[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Do you do realize that there are intellectually honest positions that disagree with viewpoint?
[/quote]
There are no educated people who would be able to disagree. It’s a statement of simple fact. The Supreme Court is the last word on the meaning of the Constitution. The Court’s word is literally law. If the other branches don’t like how SCOUTUS interorets the Constitution, it’s up to them to change it.
Because the Constitution says so.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Because the Constitution says so.
[/QUOTE]
Really? Where? Please quote the specific text.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
What do righties have against the ACLU?
[/QUOTE]
It’s right there in the name. “Civil Liberties”. The Right opposes most civil rights and freedoms, beyond the right to own a gun. And probably the only reason they support that is because private ownership of guns makes it easier for mobs and thugs to terrorize and kill people the Right doesn’t like. A gun is more likely to be used to kill a doctor who performs abortions than it is to be used to fight off the American military in some war against tyranny.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
Communism is the lack of capitalism which takes away a man’s rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. it is the removal of personal and religious freedom.
That’s the short version.
Where am I wrong?
[/QUOTE]
Pretty much completely. Communism is an entire political/economic system and a worldview, not just “the lack of capitalism”; you might as well describe Christianity as “disbelief in Zeus”. And there are any number of other systems that take away people’s life, liberty, and so on - including capitalism, in some cases.
[QUOTE=focusonz]
I am sure the media in the Muslim world gets as much play out of our fight over religion as we do over their’s. And so their perceptions of us are very skewed away from reality. The polling shows that 82% of Americans prefer Christianity over other beliefs or lack thereof. see page 49 of pew research .
So when the headlines reads “10 commandments are removed from the court house lawn” and repeated over and over and over it is no wonder we are considered a bunch of f..king infidels. In the matter of separation of church and state the ACLU are a bunch of morons on a power trip disrupting 82% of the peoples lives just because they can.
Teenagers today have nothing better to do today than shoot each other. The ACLU has been stopping the use of public schools by Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts so teenagers can’t find fellowship there. What next for the ACLU, attacking Future Farmers of America because working in the soil infringes on the rights of illegal Mexicans, or 4H clubs because picking clovers will contribute to global warming.
Jesus H Christ, The ACLU should focus on z (the effect their actions have on the young in our society).
[/QUOTE]
And what makes you think that shoving religion down people’s throats would be good for “the young in our society” ? And what makes you think that most of those 82 % Christians want some other bunch of Christians they don’t agree with ramming their beliefs down their throat ? When you find someone complaining about violations of Separation of Church and State, quite often it’s a Christian who doesn’t want to be forcefed someone else’s religion; not just us evil atheists.
And if the Boy Scouts would stop enforcing bigotry, they’d stop having those legal problems.
As for the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, why not just save space and put “JUSTICE ONLY FOR CHRISTIANS” up on the wall ? We all know that’s what it really means.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
that’s the thing, I don’t think what you’re suggesting. I think that non believers should do their thing and believer should be left alone to do their own thing. How is my praying in public a problem for anyone else? I never did get that whole ‘separation’ thing anyway… I’m mostly focusing on religious freedom. It does not mean that I’m trying to take away anyone’s rights to not believe.
[/QUOTE]
Have the police kicked in the doors of your church and prevented you from praying? Have you been fined for praying on a street corner? Jailed for handing out Chick tracts? I sincerely doubt it. But if it had happened, the ACLU would be the first to defend you.
If you restricted yourself to praying in public, no one, including the ACLU, would have the slightest complaint. But that’s not what happens. You aren’t just praying in public, you’re demanding that your religion have preferential access to government money and power. You want your religious beliefs preached in tax-supported schools and hung on the walls of government buildings. Can’t you see the difference?
Try a little thought experiment with me. Imagine that through some strange fluke the county government, including the school board, was taken over by radical Muslims. They mandate a program of prayer to instituted in all the local public schools. Of course, it’s voluntary. Your children can sit quietly while the teacher leads the morning prayer or while the principal speaks from the Koran at an assembly. They’d even be allowed to wait in the hallway during these proceedings. Surely you wouldn’t object to that, right?
NEWS FLASH! There are people in this country who are not Christians. There are Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Shinto, Wiccans and even gasp Atheists. These people have the same rights you do, including the right to raise their children in their own religion free from government interference. Unlike right-wing Christians, most of these people do not expect the government to subsidize their religion with other people’s tax dollars.
You can pray in public all you want. You can’t use the government to promote your religion. Quit whining because your unfair and unconstitutional subsidy was taken away. Put on your big girl panties and compete on the same level playing field every non-Christian religious or spiritual organization has played on since time immemorial.
[QUOTE=Randy Seltzer]
Okay, how about this:
In Griswold v. Connecticut, the ACLU entered an amicus brief opposed to state regulations on marital contraception. The Supreme Court found 7-2 in favor of declaring the State Law unconstitutional.
Great, right? Now no State can deny its married citizens the right to contraception. Everyone’s rights increase right?
Well, not really. You see, now my State legislators have less power to write laws that will apply to me. So my vote for my State legislators has less net effect. My vote for federal legislators is only 1/50th as powerful as my vote for my State legislators, and now the Supreme Court has made my most powerful democratic tool that much less powerful.
The ACLU has taken away my right to democracy. There. Happy?
[/quote]
You have a gift for sophistry. Sorry but I find this rather underwhelming. Any expansion of civil rights is necessarily a restraint on the rights of government. You’re trying to define any restraint on the power of government as a restraint on your “right to democracy.” I find that position preposterous. The only solution to this dilemma for you would be to grant absolute power to the government.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Because the Constitution says so.
[/QUOTE]
Have you even read the Constitution? Yes. Please: show us where the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power of Judicial Review. Be sure to double check your citations.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
There are no educated people who would be able to disagree. It’s a statement of simple fact.
[/QUOTE]
Are you claiming that Justice Scalia is uneducated? He did graduate summa cum laude from Georgetown and magna cum laude from Harvard Law. He was also a Notes Editor for the Harvard Law Review. What exactly is your definition of uneducated?
[QUOTE=Magiver]
You asked for a reason as to what “righties” have against the ACLU and you were given a quote from the founder who clearly has an ax to grind against religion. The ACLU has done everything in it’s power to remove any suggestion of God from government. Your original question, which was not in the form of a debate, has been answered.
[/QUOTE]
It would be silly to base one’s view of the ACLU on that quote.
That quote supposedly comes from his Harvard classbook, though different versions appear in different accounts of this. Who knows why he wrote that (if he did), but it doesn’t much reflect his actual biography.
Roger Baldwin was born in 1884, well before the emergence of any Communist state, and was himself a believer–indeed he was rather puritanical when it came to sex, for example. He was never a Marxist, and he often quarreled with the IWW and Communist organizations. He denounced the Soviets, when they came around, and actually purged Communists from the ACLU.
Moreover, that quote does nothing to establish that he had “an ax to grind against religion.” That fact is well refuted by the ACLU’s early and frequent defense of religious exercise.
But more important than any of that, Roger Baldwin’s personal feelings on Communism is as relevant to feelings about the contemporary ACLU as Jefferson’s feelings on slaves is to the contemporary United States.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
You have a gift for sophistry. Sorry but I find this rather underwhelming. Any expansion of civil rights is necessarily a restraint on the rights of government. You’re trying to define any restraint on the power of government as a restraint on your “right to democracy.” I find that position preposterous. The only solution to this dilemma for you would be to grant absolute power to the government.
[/QUOTE]
No. You are subject to two governments within the borders of the U.S.. The ACLU tries to privilege the wrong one.
You may dispute the value of State governments. (And I’m sure you do.) But you cannot deny that the ACLU tries its hardest to weaken them in favor of the Federal government.
[QUOTE=spayced]
The world changes. The car changed travel. Machine guns changed warfare. Computers changed information. We thought we KNEW these things. The world changes, you need your laws to keep up. I’m less concerned about the interpretation of the constitution than the growing power of the executive branch to be lawmaker, judge, jury, and executioner.
[/QUOTE]
All your examples point to changes in technology. If anyone was arguing laws should NOT change based on new technologies, your examples would be apt. But since that hasn’t been asserted by anyone, they are useless.
[QUOTE=Maureen]
I greatly appreciate your posts and would be happy to sponsor your membership, should you decide to stay.
[/QUOTE]
Wow. I commend your generosity, really, are you that desperate to get more people to agree with you on SDMB? You didn’t realize that the post of his (hers) that you cited, was, shall we say, off point?
Just wow.
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Really? Where? Please quote the specific text.
[/QUOTE]
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned [within the judicial power of the United States], the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
U.S. Const. art. III, Section 2 Clause 2
Marbury v. Madison established that this clause granted the Supreme Court the right of Judicial Review.
The Writ of Mandamus in the Judiciary Act of 1789 further adds statutory standing to the Supreme Court as the final autrhority on Judicial Review and establishes that such was the intent of the founders.
[QUOTE=Randy Seltzer]
Have you even read the Constitution? Yes. Please: show us where the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power of Judicial Review. Be sure to double check your citations.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve already cited it. Article 3, section 2, clause 2. I’m always happy to educate.
[QUOTE=Randy Seltzer]
No. You are subject to two governments within the borders of the U.S.. The ACLU tries to privilege the wrong one.
You may dispute the value of State governments. (And I’m sure you do.) But you cannot deny that the ACLU tries its hardest to weaken them in favor of the Federal government.
[/QUOTE]
I think the battle you are fighting was lost with the ratification of the 14th amendment, long prior to the formation of the ACLU.
The organization’s avowed purpose is to protect the civil rights granted in the US Constitution and amendments. Since the 14th amendment, state governments are required to respect those civil rights in the same way as the federal government. Those civil rights are established in federal government documents and ultimately adjudicated in federal courts. You’re correct, enforcing those federal standards on state governments does reduce the states’ legislative powers. But it happened as a result of joint legislative action by federal and state legislatures – passage of the 14th amendment.
The reduction of state legislative power is a logical and necessary conclusion of the 14th amendment. The ACLU didn’t write it or pass it, they just work to make sure the governments enforce it (and the rest of the Constitution.)
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Are you claiming that Justice Scalia is uneducated? He did graduate summa cum laude from Georgetown and magna cum laude from Harvard Law. He was also a Notes Editor for the Harvard Law Review. What exactly is your definition of uneducated?
[/QUOTE]
Can you provide a cite for Justice Scalia denying that the Supreme Court has the right of Judical Review?
[QUOTE=Randy Seltzer]
No. You are subject to two governments within the borders of the U.S.. The ACLU tries to privilege the wrong one.
[/quote]
The Constitution privileges the Bill of Rights over either federal or state legislatures. The Bill of Rights is a protection from government.
No, it just tries to stop either state or federal governments from infringing on the rights of the people. The Bill of Rights is a protection from the fedearl government, not of it.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
There are no educated people who would be able to disagree.
[/QUOTE]
And this is why I and others can just write you off as one of the most closed-minded partisan members on this board. Do you not see how pompous, rude, and stifling to debate it is? Sheeze…
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Can you provide a cite for Justice Scalia denying that the Supreme Court has the right of Judical Review?
[/QUOTE]
The power (not right) of Judicial Review is different from the power of being able to just nakedly say the Constitution means whatever we say. Have you ever read a Supreme Court decision? Have you ever read one that just said something like, “We decided the matter thusly because that Constitution says whatever we say it does”?
Justice Scalia’s whole philosophy of originalism is that the Constitution means what it was understood to mean at the time its specific parts were passed. You can read about originalism in his book A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. There is no way to read this book and come out believing that Justice Scalia believes the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
And this is why I and others can just write you off as one of the most closed-minded partisan members on this board. Do you not see how pompous, rude, and stifling to debate it is? Sheeze…
[/QUOTE]
Do you deny that the Supreme Court has the right of Judicial Review?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I’ve already cited it. Article 3, section 2, clause 2. I’m always happy to educate.
[/QUOTE]
Try again. III.2.2 gives the Supreme Court the power to decide cases based on the constitution. It does not (as written) give the Supreme Court the power to change/declare void laws passed by Congress. That power was not established until 1803.
Not really. The 14th Amendment essentially requires 3 things of the States:[ul][li]“privileges and immunities” - interpreted in the Slaughter-house cases to protect only the States, not the individual[]“equal protection of the law” - great. All for it. []no deprivation of life, liberty, or property without “due process of law” - this would be great. But… [/ul]…courts in the 20th century interpreted “process” to mean “substance,” even though they’re diametrically opposite. The only ones who should be deciding “substance” of law are the legislators.[/li][quote=DtC]
Can you provide a cite for Justice Scalia denying that the Supreme Court has the right of Judical Review?
[/quote]
It’s not quite what you’re looking for, but check out Thomas’ dissent in Lawrence v. Texas.
Yes. The Federal government. Read it again.