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.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.
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.
#21 May 14, 2010
#22 May 14, 2010
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.
#23 May 14, 2010
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.
#24 May 14, 2010
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.
#25 May 15, 2010
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 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.
That is one of your biggest faults, along with tyou intemperance.
Since: May 09
#26 May 15, 2010
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?
#27 May 21, 2010
"That was so nice of the Supreme Court to "allow" us to honor our service members"
I didn't say that was what the case was about.
#28 May 21, 2010
It does no such thing. It keeps the Constitution relevant.
Add your comments below
|This short, scenic Mojave train tour was a long... (Oct '10)||Oct '10||Christopher Keller||1|
|Mojave Cross battle (Sep '10)||Sep '10||Jack Corsaut||1|
|A cross in a national park in the Mojave Desert... (Sep '10)||Sep '10||Jack Corsaut||1|
|Supreme Court Refuses to Ban Mojave Cross (Apr '10)||May '10||Lucys_Fur_Coat||51|
|Thieves take controversial Mojave Desert cross (May '10)||May '10||laojim||37|
|'Mojave Cross' Stolen; Was Subject Of Recent Su... (May '10)||May '10||laojim||1|
|High court supports Mojave cross in Calif. (Apr '10)||May '10||Deng||29|
Find what you want!
Search Mojave National Preserve Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC