Congress shall make no law

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 30 2004, 11:13 AM'] That's what the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees with its "equal protection" clause. [/quote]
How is the Fourteenth Amendment relevant? What are you suggesting that it gurantees? Before answering, go back and read it. Section 1 is what I believe you are attempting to use.

Edited December 1, 2004 by popestpiusx

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Dec 1 2004, 11:10 AM'] America: you have to put up with dissenting opinions.

Iran: you die.

Oh the pain of choosing. *staples back of hand to forehead* [/quote]
dissenting opinions I could put up with if we were dealing with things that are open to interpretation. Unfortunately, my religion provides a very clear direction for my thinking...which is incompatible with homosexual "marriage." What frustrates me is that people tend to think that it's a matter of opinion when I believe it's a matter of truth versus falsehood. I think I'd get along better with somebody who wasn't caught up in relativism, even if they chopped my head off.

[qfnol31]

It's a freedom [i]from[/i] religion mentality today, not a freedom [i]of[/i] religion.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Dec 1 2004, 03:51 PM'] This is completely false. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the SC authority to interpret the Consitution. Can you provide a source for this absurd claim? It is a very common, but very very wrongheaded, assumption. If this were the case, they would have the power to make themselves the highest authority in the land (which hey have effectively done anyway, but this was through a usurpation of power, not legal entitlement). Article III provides the duties and limits of judicial authority. I'll not post here (for the sake of brevity), but you can look for yourself. It's not there. The original intent does matter, or the Constitution is completely worthless.




[/quote]
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

Mostly.


[quote]This is completely irrelevant.  What we are discussing is not what we prefer; rather, what is true.  We are discussing the way in which the Founders and Framers set up this government.  I'm not arguing for a state religion (though I would be happy to do so).  I am arguing that the Constitution allows the states to establish a religion, by not forbidding them from doing so and by acknowledging their right to do so in the First Amendment.[/quote]

The First Amendment doesn't acknowledge a right for the state to establish a religion.

It's the duty of the executive branch to enforce the law and the judicial branch to make sure that the Constitution is followed. How can the Court determine if the law is being followed without some interpretation?

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Dec 1 2004, 04:01 PM'] dissenting opinions I could put up with if we were dealing with things that are open to interpretation. Unfortunately, my religion provides a very clear direction for my thinking...which is incompatible with homosexual "marriage." What frustrates me is that people tend to think that it's a matter of opinion when I believe it's a matter of truth versus falsehood. I think I'd get along better with somebody who wasn't caught up in relativism, even if they chopped my head off. [/quote]
To quote Winchester:

[quote]The world is a tough place. You don't have the right to not be offended, nor do I have the obligation to avoid stepping on your toes if you're going to stick them out where people walk. It's not that I want to, but I have to walk as well.[/quote]

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 1 2004, 04:05 PM'] It's a freedom [i]from[/i] religion mentality today, not a freedom [i]of[/i] religion. [/quote]
Freedom of religion inherently includes the option to be free from religion.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Dec 1 2004, 05:32 PM'] "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."


[/quote]
Funny, I don't see anything in there about interpreting the Constitution. The S.C. judges cases. They hear two kinds of cases: those cases in which they have original jurisdiction and those cases in which they have appellate jurisdiction. All appellate jurisdiction may be removed or limited by Congress (per Art. III, Sec. 2 where it states quite clearly that the S.C. has jurisdiction "with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make"). If you are correct, the court could interpret this [Art III Sec 2] right out of the Constitution, making themselves the single most powerful governing agency in the world. In fact, they could do anything they want. Who could object, if the Constitution is their plaything, to be re-interpreted at will. This is utter nonsense.

They hear cases brought to them and decide those cases in light of the Constitution (and the arguments presented.) They are bound by the Constitution. They do not interpret it.

[quote]The First Amendment doesn't acknowledge a right for the state to establish a religion. [/quote]

I've already established this. You have provided no evidence to the contrary. Short of that, I'll consider this part of your argument dead.
Your claims, baseless as they are, are without merit.

[quote]It's the duty of the executive branch to enforce the law[/quote]
Yes.

[quote]and the judicial branch to make sure that the Constitution is followed.[/quote]
Can you please tell me how "making sure the Constitution is followed" is any different than "enforcing the law"? Never mind, I know what you are trying to say.

[quote]How can the Court determine if the law is being followed without some interpretation?[/quote]

Surprising as this may sound, a good place to start would be by reading what the law says. Then listening to the arguments. Then judging that specific case based on both. They do not interpret the law. They judge specific cases.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Dec 1 2004, 11:25 PM'] They hear cases brought to them and decide those cases in light of the Constitution (and the arguments presented.) They are bound by the Constitution. They do not interpret it.




[/quote]
Every decision made is an interpretation.

[quote]I've already established this.  You have provided no evidence to the contrary.  Short of that, I'll consider this part of your argument dead.
Your claims, baseless as they are, are without merit.[/quote]

You have, in fact, not established this. You've claimed it, but no establishment has been made.

[quote]Surprising as this may sound, a good place to start would be by reading what the law says.  Then listening to the arguments.  Then judging that specific case based on both.  They do not interpret the law.  They judge specific cases.[/quote]

Every time they judge a specific case based on "what the law says" (which you'll note doesn't necessitate looking at the founders' intent) and the arguments presented they [b]are[/b] interpreting the law.

[journeyman]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Nov 29 2004, 10:33 PM']
We can't export their intentions into the context of our own era... it simply doesn't make sense, we have to examine their intent from their own perspective.... as a persecuted religious minority establishing a state of their own where they want to worship in freedom.

They are not altruistic in this goal... their vision is a purely Christian one, and likely they could only envision the meaning to be freedom of worship of a different christian type. [/quote]
If my memory serves, Massachusetts was established by Pilgrims, fleeing religious persecution in England. Rhose Island was established by Roger Williams, fleeing religious persecution in Massachusetts.

Maryland probably had the best record of religious tolerance among the early colonies . . . established by Catholics, fleeing persecution . . . it was tolerant of others . . . except for a period in the 1650s when the Puritans took over the state government . . . until almost 1700, when the Protestants took over, established the Anglican Church as the established church, and it became virtually illegal to be a Catholic . . . hmm, sounds sort of like England . . .

The American ideal of "freedom of religion" is a) virtually unique in the world's history, and b) so idealistic, even Americans have trouble living up to it

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Dec 2 2004, 02:24 PM'] Every decision made is an interpretation.


[/quote]

I agree that that is now the case. I disagree that that is how it is supposed to be.


[quote]You have, in fact, not established this. You've claimed it, but no establishment has been made.[/quote]

What I have established, and what you refuse to acknowledge (if we are still talking about the same thing), is that the right to establish a state religion is protected by the Constitution. This is demonstrable from the Constitution itself (anything not forbidden to the states, was permissable for the states), history (numerous states had state religions, not one was ever condemned by the S.C.) and from the actions and statements of the Founders and Framers (none of which ever contradicted what I am saying; some of whom participated in establishing a state religion, or some measure close to it, even Thomas Jefferson, the patron saint of secular humanism and enlightenment rationalism). Never was this right contradicted or condemned until the 1940's with the Roosevelt court made up by schmuck's like Hugo Black. For you to be right, you would have to assert and defend the notion that the true meaning of the Constitution could somehow contradict the intentions of the Framers (who happened to write the thing). This you have not established. You've claimed it, but no establishment has been made.

[quote]Every time they judge a specific case based on "what the law says" (which you'll note doesn't necessitate looking at the founders' intent) and the arguments presented they are interpreting the law. [/quote]

What are you talking about? You argument is internally contradictory, and therefore, incoherent. What you are saying here, essentially, is that the act of judging a case is "the same" as interpreting the law. This is like saying that the act of running up a hill is "the same" as running back down it.

Secondly, your parenthetical statement also makes little sense. What am I supposed to note that from? You act as though there is some obvious point here, when in fact, just the opposite is true. One cannot know what the law says without knowing what the terms mean, in their legal sense, as terms of art. One cannot know that unless one understands the legal system at the time the laws were written, and the legal tradition that "produced" the men who wrote them. In so doing, you will understand the "intent" of the founders.