Abortion, Privacy, and Self-Defense

Most court law is based on precedent. Overturning precedent is basically "re-interpreting" the law.
Click to expand...

That's true, and I have less problem with that sort of thing. I don't *always* consider that to be "legislating from the bench". To me, the most egregious and cowardly thing, the true definition, is when a judge simply makes up some new right or regulation that simply is not there.

For example, "Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion.", suddenly became "A school may not hang the ten commandments." What?! How is a school the same as congress? Incorporated against the states? Fine. A school is STILL not a state legislature either. Original meaning "shall make no law". It doesn't say will not hang the ten commandments, or the muslim, or hindu or buddhist equivalent thereof, or offer prayers before sessions. THAT is legislating from the bench.

In other words, reinterpreting existing law is one thing, picking crap out of thin air and claiming it's some sort of right or regulation that was always there is entirely another.
 
Have you read up on the firefighter ruling?
Click to expand...
There is room for reasonable disagreement as to the relevance of written tests to the job performance of public servants. Stupid people need promotions, too. Shame on all those elitist egalitarians standing in the way of their career advancement.
 
PlayboyPenguin said:
Most court law is based on precedent. Overturning precedent is basically "re-interpreting" the law. That is not really any different than creating a new law...and that is what the right has been accusing judges on the left of doing. No judge is actually writing a "new" law. We cannot be picking and choosing when it is okay for a judge to do this or rationalizing the act when it suits our cause. That is not the job of a judge. That is the job of legislators to change the laws that formed the precedent.
Click to expand...

I see your point, PBP. But I have to agree with Peetzakilla on this one. Not to drift off too much, but if I follow your logic to a 'T', the 1968 GCA and the 1986 MGA couldn't ever be overturned. Court rulings are known to be wrong and future cases should be allowed to review...
 
Overturning court rulings

The simple rule is that only a court superior (except for the SCOTUS0 may overrule a lower court's ruling. I don't think Sotomayor will be good for gun owners in any way, but her ruling on the firefighter case was in line with precedent. Only the SCOTUS had the power to overturn the lower decisions, and they did!
 
For example, "Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion.", suddenly became "A school may not hang the ten commandments." What?! How is a school the same as congress? Incorporated against the states? Fine. A school is STILL not a state legislature either. Original meaning "shall make no law".
Click to expand...

That's not quite what it says. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

In plain language, the intent of the framers was that no one religion would be elevated above others by means of government sanction. A public school--which is a government facility--hanging a copy of the ten commandments is the tacit endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint. Usually the people pushing such a thing see nothing wrong with it because it's their general viewpoint that's being pushed, but I don't think it would go over as well if, say, school prayers were required to be in Hebrew, or school cafeterias were no longer allowed to serve beef due to Hindi beliefs.
 
A public school--which is a government facility
Click to expand...
But it is not a federal government facility. The first amendment applies strictly to the federal congress. With the selective enforcement of the 14th, it could be argued that it can apply to the state congress. However, schools really should be a local endeavor.
 
As far as I know, schools are paid for with local property taxes. There may be additional federal funding (which should have stayed in the peoples pockets in the first place) but otherwise funded by only local property taxes.

As for the supreme court -
Constitution Article III said:
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Click to expand...

Does this not include supreme court rulings? Or do 9 fatass political whackjob nitwits determine the outcome of an entire country?
 
In plain language, the intent of the framers was that no one religion would be elevated above others by means of government sanction.
Click to expand...


Hardly. Let's look at the "plain language":

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,

"Congress": This is the Senate and the House, or the state legislatures, by incorporation. No one else.

"shall make no law": this is the actual passing of a bill.

"respecting an establishment of religion": that creates or artificially elevates a religion

"or prohibit the free exercise thereof": or stop the people from "doing religious things", in any way the people see fit.

"or abridging the freedom of speech": or stop people from saying what they want.



In other words, the amendments "plain sense" translation is that CONGRESS will not make A LAW that favors one religion over another, or stops people from speaking.


The worst problem with have with constitutional interpretation today is that we not only do not have courts that read plain sense, we actually have people that believe that all the strained interpretations ARE the plain sense. Plain sense means takes it for what it says.

Once more, unless CONGRESS or the state legislatures, through incorporation, actually passes a LAW establishing a religion, then there can be NO violation of this amendment.

The modern catch phrase "separation of church and state" is NOT constitutional and the actions of government in it's enforcement of "separation" mostly certainly ARE violations of this amendment.

This nonsense about "Well, the schools get their money from the feds and.... blah, blah blah" is ridiculous. CONGRESS shall make NO LAW. Plain sense.
 
Hello "ADB": what do . . . . .

. . .we do about all of the Bible Scripture that is engraved on nearly all the buildings in D.C.? It is obvious that our Founding Fathers (the REAL Greatest Generation) could have chosen Hindoo or Moslem or Sanskrit or some other religion's quotes. But they chose Biblical Scripture. HMmmm, I wonder if they were trying to tell us later generations something. "...free exercise thereof..." began to be twisted just as soon as the Feds began letting schools feed of the slop at the public trough, and the same has happened to hospitals, etc. The golden rule: "He Who Gives The Gold Makes The Rules."
 
Last edited:
But it is not a federal government facility. The first amendment applies strictly to the federal congress. With the selective enforcement of the 14th, it could be argued that it can apply to the state congress. However, schools really should be a local endeavor.
Click to expand...

The First has been incorporated against the states, and it has also been established as constraining local government. If it were otherwise, then there would be no bar against cities and towns like DC from having total bans on guns, because the constitution didn't apply. But it does.

. . .we do about all of the Bible Scripture that is engraved on nearly all the buildings in D.C.? It is obvious that our Founding Fathers (the REAL Greatest Generation) could have chosen Hindoo or Moslem or Sanskrit or some other religion's quotes. But they chose Biblical Scripture.
Click to expand...

A few buildings in D.C. have biblical verses on or in them because it's part of the culture. But the intention of the founding fathers was very clearly to not have a national religion; Thomas Jefferson was the one who coined the phrase "seperation of church and state" (technically, he said seperation between church and state) in a letter to a baptist congregation reassuring them that there would be no government favor granted to any particular group. And by extension, not to have the problems that a national religion had caused in England, in the form of sectarian strife, favoritism, suppression of rival viewpoints, etc.
 
Jefferson, also being one of the least religious of founding fathers, was religious enough to make right-wing headlines in this day and time.

http://www.wallbuilders.com - some interesting info here concerning the factual foundation this country was built on, and plenty of historical documentation to back up everything there.
 
then there would be no bar against cities and towns like DC from having total bans on guns, because the constitution didn't apply. But it does.
Click to expand...
There is a bar against cities and towns like DC from having total bans on guns. It's called the second amendment, which you will kindly notice does not limit itself to "Congress", thus it applies to all government, incorporation of the 14th, or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top