Obama administration to defend Nation...

Obama administration to defend National Day of Prayer following...

There are 94 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Apr 22, 2010, titled Obama administration to defend National Day of Prayer following.... In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

The Obama administration said Thursday it will appeal a court decision that found the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last

“REUNITE GONDWANALAND!”

Since: Jun 08

Woodbury

#87 Apr 29, 2010
Jeff T in MPLS wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait a minute...if the US Constitution is a "living document", and those particular laws are "amendments", cannot they be repealed?
This is SUPPOSED to be "of the people, by the people and for the people".
Much like the new Arizona Immigration law, hey, if you don't like the law that the majority of TAX PAYING VOTERS supported, move to a different state. Diversity, while nice in concept, is NOT mandatory (unless you ask the foreigner working at the EEOC, the Bureau of Motor Vehicles or any other government job).
Quick question: how many times has the Constitution been amended since it was ratified in 1789? Answer: 27.
Not a whole lot, for all those years. There is a good reason the wise men who drew up the Constitution made the amendment process so onerous - they did not want any frivolous amendments passed. A simple majority is not enough to alter the Constitution, since our Constitution is not meant to vary with the vagaries of public opinion.
You wrote, "if you don't like the law that the majority of TAX PAYING VOTERS supported, move to a different state"; should that concept have applied when Loving v. Virginia was decided? How about Griswold v. Connecticut? How about Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS? How do you reconcile your statement with the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment?

Since: Nov 08

Twin Cities

#88 Apr 29, 2010
Darwinian wrote:
<quoted text>
Quick question: how many times has the Constitution been amended since it was ratified in 1789? Answer: 27.
Not a whole lot, for all those years. There is a good reason the wise men who drew up the Constitution made the amendment process so onerous - they did not want any frivolous amendments passed. A simple majority is not enough to alter the Constitution, since our Constitution is not meant to vary with the vagaries of public opinion.
You wrote, "if you don't like the law that the majority of TAX PAYING VOTERS supported, move to a different state"; should that concept have applied when Loving v. Virginia was decided? How about Griswold v. Connecticut? How about Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS? How do you reconcile your statement with the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment?
Exactly, the entire point of making the Constitution so difficult to change was to avoid a fanatical majority of the populace from oppressing their opposition!! Otherwise might as well just abandon the the democratic republic we enjoy and just have referendums to determine laws. Besides the Catholic church doesn't seem to care about popular opinion when it comes to disiplining their legion of child molestors or in legalizing same-sex marriages! The founding fathers intended on this being a SECULAR nation!! That does not mean a denial of a god, just means that it should remain separate from government's function!!
Internet Wannabe

Saint Paul, MN

#89 May 2, 2010
Jeff T in MPLS wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait a minute...if the US Constitution is a "living document", and those particular laws are "amendments", cannot they be repealed?
This is SUPPOSED to be "of the people, by the people and for the people".
Much like the new Arizona Immigration law, hey, if you don't like the law that the majority of TAX PAYING VOTERS supported, move to a different state. Diversity, while nice in concept, is NOT mandatory (unless you ask the foreigner working at the EEOC, the Bureau of Motor Vehicles or any other government job).
Darwinian wrote:
<quoted text>
Quick question: how many times has the Constitution been amended since it was ratified in 1789? Answer: 27.
Not a whole lot, for all those years. There is a good reason the wise men who drew up the Constitution made the amendment process so onerous - they did not want any frivolous amendments passed. A simple majority is not enough to alter the Constitution, since our Constitution is not meant to vary with the vagaries of public opinion.
You wrote, "if you don't like the law that the majority of TAX PAYING VOTERS supported, move to a different state"; should that concept have applied when Loving v. Virginia was decided? How about Griswold v. Connecticut? How about Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS? How do you reconcile your statement with the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment?
Really nicely done Darwinian.

“Get RIGHT or be left”

Since: Nov 07

www.dreamindemon.com

#90 May 2, 2010
Darwinian wrote:
<quoted text>
Quick question: how many times has the Constitution been amended since it was ratified in 1789? Answer: 27.
Not a whole lot, for all those years. There is a good reason the wise men who drew up the Constitution made the amendment process so onerous - they did not want any frivolous amendments passed. A simple majority is not enough to alter the Constitution, since our Constitution is not meant to vary with the vagaries of public opinion.
You wrote, "if you don't like the law that the majority of TAX PAYING VOTERS supported, move to a different state"; should that concept have applied when Loving v. Virginia was decided? How about Griswold v. Connecticut? How about Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS? How do you reconcile your statement with the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment?
Nicely done, indeed, Darwinian.

The brilliance of the Constitution was that it IS a living document and amendable (thank you, Joe Peschi).

That concept should ABSOLUTELY apply to all your examples.

The fact that you would even ask how my statement would reconcile with the equal protection clause of the fourteenth AMENDMENT speaks for itself.

We have poor government because of a lack of personal integrity in those we elect to govern. Greed and corruption at the highest levels of BOTH parties will continue to grow and suffocate The People until The People do something about it. In my opinion, the elected officials have a window of opportunity now to self-regulate. I don't think they will avail themselves of it voluntarily. Selfishness and self-centeredness are abound.

Since: Nov 08

Twin Cities

#91 May 2, 2010
Jeff T in MPLS wrote:
<quoted text>
Nicely done, indeed, Darwinian.
The brilliance of the Constitution was that it IS a living document and amendable (thank you, Joe Peschi).
That concept should ABSOLUTELY apply to all your examples.
The fact that you would even ask how my statement would reconcile with the equal protection clause of the fourteenth AMENDMENT speaks for itself.
We have poor government because of a lack of personal integrity in those we elect to govern. Greed and corruption at the highest levels of BOTH parties will continue to grow and suffocate The People until The People do something about it. In my opinion, the elected officials have a window of opportunity now to self-regulate. I don't think they will avail themselves of it voluntarily. Selfishness and self-centeredness are abound.
George Orwells's ANIMAL FARM, illustrates perfectly the result of such a powerless Constitution that can be modified, revised and omitted

“Get RIGHT or be left”

Since: Nov 07

www.dreamindemon.com

#92 May 3, 2010
Ack Acka Dack wrote:
<quoted text>
George Orwells's ANIMAL FARM, illustrates perfectly the result of such a powerless Constitution that can be modified, revised and omitted
Yawn....still recycling that tired old 60's and 70's liberal fear mongering?

Any Ayn Rand quotes today? How about something from "Go Ask Alice"?

You are proof against Darwin's theory of evolution. That puts you in a conundrum.

“REUNITE GONDWANALAND!”

Since: Jun 08

Woodbury

#93 May 3, 2010
Jeff T in MPLS wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn....still recycling that tired old 60's and 70's liberal fear mongering?
Any Ayn Rand quotes today? How about something from "Go Ask Alice"?
You are proof against Darwin's theory of evolution. That puts you in a conundrum.
Whatever happened to the INTELLECTUAL sparring?

“Get RIGHT or be left”

Since: Nov 07

www.dreamindemon.com

#94 May 3, 2010
Darwinian wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever happened to the INTELLECTUAL sparring?
One does not bring a chess set to a game of tiddlywinks.

Since: Nov 08

Twin Cities

#95 May 3, 2010
Jeff T in MPLS wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn....still recycling that tired old 60's and 70's liberal fear mongering?
Any Ayn Rand quotes today? How about something from "Go Ask Alice"?
You are proof against Darwin's theory of evolution. That puts you in a conundrum.
Nice Ad hominem and strawman arguments! Basically you want us to eliminate the bedrock of our freedom, something that was made the way it is for a reason. The founding fathers, who were NOT Christian, separated religion and government to prevent any attempts at instilling a theocracy!

“Get RIGHT or be left”

Since: Nov 07

www.dreamindemon.com

#96 May 3, 2010
Ack Acka Dack wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice Ad hominem and strawman arguments! Basically you want us to eliminate the bedrock of our freedom, something that was made the way it is for a reason. The founding fathers, who were NOT Christian, separated religion and government to prevent any attempts at instilling a theocracy!
Speaking of Ad Hominem...how nice you have dictionary.com !

Not a strawman argument at all, just lost on drooling, Wellstonian-obsessed liberals like yourself.

Notice, dullard, you did not refute even ONE of my points...just more of your silliness. My 15 year old daughter can articulate positions better than you.

No one is attempting to instill a Theocracy. If you are SO offended regarding government sponsored religious holidays, please, pay back ALL the money you have collected over the years for your Christmases, Easters and even Martin Luther King days off (he was a Reverend, after all).

When your check shows up, you will have credibility. Until then, stay in the comic pages where liberals belong.

Since: Nov 08

Twin Cities

#97 May 3, 2010
Jeff T in MPLS wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of Ad Hominem...how nice you have dictionary.com !
Not a strawman argument at all, just lost on drooling, Wellstonian-obsessed liberals like yourself.
Notice, dullard, you did not refute even ONE of my points...just more of your silliness. My 15 year old daughter can articulate positions better than you.
No one is attempting to instill a Theocracy. If you are SO offended regarding government sponsored religious holidays, please, pay back ALL the money you have collected over the years for your Christmases, Easters and even Martin Luther King days off (he was a Reverend, after all).
When your check shows up, you will have credibility. Until then, stay in the comic pages where liberals belong.
mmmmm, more of that bible taught Christian love just oozing out of your post. Just more ad hominem! And more strawman! Yes, it is strawman when you call me a liberal(when I am not), then attack that belief! I probably hated Wellstone as much as you!(I assume you do) I probably have many conservative leanings that you do(again, I assume you do)

And having those holidays off is not the same as the government endorsing a religion unless they said you SHOULD celebrate it! They do not! And do not assume that I have those days off and/or got paid even if I did get the day off! Again, my offense is NOT that people want to pray! Nor that government officials want to take part! It is the OBVIOUS violation of the constitution! Yes, one law is not a theocracy! But ours is a system of precedences. Meaning as soon as it is ok once, it is ok again and again. First we change the Bill Of Rights slightly, then slightly again, etc....it is called Salami Slicing, you do not notice the small sacrifices at the time, but over a few repetitions you have lost a lot more than you realize! If they wanted to make a National Day Of Blasphemy I would be equally offended!! And the Christians who say a NDoP is not the same as government endorsed religion would be screaming their heads off!!

Notice how my post I NEVER called you names! And you imply I am the one who is like a teenager!
Internet Wannabe

Saint Paul, MN

#98 May 3, 2010
Jeff T in MPLS wrote:
<quoted text>
One does not bring a chess set to a game of tiddlywinks.
One does not bring if a chess set if one does not know how to play chess.

“Get RIGHT or be left”

Since: Nov 07

www.dreamindemon.com

#99 May 3, 2010
Internet Wannabe wrote:
<quoted text>
One does not bring if a chess set if one does not know how to play chess.
Contribution to the discussion?

At least I can respect those that disagree intelligently, which means you get no respect.
Joe Klien

Orlando, FL

#100 May 9, 2010
I was searching the internet and came across this new site. Just wanted to pass it along.

http://www.thewisconsinbadgers.com

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
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.

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News DOJ asks to keep 'Making a Murderer' inmate loc... Jun 27 CodeTalker 1
News Chicago court stays deportation of pizza worker... May '17 Geezer 1
News Ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich files another appeal on... May '17 online reality bu... 1
News Ex-Illinois Governor Blagojevich's 14-year pris... Apr '17 tomin cali 2
News Appeals court denies Blagojevich request for 3r... Apr '17 CodeTalker 2
News US court, again, takes up issue of Blagojevich ... Apr '17 okimar 1
News High court may re-examine Civil Rights Act afte... Apr '17 Gremlin 2
More from around the web