"get that crap off the lawn"...Oklahoma Supreme Court says...

[Overpaid Union Thug]

It doesn't but it does imply endorsement of that religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There is nothing about implying or endorsement. There just isn't.

 

[bbsam]

Putting The Ten Commandments on the lawn doesn't establish a religion though. And there is no proof that The Constitution was meant to be a living document but that is how liberals are treating it. And it is rather crystal clear on this issue (among others) but liberals refuse to follow or just aren't capable of understanding it due to the fact that their emotions impede their ability to think clearly and logically.

The last clause of section 8 of the US Constitution might suggest that you are wrong.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There is nothing about implying or endorsement. There just isn't.

I walk by City Hall. I see the nativity scene on the front lawn. What am I supposed to think?

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

I walk by City Hall. I see the nativity scene on the front lawn. What am I supposed to think?

It doesn't matter. The Nativity Scene scene doesn't constitute a law on the books that states that you must be a Christian. Plus, The Constitution clearly states that your religious freedom is protected. And....again....there is NOTHING in The First Amendment that says there can't be an endorsement.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

The last clause of section 8 of the US Constitution might suggest that you are wrong.

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Nope....nothing there either.

 

[bbsam]

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Nope....nothing there either.

Because "necessary and proper" is not subjective and means exactly and only what it says. Right.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Because "necessary and proper" is not subjective and means exactly and only what it says. Right.

That language doesn't empower Congress to reinterpret the First Amendment on a whim or interpret it based on language that simply isn't there. And that includes making a law to do either. They would have to Amend it. Did you really think that was relevant? LOL!

 

[BrownArmy]

...And it is rather crystal clear on this issue (among others) but liberals refuse to follow or just aren't capable of understanding it due to the fact that their emotions impede their ability to think clearly and logically.

Once again you profess that those who don't share your opinion (which is just that) are too emotionally impeded and can't think clearly or logically.

Please.

Jefferson himself had these thoughts:

"The idea that institutions established for the use of the nation cannot be touched nor modified even to make them answer their end because of rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in trust for the public, may perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch but is most absurd against the nation itself. Yet our lawyers and priests generally inculcate this doctrine and suppose that preceding generations held the earth more freely than we do, had a right to impose laws on us unalterable by ourselves, and that we in like manner can make laws and impose burdens on future generations which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that the earth belongs to the dead and not the living." --Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1816.

"Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by the constitution, so that it may be handed on with periodical repairs from generation to generation to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

Pretty sure Jefferson thought the Constitution was a living document.

That you don't agree is of course your right. That you insist everyone else that doesn't agree with you is somehow emotionally or mentally deficient is a little ridiculous.

 

[BrownArmy]

"[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom ... was finally passed, ... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

 

[Catatonic]

And there is no proof that The Constitution was meant to be a living document but that is how liberals are treating it. And it is rather crystal clear on this issue (among others) but liberals refuse to follow or just aren't capable of understanding it due to the fact that their emotions impede their ability to think clearly and logically.

Unless the Supremes rule in favor of conservatives and then the Libs scream.

 

[bottomups]

Putting The Ten Commandments on the lawn doesn't establish a religion though. And there is no proof that The Constitution was meant to be a living document but that is how liberals are treating it. And it is rather crystal clear on this issue (among others) but liberals refuse to follow or just aren't capable of understanding it due to the fact that their emotions impede their ability to think clearly and logically.

If the Constitution wasn't a living document then why do woman have the right to vote?
Why did we have prohibition?
Times change, and that piece of paper must change with it.

 

[bbsam]

That language doesn't empower Congress to reinterpret the First Amendment on a whim or interpret it based on language that simply isn't there. And that includes making a law to do either. They would have to Amend it. Did you really think that was relevant? LOL!

If a law states that religious scenes such as a nativity cannot be staged on public grounds, who's rights have been violated?

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Once again you profess that those who don't share your opinion (which is just that) are too emotionally impeded and can't think clearly or logically.

Please.

Jefferson himself had these thoughts:

"The idea that institutions established for the use of the nation cannot be touched nor modified even to make them answer their end because of rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in trust for the public, may perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch but is most absurd against the nation itself. Yet our lawyers and priests generally inculcate this doctrine and suppose that preceding generations held the earth more freely than we do, had a right to impose laws on us unalterable by ourselves, and that we in like manner can make laws and impose burdens on future generations which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that the earth belongs to the dead and not the living." --Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1816.

"Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by the constitution, so that it may be handed on with periodical repairs from generation to generation to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

Pretty sure Jefferson thought the Constitution was a living document.

That you don't agree is of course your right. That you insist everyone else that doesn't agree with you is somehow emotionally or mentally deficient is a little ridiculous.

"[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom ... was finally passed, ... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

If the Constitution wasn't a living document then why do woman have the right to vote?
Why did we have prohibition?
Times change, and that piece of paper must change with it.

It's obvious the founders didn't intend for The Constitution to be a living document but provided a way for it to be amended and parts of it repealed. The Constitution provides the framework on doing both of those things.

What it doesn't allow is for activist judges to re-interpret language based on their opinions and by bypassing the framework. And that's exactly what people (mainly liberals) have done and continue to do and that is what liberals

Or more simply put.......Revision, through the amendment/repeal processes, is not the same as reinterpreting on a whim in lieu of The Framework spelled out in The Constitution. There is no living document provision but there are ways to AMEND or REPEAL language. And they don't include judges acting on a hunch or out of emotion.

 

[bbsam]

If the Constitution wasn't a living document then why do woman have the right to vote?
Why did we have prohibition?
Times change, and that piece of paper must change with it.

The last clause of section 8 of the US Constitution declares it to be such.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

The last clause of section 8 of the US Constitution declares it to be such.

It doesn't. You are reading something into it that isn't there. You'd make an excellent Jehovah's Witness.

 

[BrownArmy]

It's obvious the founders didn't intend for The Constitution to be a living document but provided a way for it to be amended and parts of it repealed. The Constitution provides the framework on doing both of those things.

What it doesn't allow is for activist judges to re-interpret language based on their opinions and by bypassing the framework. And that's exactly what people (mainly liberals) have done and continue to do and that is what liberals

Or more simply put.......Revision, through the amendment/repeal processes, is not the same as reinterpreting on a whim in lieu of The Framework spelled out in The Constitution. There is no living document provision but there are ways to AMEND or REPEAL language. And they don't include judges acting on a hunch or out of emotion.

Judicial Review wasn't expressly addressed in the Constitution either, but that train left the building...over two hundred years ago?

You didn't mind when certain judges went 'off the reservation' when it suited your idea about things you agree with. By your own measures of how the SC should run, the Citizens United decision was a travesty.

More to the point, our bicameral government is so dysfunctional that the idea of amending the Constitution is laughable.

If I read you correctly, you are against the Brown vs. Board of Education decision?

Argle bargle.

Pure applesauce.

As I see it, the three houses of our government are a venn diagram. At certain times, one circle or another will become larger or smaller, and we'll proceed into the future.

I don't see you complaining about Executive overreach, or Legislative flaccidity.

 

[BrownArmy]

...What it doesn't allow is for activist judges to re-interpret language based on their opinions and by bypassing the framework. And that's exactly what people (mainly liberals) have done and continue to do and that is what liberals (sic)

Or more simply put.......Revision, through the amendment/repeal processes, is not the same as reinterpreting on a whim in lieu of The Framework spelled out in The Constitution. There is no living document provision but there are ways to AMEND or REPEAL language. And they don't include judges acting on a hunch or out of emotion.

Like I said, Judicial Review is a train that's left the station.

Basically, it's settled.

I think it started with a SC decision in 1796.

 

[bbsam]

It doesn't. You are reading something into it that isn't there. You'd make an excellent Jehovah's Witness.

So what laws are they referring to if only amending and repealing were to change?

 

[BrownArmy]

It doesn't. You are reading something into it that isn't there. You'd make an excellent Jehovah's Witness.

I like how you 'read into' the Second amendment, which is frankly kind of vague (made total sense at the time, doesn't quite work as written in 2015), but you won't consider 'reading into' other parts of the Constitution.

 

[Work safe or not at all.]

I've got an idea that will resolve the whole problem, all 10 commandment monuments that were erected by the founders can stay, the others go. Everybody is happy, we can honor the founders and love the commandments at the same time.
Deal?