Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 6/26/2002 10:08:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/27/2002 3:22:51 AM EST by Sweep]
Link Posted: 6/26/2002 10:21:48 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/26/2002 10:52:54 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/26/2002 11:16:28 PM EST
FucJ that bill.
Link Posted: 6/26/2002 11:17:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/27/2002 1:22:06 AM EST by Sweep]
Link Posted: 6/26/2002 11:18:50 PM EST
I will write my POS elected offical. Vote no or you go.
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 12:00:26 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/27/2002 12:03:50 AM EST by Aimless]
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 12:42:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/27/2002 12:43:53 AM EST by Sweep]
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 1:01:07 AM EST
Originally Posted By Sweep: This DOES NOT prevent cases from being heard by the SCOTUS!
View Quote
Of course. However, it's doubtful this bill will pass, and Aimless' point still stands by my lay interpretation of it. Utah could all of a sudden become an interesting place with that law. In spite of the flowery introductory bits, the fact is that bill sucks....period. Say it passes. All of a sudden it's no longer legal in a certain state to wear clothes not meeting certain criteria on a certain day of the week. Someone decideds to sue over that. Oops, sorry....your case can't be heard because congress told us not to hear it. Instead, file a costly appeal to SCOTUS, pray they take it and strike down this silly law, wasting another few million dollars of taxpayer money. This seems to happen everytime Congress tries to censor the 'net "for the children" with their lame COPA sh!t. Please remember, IANAL, and I don't play one on AR15.com, either.
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 1:19:23 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 1:21:53 AM EST
Originally Posted By Sweep: 1) That would fall under actually violating the 1st.
View Quote
Darn straight. But who's going to hear the case now?
2) Because it would be a state law it would start out in a state court, which, correct me if I'm wrong, could be based on #1 above. Even if #1 above doesn't apply, can you really imagine something like this not being resolved in a state court?
View Quote
You obviously don't live in California. Now, having said that, yes, I can seriously believe some dumb sh!t happening that would get appealed beyond a state court.
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 1:29:21 AM EST
Here's a more likely scenario. Your bill gets passed. Another stupid law is passed somewhere in a state, for argument's sake, that is against someone's religion. Someone files a suit to get the law repealed. State AG files motion to dismiss, it's granted up the state chain. Now what? Appeal to federal court? Oops, can't do that anymore, since they no longer have jurisdiction over religious freedom-related cases. Case closed, religion: 0, silly laws: 1. Wanna take bets that sort of crap can't happen?
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 2:17:57 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 4:25:49 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 4:30:35 AM EST
I am glad that this is turning blue.... Sorry but it has BAD idea written all over it! But then again I am a godless heathen commie at heart.....[devil]
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 4:35:15 AM EST
I don't like it. This bill will get rid of some of the checks and balances.
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 4:52:02 AM EST
I say kick California out of the Union.We'll have 49 states. And we have a river to form a border to Arizona. Won't take too much wire or too many mines to secure our new western frontier !
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 5:16:55 AM EST
Sweep - Count me as a "No" also. It may be well intentioned, but it its not a good bill. The examples you give of the Court of Federal Claims don't really prove anything. The CFC has limited jurisdiction, and these rules just set the boundaries of that jurisdiction. Much of the jurisdiction of the CFC is concurrent with the US District Courts so if the CFC can't hear a case, it can still be brought in one of the District Courts. There has to be a place to hear a case. You mention the availability of the SCOTUS, but it only has appellate jurisdiction in such a case. Thus when the federal gov makes some crazy law that violates the Establishment or Free Exercise clause, you have nowhere to take your case. I know you think this is all well and good, but this is not a democracy; this is a representative republic. Try to see it from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe in God, or who doesn't believe in the same God as the vast majority. If you sent your children to a public school, would you be happy if at the beginning of every day they started with a quick prayer...to Allah?
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 5:18:57 AM EST
All I can say [b]Sweep[/b], is: [size=4]It won't be long now![/size=4] We have just recently heard from the Supreme Court in the [b][u]Atkins[/u][/b] Case, that it is unconstitutional to administer the death penalty to a defendant who [u]may[/u] be retarded. That may have been the correct dicision, I'm not certain, but the one thing I am certain of is that the SCOTUS went about reaching this decision in an unbelievably threatening way: 1. They cited [b]public opinion polls[/b] that had been published showing that the public was, at least according to those particular polls, against the death penalty for the mentally retarded. 2. They cited how other [b]'civilized nations'[/b] handled the question of execution of mentally retarded defendants. This is the 'handwriting on the wall' as to how the present SCOTUS would handle any case that came before it concerning the RKBA! The Justices would merely cite whatever public opinion polls that they chose to hold that the majority of Americans do not support civilians owning or possessing 'assault rifles' or whatever aspect of the RKBA is involved. And they would also show that other '[b]civilized nations'[/b] do not permit their citizens to own such weapons, or enjoy whatever aspect of the RKBA was involved. So, I firmly believe that if the Ninth Circus' Court of Appeals decision is not overturned en banc by a full panel of the judges, then the SCOTUS will most likely uphold it. [b]And when our favorite RKBA case comes before it, [u]we will lose[/u].[/b] [b][u]Then[/u] the balloon will go up![/b] Eric The(SeeYouAtTheBarricades,OrAtTheWall!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 6:21:11 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/27/2002 6:22:36 AM EST by Sweep]
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 6:26:17 AM EST
But the schools to which they refer to are PUBLIC schools Sweep. That for me is the breaking point. Public schools are GOVERNMENT schools. How can you expect to have separation of Church and state AND have prayer in school? Now if you want to pray all day in a PRIVATE school.....have at it! Of course I am a big fan of School voucher programs so I put my money where my mouth is on this matter.
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 6:38:18 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 7:05:05 AM EST
Originally Posted By Sweep: Stormbringer, The seperation of church and state was taken out of context....ah hell, here: [b](8) In its rulings to prohibit Americans from saying prayers in school or from displaying the Ten Commandments in public places, the Court has relied heavily upon the metaphor, `Separation of Church and State'. Note that this phrase is nowhere to be found in the First Amendment or any other place in the Constitution. (9) The metaphor, `Separation of Church and State', was extracted, out of context, from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in reply to a letter from them expressing concern that the Federal Government might intrude in religious matters by favoring one denomination over another. Jefferson's reply was that the First Amendment would preclude such intrusion. [/b] ...and Thomas Jefferson was not even the author of the 1st Amendment, so he should not even be quoted when ruling on it. Good news. SCOTUS just approved school vouchers...which I agree with also. Bad news, they also ruled it can be demanded that students take a drug test. I think by urinalysis, but maybe blood too. Not sure.
View Quote
I know I'm going to regret getting into this, but explain the meaning of the First Amendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.." Was the "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" part of that just extraneous? We just ignore that part of the Constitution because we don't think they realy meant it? While it is true the "separation of church and state" language doesn't appear in the Constitution, I think it well describes the intent of the founding fathers. If your tax dollars are spent aiding and encouraging kids in public school praying to a particular God, is that not respecting an establishment of religion? And again, I ask you if you'd be comfortable having your tax dollars wasted by public schools telling your kids to start the day with a prayer to Allah? Maybe you'd prefer they told your kids to pray to Buddah? How about Hare Krishna, or maybe the Almighty God of Cool-Aid who rides the Haley-Bopp comet across the sky?
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 7:38:52 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/27/2002 7:39:43 AM EST by Sweep]
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 8:08:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/27/2002 8:15:46 AM EST by shaggy]
Originally Posted By Sweep:Congress by no means will be allowed to make any such laws.
View Quote
And whats to stop them?
However, if particular county wants to have prayer in their school in the mornings, then the Federal Gov't has no right to stick their nose into that communities business. If you live in a school district where this is done and you disagree with, you can move to a district where they don't.
View Quote
And why should anyone have to move to be free from a public school system forcing a religious belief on their kids? Essentially you're making the argument that your constitutional rights (to be free of religion) should be subject to a local veto. NO constitutional right should be subject to any sort of local or state meddling. Unfortunately as gun owners we see it a bit more because the 2nd Amendment hasn't been held incorporated to the states through the 14th Amendment (yet), so the states are free to regulate and legislate on guns as they see fit. This is not how it should be, however. The government should have nothing to do with religion, especially in the school where you are dealing with young impressionable children. Religion is a matter for the family to teach, not the government. If you want your kids to pray in school, send them to a private school.
It's kind of like my argument for the 10th Amendment. It is suppose to be so that States have more rights as to what laws they have in their state. Today however, due to the Federal Government providing handouts to the states, they control the laws throughout the country. Take the drinking age for example. Before Congress came along and threaten to with hold highway funds for states that did not pass a law requiring the drinking age to be 21. So a 20 year old person, living on his own, who can vote and die for his country has no place to go if he likes to have a beer with his diner. Okay, more like getting inebriated on Saturday nights.
View Quote
The feds only get to dictate the rules because the states accept the deal and take the cash. Any state is free to reject the federal gov's offer of highway funds if they don't want to accept the fedaral rules that go along with the money. Thats what [i]Printz[/i] was all about. The feds dictated what state and local sheriff's had to do (background checks on gun purchasers) but didn't provide funds or get consent through a funding deal.
When it comes right down to it, the Federal government has no legal basis what we can or can not say in regards to religion in public places and should keep their noses out of it.
View Quote
It depends on what you mean by a "public place", what the activity is, and who is doing the activity. If its the government or a gov entity or agency (whether federal, state, or local) they shouldn't be doing anything to promote or aid any specific religion. Thats not the function of government.
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 8:10:00 AM EST
Heck, it's not just the schools. From what I understand, churches can't even preach against abortion on Sunday mornings because it's a political issue. Correct me if I'm wrong on that one, but I believe it's true. Has to do with their tax exempt status.
View Quote
As I understand it, you are correct. But a church is a private place - normally they could promote any political belief or candidate they wanted. However, most churches have chosen to take advantage of the availability of the tax-exempt status. Again, like the federal-state highway funding, its a deal; they make the choice to enter into that deal By accepting the benefit of tax-exempt status, they agree not to engage in certain political activities. They consented to the deal though - the church is free to reject the tax-exempt benefit if they really want to engage in politics.
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 9:24:12 AM EST
The problem with your views [b]shaggy[/b] is that we know [u]precisely[/u] what the Founding Fathers were talking about when they wrote the 1st Amendment's 'Congress shall make no law respecting an Establishment of religion....' Just as we know precisely what they meant when they said that the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' If we punt on one of them, we'd better get used to the idea that the other one will be punted, as well. If it hasn't already been! Eric The(Serious)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 9:34:43 AM EST
Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
View Quote
I take you think this bill isn't all it's cracked up to be either? Or am I incorrect in my reading of it? Anyway.. Sweep...buddy....re-read the ENTIRE bill and think about how it will affect court cases. It's not just going to handle the pledge....it's EVERY religious freedom case out there. This has BAD idea written all over it. You are proposing we support a bill that could allow lawmakers to limit our rights with NO oversight! I guess that sounds like a bad idea to me. Clothing can be covered under the first Amendment, btw.
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 10:24:27 AM EST
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: The problem with your views [b]shaggy[/b] is that we know [u]precisely[/u] what the Founding Fathers were talking about when they wrote the 1st Amendment's 'Congress shall make no law respecting an Establishment of religion....' Eric The(Serious)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Eric, I'm no Constitutional expert, so maybe I've got it all wrong. You care to elaborate on that one for me - precisely what [i]did[/i] the founding fathers mean?
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 12:28:49 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 1:36:57 PM EST
Originally Posted By Sweep: But you know what's funny? I think the Pledge would have been struck down under this bill also.
View Quote
Actually, it wouldn't have been heard under this law. That would have been a more preferential choice for some I think. But that's why I don't like this bill. Get some sleep, see you later.
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 5:43:29 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/27/2002 5:52:01 PM EST
However, most churches have chosen to take advantage of the availability of the tax-exempt status. Again, like the federal-state highway funding, its a deal; they make the choice to enter into that deal By accepting the benefit of tax-exempt status, they agree not to engage in certain political activities. They consented to the deal though - the church is free to reject the tax-exempt benefit if they really want to engage in politics.
View Quote
The Church has always been 'tax free'. How can the state tax God? He allows it to exist. The church has NEVER been taxed. The political argument is so much BS. The truth is that the state wants to tax churches as part of their anti christian jihad. In Michigan they went to an acre max for church property in their quest to destroy the church and grab all power and all authority of right and wrong for themselves.
Link Posted: 6/28/2002 4:06:10 AM EST
Top Top