KidCharlemagne: Yes, that’s the way I understand it.
Monty, why do you refuse to swear on the Bible?
Is it because the bible says not to swear by anything?
(vanilla,one of Monty’s buddies)
Nitpick: full incorporation is actually deemed to be part of due process. You’re just a few words off. 
The notion that the 14th amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights is based largely on some statements by the authors of that amendment that (arguably) indicate they intended due process to include incorporation.
It is an arguable theory, but it’s so ingrained into constitutional law that it is accepted on stare decisis grounds if nothing else. Arguing over the validity of 14th amendment incorporation is a little like arguing over the validity of judiical review and Marbury v. Madison.
“It’s right there, Milum. The states are prohibited from abridging anyone’s liberty. Freedom of religion & even freedom from religion are part of our liberties in this country.” -** Monty**
Ain’t it the truth, Monty unbuddy, but now kindly explain what law Congress has passed respecting our right of freedom from religion or of prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Follow?
Good grief, Milum. You really should be giving lessons in evasion. Congress doesn’t have to enact the Constitution because the Constitution is the basis of all of our laws!
vanilla: Yes, that’s why.
Dewey: Thanks.
Quoth Lissa:
*The courts may look at my character, my history, or the circumstances surrounding my case, but that comes at the sentencing phase. It has no bearing on my guilt or innocence. To excuse a defendant who is technically guilty for moral or philisophical reasons is called jury nullification.
There is little to no room in our system for flexibility in enforcing the law. The question for a jury is “Did he do it?” not “Were his actions wrong?” The jury does not decide whether the law is just. They are asked to decide if it was broken.*
First off, “Did he do it?” is not what a jury is asked. A jury is actually asked one of two questions. In a criminal trial, the jury is asked if there is a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime he was charged with. If so, then the defendant is not guilty. In a civil trial, the evidence is less strict, and asks the jury if it was more probable than not that the defendant did what he was accused of doing.
Secondly, you just contradicted yourself. You talk about jury nullification – an option available to jurors that believe that the defendant, while guilty, should go free – and then go on to talk about the inflexibility of the system. “Moral or philosophical reasons”…is it not true that morality and philosophy deal, at least partially, with the concepts of right and wrong and how those concepts can be attributed to a person’s actions?
Anyway…Moore got what he deserved. To a point, that’s sad, since that means he can run for office. But, to be fair, the higher courts didn’t really have a choice; if they ignored him, it would’ve set a precedent. They should’ve disbarred him, but I guess that would’ve had the fundies screaming persecution six ways to Sunday. Ah well. Good thing he’s too much of an ideologue to be elected President.
Housecleaning.
Milum (that’s me) said : ----------------------------
*In his opinion effecting the removal of the rock, federal Judge Myron Thompson said pointedly that he had no idea what the Constitution meant by “religion”. *
Then** Dewey Cheaten Andhow** retorted : ------
I’ve skimmed the opinion and I can’t find what the hell you’re talking about. Please tell me which page of the opinion (linked in my earlier post) you are referring to.
The Eleventh Court’s decision (Glassroth et al. V. Moore) written by Judge Myron Thompson ordering the removal of the Judeo- Christian graven images of the Ten Comandments from the Hall of Justice least it offend passer-byers. (Part B-near the end.)
Finally, the plaintiffs have not presented an alternate definition of religion, and the court lacks the expertise to formulate its own definition of religion for First Amendment purposes. Therefore, because the court cannot agree with the Chief Justice’s definition of religion and cannot formulate its own, it must refuse the Chief Justice’s invitation to define “religion.”
And there you have it, boys and girls, the Eleventh District Court ruled Roy Moore’s Holy Stone in violation of the first Amendment’s probition against Congress establishing or disestablishing a "religion ", while at the same moment admitting their inability to even define “religion”.
** Strange days indeed**. (Most peculiar, Momma.) _
[aside]
milum, I really hope you don’t think I’m hounding you, but in reading this debate I’m finding it terribly difficult to work out who said what to whom in your posts. Your use of colour is your business, but your lack of use of the QUOTE tags is downright confusing. Note that by hitting the “quote” button on someone’s post you can quote it in full, or snip it as required. Otherwise, please can you surround what you’re quoting with the following:
{QUOTE}Quote goes here - preferably with attribution.{/QUOTE} - change the curly brackets into square ones.
Cheers.
[/aside]
Christ are you stupid, Milum.
The text you cite is not in the 11th Circuit’s opinion. It is in one of the opinions of the district court. It wasn’t an appellate judge that wrote that; it was a trial judge. No wonder I couldn’t find it.
Furthermore, you should read the whole section, not just the concluding paragraph. The reason that Moore’s definition of “religion” cannot be accepted by the trial court is because it would necessitate the de facto overruling of several Supreme Court cases – something for which it is beyond the power of a trial court to do. And the court properly abstains from making up its own definition – courts generally are supposed to leave the argumentation to the two disputants and rule accordingly; it does not generate its own arguments.
Not to mention that a precise definition of religion is wholly irrelevant for purposes of this issue: whatever the term might mean at the margins, an explicitly Judeo-Christian display like the Ten Commandments is certainly religious.
(a GD lurker jumps in)
Let me take a crack at why I think Roy Moore is wrong. He has often said during his interviews and speeches that he believes it is his duty to acknowledge god. He believes he must put that monument up in order to fulfill his oath, and perform his duty as Supreme Court Judge.
Now, I don’t agree with that for a minute, but suppose it’s true. Let’s suppose there’s some law or clause in the State constitution that requires judges to “acknowledge god” - whatever that means.
What do we then make of the US Constitutional requirement that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” (Article 6). This article clearly applies to “all executive and judicial officers, both of the US and of the several States”.
Under article 6, how could Roy Moore, or any other judge, be “required” to acknoledge god, as Roy has so often said? If any such oath, law, or constitutional clause were to exist, it would be in violation of this article. If “acknowledging god” isn’t a religious test (as a dutiful part of the job), then what is? How could a non-believer satisfy this requirement?
Now, I know Roy often cites the Declaration of Independence in justifications for his actions. But I think any freshman government student knows that the Declaration is not the Law of the Land.
Dewey Cheatem asked : “Christ are you stupid, Milum.”
Dewey, why are you asking me if Christ is stupid?
Look pal Dewey, I know you are upset because I didn’t refer to the “cite” that you wanted me to. I tried, but I couldn’t pull it up. Don’t be angry. Hey ! For Muhammad sake, they 're both federal courts! And look; the quote I gave was by Federal Judge Myron Thompson who was appointed by the Circuit Court to hear Roy’s appeal trial and give the opinion.
Look Dewey, it’s no big deal, so stop quibbling and address the point in contention viz. What is the Constituional basis for the Feds ordering the State of Alabama to remove Roy’s monument.
Milium: I think the basis is, as many many others have said over and over again, that several major cases going all the way up to the Supreme Court have interpreted the Establishment Clause as NOT applying SOLELY to Congress, and that no matter whether or not you agree with it, it’s the law that all Federal judges must follow.
Even if I’m misremembering ormisinterpreting the issues at hand, are you really asserting that throughout this entire thread, and other related ones here and in the Pit, that NO ONE has answered your question about the Constitutional basis for the removal of the monument? I find that hard to believe, to say the least.
Milum, the problem is, Roy Moore’s monument is obscuring the basic fact that justice is for everyone-not just for Christians.
Oh, hell, just let 'em.
Let 'em make kids recite the Pledge, God included, if it will get thier panties out of a bunch. I did. Jane Fonda did, so did John Kerry and John McCain. Big deal. For that matter, let 'em pray, if they can form a committee to decide on an utterly non-denominational prayer…“To Whom it May Concern…”
Let 'em have it. Make tearful public displays of having been totally whupped, and let 'em have it. I don’t give a rat’s ass if the city funds a Nativity Scene, or a menorah or a Kwanzaa display.
We have bigger fish to fry.
Most Americans think they are religious, they commune with the Church of Jesus the Really, Really Nice Guy. How many Presbyterians do you know who have any idea what a presbyter is, and why so many Scotsmen thought it was important enough to kill for? Our Leader is, ostensibly, a Methodist. Can he articulate for you the theological differences between John Wesley and Martin Luther?*
Let 'em. Surrender entirely, let the various religious communities form a committee to study the issue. Let them craft a prayer acceptable to all, and be empowered to enforce it.
Don’t you see? Its a dastardly plot of the Unitarians!
- OK, Jimmy Carter probably could. But he’s a weirdo, and it doesn’t count.
I am definitly not an expert on our legal system by any means, ut I’ve always thought of jury nullification as a* breakdown *of that system, not necessarily as an “option” preseneted to jurors as a legitimate verdict. In a sense, the jurors are “breaking the law” themselves, in that they refuse to do their duty.
I agree. I think jury nullifications is considered as a departure from the accepted rules. When I was on a jury I agreed to render a verdict based only on the evidence presented in court during the trial. I’m not sure that anyone ever really does this, but that’s supposed to be the method used.
Then you should have said as much, instead of trying to pass off one opinion as another. **
Your ignorance persists.
Judge Thompson was not appointed by the 11th Circuit to hear the appeal. Judge Thompson is the trial court judge who heard the original lawsuit brought by Moore’s opponents. She heard the case at trial and, based on binding Supreme Court precedent, ordered the removal of the monument. It is this case – the trial court decision, not the appeal – that your quoted language came from.
Incidentally, Judge Thompson was not “appointed by the Circuit Court;” she was randomly assigned by the clerk of the district court to hear the case, as all trial-level judges are assigned when a lawsuit is filed.
Moore then appealed to the 11th Circuit. They heard the appeal. They decided, again in line with controlling Supreme Court precedent, that the monument should be removed.
The distinction is important. The 11th Circuit is a higher court than the district trial court. Judge Thompson is bound to act as the 11th Circuit directs. She does not have discretion in the matter. **
Again: the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. As I’ve stated quite plainly, the argument in favor of incorporation is based on statements made by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment indicating that incorporation is what they intended. Whatever the merits of that position may or may not be, it has become deeply ingrained in constitutional jurisprudence. Judge Moore can’t just throw it out on his own whim, any more than he could throw out Marbury v. Madison.
Dear** Leaper**,
I get it! It’s like when I wrote “Dear Leaper” I didn’t mean just “you”, I meant you and everyone else who reads this post.
Well Leaper, that double-speak technique of information exchange might suffice for a harmless esoteric talk board like Straight Dope, but please let me explain why such indefinite terminology is intentionally ommitted from fundamental documents such as our Constitution and the Amendments.
** * Note: The following explanation is written in a stylistic and exigent manner as is the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. **
Whereas it is recognized by all reasonable men that a common set of fundamental thoughts that are immutable through time are necessary to establish a society that is governed by those thoughts. And it is further understood that in order for these truths to continue they must be collectively held by those extant and those who come after by means of the languages of man.
And while the languages of man can be transmitted by rote memory from generation to generation, the common agreement of all men who agree to exist under the truth of these beliefs must be reduced to unambigous recorded written words so all men of that language can clearly understand the meaning of these words and thereby immediately recognize any deviation from the original intent. This must be done to prevent the misinterpretations of judges, charlatans, fools, and tyrants.
A preemptive afterthought…
Congress equals Congress
________ but while_________
** Men equals men and women**
__There’s a difference.
Because, y’know, the Founding Fathers were so into computers and the internet and a heterogeneous population with many different religious beliefs and opinions on sexual politics.
The problem with original intent is that we give absolute power to a bunch of dead people. Dead people who were HUMAN BEINGS, not demigods. Dead people who had no idea what life would be like in 225-odd years and how complex and different society would be compared to 1781.
I’m against giving absolute power to a small subset of people who are currently living in this time and society. Why should I consent to give final say on all things legal to a group of people who died roughly 200 years ago?
To quote Thomas Jefferson (letter to one S. Kercheval in 1816): “Some men [like Milum and Scalia] look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment … I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes … I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with … But I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. … We might as well require a man to wear the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as [a] civilized society remain ever under the regimen of their … ancestors. … Each generation … has a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes the most promotive of its own happiness.”
Now, I know that Milum can say that the court precedents regarding the establishment clause don’t promote his happiness, but I guess that is his cross to bear. Unless he can get the financing to bring enough lawsuits to get it all rearranged to his satisfaction.
Tough for you Milum. I guess you’ll just have to fume in impotence.