are free to do as they like; with the aforementioned limitation in that they may not infringe upon the rights of others.
You guys just need stuff repeated four or five times, don't you?
You don't even bother to respond, if you're reading it at all. You just reflexively say "you've proven nothing" or "you haven't explained."
It's okay, I have small children, so I understand.
I don't need a link to explain to you that everything a government does is authorized by a law somewhere.
Every penny spent, every manager hired, every acre of public land bought, every decoration put up was the result of a law either declaring it, or giving someone else the power to do it.
In any event, hanging your hat on the word "law" is silly. It's obvious the First Amendment would be a joke if governments could simply circumvent it by saying their actions weren't really "laws." You're opening it up to an equally absurd claim that the government can do all kinds of things to restrict freedom of religious practice, speech, etc.
The rule of law does not have a precise definition, and its meaning can vary between different nations and legal traditions. Generally, however, it can be understood as a legal-political regime under which the law restrains the government by promoting certain liberties and creating order and predictability regarding how a country functions. In the most basic sense, the rule of law is a system that attempts to protect the rights of citizens from arbitrary and abusive use of government power.
A. Elements of the Rule of Law
In his book The Morality of Law, American legal scholar Lon Fuller identified eight elements of law which have been recognized as necessary for a society aspiring to institute the rule of law. Fuller stated the following:
1. Laws must exist and those laws should be obeyed by all, including government officials.
2. Laws must be published.
3. Laws must be prospective in nature so that the effect of the law may only take place after the law has been passed. For example, the court cannot convict a person of a crime committed before a criminal statute prohibiting the conduct was passed.
4. Laws should be written with reasonable clarity to avoid unfair enforcement.
5. Law must avoid contradictions.
6. Law must not command the impossible.
7. Law must stay constant through time to allow the formalization of rules; however, law also must allow for timely revision when the underlying social and political circumstances have changed.
8. Official action should be consistent with the declared rule.
Therein lies one of the reasons the left is so afraid of Sarah Palin. She wants to get back to the fundamentals of God and how this nation was founded, something the progressive left wants nothing to do with.
Wants a nation to rededicate itself to God? Stop her now! She is dangerous!!!!!!!
:lol: This is beyond hilarious. You actually think "respecting" is about personal opinions or something.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
It means "with respect to" as in referring or relating to. Not respecting as in respect vs. disrespect.
:roll::roll::roll: :roll::roll:well that would work if people used there money properly that is why we need to control how people spend there money so it is used properly.
Uh, that's what you said, not me. Those were your words in your post, not me in mine.
I respond with "you haven't explained anything" because you haven't. You use talking points. Do you know what talking points are?
So the Postmaster at a Post Office, who of his own volition puts up Christmas decorations is actually a puppet of the Federal Government bent on pushing their Christian Agenda, which is clearly outlined in the many laws regulating, nay FORCING, him to do so?! MY GOD! HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO BLIND!?! :roll: :lol:
Hanging your hat on this notion that these lawn decorations are somehow legislated onto the front lawn is silly.
Right off the bat, we're going to have some issues I can tell...No precise definition? well you must love that since you don't like dictionaries or words with concrete definitions.
Oh, man. They aren't my words - they are from the First Amendment. I quoted it in my reply.
Never mind. Just never mind.
Okay, first of all, I didn't say it's always illegal. It can be though.
In a nutshell:
1. The First Amendment says you can't "respect an establishment of religion."
2. To me, that means the government can't endorse, or appear to endorse, a religion, or religion in general.
3. That applies to the state governments too (14th amendment).
4. Public land is the government - it is owned and controlled by the government.
5. Therefore, IF the government puts up a religious display, or allows someone to put one up without allowing any other religious displays, its the same thing as the government declaring that there is an official religion, and that would be a violation of the First amendment.
It's not like this isn't found all over the place in the caselaw though.
Please try to have a discussion like a human.
Nope, didn't say that.
Yet they are.
If you actually need a definition, that's why you're so hopelessly confused by this stuff.
You're woefully ignorant about this stuff, and it shows. You're not smart enough to realize it, so you argue from ignorance. That's your problem, not mine.
Surely that is the apex of jesting. Obama is the king communist. Down with Obama and up with The Pope.
Moderator's Warning: |
Moderator's Warning: Stop troll-like posts like this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?