Disputed Mojave cross honoring U.S. w...

Disputed Mojave cross honoring U.S. war dead stolen

There are 28 comments on the Deseret Morning News story from May 11, 2010, titled Disputed Mojave cross honoring U.S. war dead stolen. In it, Deseret Morning News reports that:

A cross erected on a remote Mojave Desert outcropping to honor American war dead has been stolen less than two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed it to remain standing while a legal battle continued over its presence on federal land.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Deseret Morning News.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
koz

Akron, OH

#21 May 14, 2010
Tamerlane wrote:
I answered your stupid question. The answer is that whether this is or that particular word is in the text of the constitution is not a valid argument in this context.
Why not? The Establishment clause is quite clear and it provides no basis for the courts to "interpret" it the way that they have. For example, the phrase "Congress shall make no law". The accurate understanding of the clause was made clear by the fact that there were several states with established religions when the clause was ratified. None of them altered their established religions due to usurper judges making false claims, like yours, about the meaining of the clause. But, of course, you still avoided my questions about the specific wording of the clause. You avoided it because you know that you are wrong, and an unbiased reading of the clause would not support your hate-based interpretation.
Tamerlane

Tallahassee, FL

#22 May 14, 2010
koz wrote:
<quoted text>Why not? The Establishment clause is quite clear and it provides no basis for the courts to "interpret" it the way that they have. For example, the phrase "Congress shall make no law". The accurate understanding of the clause was made clear by the fact that there were several states with established religions when the clause was ratified. None of them altered their established religions due to usurper judges making false claims, like yours, about the meaining of the clause. But, of course, you still avoided my questions about the specific wording of the clause. You avoided it because you know that you are wrong, and an unbiased reading of the clause would not support your hate-based interpretation.
Have you read and studied the cases interpreting the Establishment clause? It's clear to me you haven't. And the courts most certainly do have the ability to interpret the Constitution. That's one of their primary functions. Again, Civics 101. You must have missed a lot of classes!

So you really have no idea what yo are talking about. Go do some research and get back to me when you are done.

The Supreme Court of the United States says you are wrong. Deal with it.

"hate based interpretation" ROFLMAO

Tell it to the SCOTUS. It's their opinion, not mine. assclown.
koz

Akron, OH

#23 May 14, 2010
Tamerlane wrote:
Have you read and studied the cases interpreting the Establishment clause? It's clear to me you haven't. And the courts most certainly do have the ability to interpret the Constitution.
Interpretation is appropriate in the rare cases when it is needed. But the clear wording and history of the Establishment clause left nothing for modern jurists to interpret. So they got creative at the urging of the ACLU and changed the clear meaning of the Constitution to something clearly different from what the plain and understood meaning had been for decades.
Tamerlane

Tallahassee, FL

#24 May 14, 2010
koz wrote:
<quoted text>Interpretation is appropriate in the rare cases when it is needed. But the clear wording and history of the Establishment clause left nothing for modern jurists to interpret. So they got creative at the urging of the ACLU and changed the clear meaning of the Constitution to something clearly different from what the plain and understood meaning had been for decades.
Well lets just say I will take the word of the Justices of the SCOTUS, conservative and liberal alike, over yours.

I wonder if you scream judicial activism when it produces a result you like. Actually, I don't wonder at all.

Your argument is the rallying cry of the ignorant Religious Right and John Birch society idiots. And I don't have to be a leftist - or anything close to it - to believe this.

You just completely missed my point about privacy and the Constitution. You missed it on purpose because it invalidates the premise of your argument altogether.

Have a nice weekend. Don't let the liberals hiding under your bed scare you too much.

LOL
koz

Akron, OH

#25 May 15, 2010
Tamerlane wrote:
Well lets just say I will take the word of the Justices of the SCOTUS, conservative and liberal alike, over yours.
That approach renders the Constitution completely ineffective. The Constitution was written as a contract between the people and the federal government. You may want to review what Thomas Jefferson wrote about the Bill of Rights.
I wonder if you scream judicial activism when it produces a result you like.
I don't scream, I just point out the facts. For example, when I was an active opponent of the death penalty, I opposed the attempts to prevent the pursuit if justice via the judicial system.
Actually, I don't wonder at all.
That is one of your biggest faults, along with tyou intemperance.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#26 May 15, 2010
tea tards wrote:
who would do a thing so stupid.
Why is it stupid? It renders the case moot and, at very least, sends those who want to have their monument in that place back to, I suppose, applying for a permit to erect such a monument. Before this people were saying that the case was won and the cross would stay. Now the case is lost and the cross is gone, easily sold for scrap. Stupid? Maybe, but very effective. Now each and ever point will have to be argued all over again in order to replace this cross or to build a new monument. Why not build a simple monument that is not controversial?
djazz

East Greenwich, RI

#27 May 21, 2010
djazz wrote:
"That was so nice of the Supreme Court to "allow" us to honor our service members"
Tamerlane wrote:
<quoted text>
Because that was what the case was about.
Oh wait, no it wasn't...
I didn't say that was what the case was about.
Tamerlane

Tallahassee, FL

#28 May 21, 2010
koz wrote:
<quoted text> That approach renders the Constitution completely ineffective. The Constitution was written as a contract between the people and the federal government. You may want to review what Thomas Jefferson wrote about the Bill of Rights.
<quoted text> I don't scream, I just point out the facts. For example, when I was an active opponent of the death penalty, I opposed the attempts to prevent the pursuit if justice via the judicial system.
<quoted text> That is one of your biggest faults, along with tyou intemperance.
It does no such thing. It keeps the Constitution relevant.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mojave National Preserve Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News This short, scenic Mojave train tour was a long... (Oct '10) Oct '10 Christopher Keller 1
News Mojave Cross battle (Sep '10) Sep '10 Jack Corsaut 1
News A cross in a national park in the Mojave Desert... (Sep '10) Sep '10 Jack Corsaut 1
News Supreme Court Refuses to Ban Mojave Cross (Apr '10) May '10 Lucys_Fur_Coat 51
News Thieves take controversial Mojave Desert cross (May '10) May '10 laojim 37
News 'Mojave Cross' Stolen; Was Subject Of Recent Su... (May '10) May '10 laojim 1
News High court supports Mojave cross in Calif. (Apr '10) May '10 Deng 29
More from around the web