New U.S. Attorney General : Be afraid

[Cyrus]

This is the man whose job includes the protection of citizens' rights and the upholding of the laws? ...Be very afraid.

[ QUOTE ]
The Justice Department in 2002 asserted that President Bush's wartime powers superseded anti-torture laws and treaties.
Gonzales, while at the White House, wrote similar memos. The original documents set up a legal framework that led to abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, in Afghanistan and at the U.S. prison camp for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay.
The Justice memos have since been disavowed and the White House says the United States has always operated under the spirit of the Geneva Conventions that prohibit violence, torture and humiliating treatment.


[/ QUOTE ]


CNN Report (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/04/democrats.gonzales.ap/index.html)

<font color="white">. </font>

[Broken Glass Can]

The rules for enemy combatants in a foreign conflict are different, my point below is strictly about domestic Justice policy:

True freedom in a society comes from balancing the rights of the accused and the rights of the public at large. In the past we have gone too far in one direction and the safety of the public at large has been compromised. We need to be tough on criminals, we need to close the loopholes that let people out on technicalities, we need to allow citizens to defend themselves within reason (guns are good for this /images/graemlins/grin.gif), and so forth.

Gonzales is going to be a great AG, and don't forget, he knows what it is like to be a minority in this country (after all he's a Republican /images/graemlins/smirk.gif, oh and hispanic too).

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
True freedom in a society comes from balancing the rights of the accused and the rights of the public at large.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is this found in the Constitution? I suppose it is implicitly there (i.e. the 5th amendment says that an individual can't be denied life, liberty or property without due process of law ---- implicit in that is the right of society to take life, liberty and property with due process of law.)

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
Where is this found in the Constitution?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can find it right next to the phrases:

"right to privacy"

and

"wall of separation between church and state"

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Where is this found in the Constitution?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You can find it right next to the phrases:

"right to privacy"

and

"wall of separation between church and state"

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not asking for the particular quotes (which, of course, you know). I'm asking for where the idea is found in the Constitution. It very well might be there (as I suggested in my original response.)

The ideas of a right to privacy and a wall of separation between church and state are both found within the constitution.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
The ideas of a right to privacy and a wall of separation between church and state are both found within the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. What chain of logic gets you from the words of the constitution to these concepts? (one of which comes from a Jefferson letter, the other from the imaginations of some justices).

[elwoodblues]

Implicit in many of the protections afforded by the Constitution is the idea that people have the right to be left alone from government intervention. Absent such a penumbral right (to quote the supreme court) the amendments themselves lack life and substance. Places where a right to privacy is implicit in the Consitution:

First Amendment - The right of association (for example)

Third Amendment - prohibition against the quartering of soldiers 'in any house'

Fourth Amendment - explicitly affirms the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.'

Fifth Amendment - elf-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment

The 4th and 5th together have been read as protection against all governmental invasions 'of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life'

Ninth Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people



--------------

I suspect that you already know that people get the idea of a wall of separation between church and state from the language of the first amendment which prohibits the government from both establishing and prohibiting the free exercise of religion coupled with the Jefferson letter (i.e. original intent of the framers --- or at least one important framer)

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. What chain of logic gets you from the words of the Constitution to these concepts? (One of which comes from a Jefferson letter, the other from the imaginations of some Justices).

[/ QUOTE ]

It is important that you realize that the laws in America do not mean what I say they mean, or you or anybody else says -- but what the courts say they mean, i.e. "some Justices".

The la,w in the Anglo-Saxon legal system, is applied as interpreted by the courts. This is a basic tenet of American society.

Now, the courts have indeed interpreted the wording of the First Amendment of the US Constitution to mean precisely this: the separation between church and state.

[ QUOTE ]
1st Amendment : Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

[/ QUOTE ]

As to "the right to privacy", do you really believe that there is no general proclivity towards that right in the United States Constitution and the laws? For example, ever heard of Habeas Corpus? (What do you think it is, some kinda steak?)

<font color="white"> .</font>

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, ever heard of Habeas Corpus? (What do you think it is, some kinda steak?)


[/ QUOTE ]

Why bring this idea of cannibalism into this discussion?

[HDPM]

I am surprised people are neglecting his performance on clemency pettions when President Bush was a governor. The Atlantic had a good article on this I have been trying to find again. I think he will carry on the proud AG tradition of Clark, Meese, Reno and Ashcroft. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[zaxx19]

We all know the liberals are gonna get their panties in a bunch over this one...Hispanic ...Conservative.. Successful....off the liberal plantation and doing well. It is the Democrats biggest fears realized. Hispanics are now strongly moving towards the GOP once they arrive at the middle class...and that spells disaster for the Democrats.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Yeah, yeah, yeah......And Bush is Hitler, Haliburton controls the USA, and the trilateral commission rules the world.... &lt;Yawn&gt;

I wasn't a big fan of Ashcroft but I didn't hate him. As a pseudo-libertarian, I'd rather have a Republican AG than another Democrat AG. Lesser of two evils.

As for denying sleep to terrorist being "torture"...&lt;Yawn&gt;.

It sure beats the "Oprah" approach to terrorists that liberals espouse...

[Wake up CALL]

His ideas are no more torturous than reading one of your silly posts.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
...Be very afraid.


[/ QUOTE ]

Afraid of what?

Have you purchased any firearms yet, as I advised you to?

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, the courts have indeed interpreted the wording of the First Amendment of the US Constitution to mean precisely this: the separation between church and state.

Quote:
1st Amendment : Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

[/ QUOTE ]

What courts have interpreted the First Amendment to mean "a wall of separation between church and state"? What courts, exactly? And if there are any, have any other courts ruled otherwise?

The First Amendment is quite specific in meaning, whereas your "wall of separation" is far more encompassing. Indeed if there were to be such a comprehensive wall, it might well prohibit public officials from expressing their own opinions regarding religious belief (or lack thereof). But that in itself would be in conflict with the First Amendment, which also forbids the prohibition of the free exercise of religion.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment means exactly what it says: no more, no less. Its wording is crystal clear and is not couched in any nebulous language or words with multiple meanings. It doesn't say there shall be a "wall of separation". It is not arguably of different or uncertain meanings as the Second Amendment is often held to be. I suggest you reread it as often as necessary until you realize this. And if any justices disagree, I would suggest that they should go back to grammar school and learn how to read, too. It isn't a complicated amendment.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment means exactly what it says: no more, no less. Its wording is crystal clear and is not couched in any nebulous language or words with multiple meanings. I suggest you reread it as often as necessary until you realize this. And if any justices disagree, I would suggest that they should go back to grammar school and learn how to read, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already wrote, in grammar-simple English:

The laws (and the USA Constitution) in the Anglo-Saxon system mean what the courts say they mean -- not what laypersons like you and me say they mean. (I presume here that you are not Clarence Thomas -- althought the eloquence is similar!..) We can argue about the law till doomsday, of course, and it helps pass the time, but the final word belongs to the courts; yes, to "some Justices", as Broken Glass Can dismissively put it.

OK, here come de judge! In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared : "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." And in 1961, the Supreme Court of the United States removed prayer from schools, in ruling on Engel v. Vitale.

And that's the law for ya!

Shouldn't you be asking some lawyer friend of yours already, in order not to come on as pompously ignorant on the matter as you do? Shouldn't you be at least googling?

A legal scholar opines (http://www.eriposte.com/philosophy/fundamentalism/christianright.htm) (Cites galore!)


Separation of Church and State public opinion polls (http://www.religioustolerance.org/sep_c_st5.htm) (Not that they matter...)


Jefferson's Letter (http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html) (To avoid silly misquotations)


Historical background of Church/State separation in the US (http://www.religioustolerance.org/scs_intr.htm) (Useful primer)


Anti-Defamation League: Separation is good for government, and good for religion (http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/separation_cs_primer.asp) (Gee, I wonder what those Jews are scared of?.. /images/graemlins/cool.gif)

[Cyrus]

Sample question: [ QUOTE ]
The U.S. Supreme Court outlawed student-initiated prayers at high-school football games in 2000. Who were the plaintiffs in that lawsuit?
- Roman Catholic and Mormon families
- two Jewish families
- a Unitarian (agnostic) family
- an atheist organization

[/ QUOTE ]



Quiz : What Do You Know About The Separation of State and Church? (http://ffrf.org/quiz/ffrfquiz.php)
<font color="white">. </font>

[MMMMMM]

Thanks for the links, Cyrus. I am not surprised that some courts have erred so greatly.

What some courts have decided the Establishment Clause should result in, is quite different than what the Establishment Clause means in itself.

What the courts think is "good" for the country is besides the point, too. They are tasked in such matters only with accurately interpreting the law. It is a sad travesty of our justice system when the courts overstep their bounds to formulate decisions in keeping with their own personal views rather than solely in keeping with the US Constitution as it is written. This unfortunate tendency recently surfaced in another major case, the case involving U. of Michigan and Affirmative Action. It is however even more glaringly clear in courts which have held that there is a "wall of separation" between church and state in the Constitution.

The words "wall", "separation" and the phrase "church and state" are not even found in the document. Thomas Jefferson once used the phrase when speaking to a Baptist group, because he wanted to make clear that he was not referring to denominations and because he was not a Baptist.

The twin purposes of the Establishment Clause, and the reason it was adopted as an Amendment, were: to prevent the government from establishing a national church, such as the Church of England; and to ensure freedom of religious expression.

That is all. There is nothing in it saying there must be a "wall of separation between Church and State". Nothing, nowhere, except in the minds of some activist judges and some uninformed or bamboozled laypersons.

I would suggest that the second of the twin pillars of the Establishment Clause, that of ensuring the right of freedom of religious expression, is actually being violated by those who forbid children from praying in school of their own accord, and by many other enactments supposedly done in the name of "separation of church and state". Freedom of religious expression is as much a part of the Establishment Clause as is the first part!

Below is an excerpt from an article you may (hopefully) find thought-provoking. I especially like the part where Limbaugh lists the things one must ignore if one is to agree with the Supreme Court's decision. I include this excerpt to show the lengths one must go to to invoke the Court's convoluted reasoning.

I guess you, Cyrus, put more faith in judges and their decisions than in your own reading and thinking and understanding. Well that's our legal system and that's what you have to do go along with, legally speaking. But you don't have to do it blindly intellectually. Quite frankly, Cyrus, your "faith" in our judges has been abused, as the courts have repeatedly betrayed their solemn duty to interpret the Constitutional accurately and without injecting their own opinions, preferences, and activist urges.

Usually, simpler IS better. And the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is very simple. It should be kept that way.



(excerpt)Consider the case in which public high-school students held their own two-step election – first, to decide whether a student address, possibly containing a prayer, could be delivered at a football game, and second, which student would deliver it. The Supreme Court ruled, in effect, that just by permitting such an election the state was violating the Establishment Clause.

Now seriously, just how far do we have to suspend our disbelief to conclude that the Framers intended to prohibit such an election merely facilitated – not initiated – by a public school?

Well, first we have to ignore that the First Amendment restricted the federal Congress only. Second, we have to disregard that it also prohibited Congress from intruding on the states' right to establish religion if they so chose. Third, we have to assume that a local school, which happens to receive funding from both the state and federal governments, is deemed to be an extension of those governments, keeping in mind that there were no such government funded and controlled schools at the time of the nation's founding.

Fourth, we have to find that the students' voluntary action to elect a speaker to deliver a statement that might or might not contain a prayer, with no involvement from the school beyond permitting the election, should be imputed to the state or federal governments – as if they are the ones choosing to say the prayer.

Fifth, we have to conclude that the reading of the prayer itself is tantamount to establishing a federal or state religion – notwithstanding that there are thousands of other government-run schools throughout the United States that would be completely unaffected by the prayer and no other part of the nation would be affected by it. (How can we conclude that a single public school in a single community in a single state, by merely permitting and not encouraging its students to choose, on their own, to read a prayer at a football game, constitutes the establishment of a particular denomination as the national or state religion?)

Sixth, we have to assume that you can ignore all these obstacles, even though in the very process you are emasculating that other critically important religion clause of the First Amendment, the Free Exercise Clause, which also guarantees our religious liberty.

By precluding the student-led prayer through these outrageous legal fictions and convoluted reasoning, the Court sanctioned the school's encroachment on the freedom of students to worship as they pleased – thwarting the very purpose of both First Amendment religion clauses.

The point here is not that it is desirable for the government to endorse religious activities. Rather it is that courts have made the law up as they've gone along, completing mucking up Establishment Clause jurisprudence, and, in the name of protecting religious freedom, have greatly suppressed it.(end excerpt)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34343

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment means exactly what it says: no more, no less.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the only unconstitutional act under the Establishment would be to create an official religion of the United states.

The term "establish" isn't as clear as you make it seem. At some point a line is crossed where religion is de facto established without having a "Church of the United States."

[zaxx19]

Absolutely correct Elwood..unfortunately no reasonable person can really argue that inserting the word "in G-d we trust" on some coinage really crosses that line of establishment. Other things such as organized prayer in school certainly might be argued to.....for example.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
the word "in G-d we trust" on some coinage

[/ QUOTE ]

My God, is the word "God" now a four letter word?

Our new motto?: "In [censored] We Trust"

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
So the only unconstitutional act under the Establishment would be to create an official religion of the United states.

[/ QUOTE ]

That, I believe, is specifically what the Founders were trying to preclude.

[ QUOTE ]
The term "establish" isn't as clear as you make it seem. At some point a line is crossed where religion is de facto established without having a "Church of the United States."

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I don't think I can argue against that. However that point would seem to be a long ways off.

It seems to me that the erring has been way too much on the side of cleansing any hint of the government being involved with religion--oftem at the expense of the other equally important pillar of the same clause, which is: the ensurance of the freedom of religious expression.

Also it is worth noting that 1) the clause specifically refers to Congress, and 2) there is nothing precluding the individual states from establishing a religion.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that the erring has been way too much on the side of cleansing any hint of the government being involved with religion

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to think that in questionable cases, that's where we should err. Basically, we should err on the side that the clause suggests. Thus, in tough Free Speech cases, we should err on the side of preventing the government restriction. In close-call Establishment clause cases, we should tend to err on the side of preventing the governement establishment. In Free Exercise cases, we should err on the side of allowing the exercise.

[ QUOTE ]
oftem at the expense of the other equally important pillar of the clause, which is: freedom of religious expression.

[/ QUOTE ]

To determine which clause should "win out" in tough cases where the Establishment Clause is pitted against the Free Exercise Clause, it makes sense to me to look at who the actor is and the context of the action. If the actor is a government employee acting in a government capacity, then Establishment clause should probably trump (i.e. a judge putting 10 commandments in the court rotunda.)

There is an irrational belief by many that groups like the ACLU are trying to get rid of religion from society. Groups like the ACLU are only trying to maintain the distinction that the constitution recognizes between individual religious actions (Free Exercise Clause) and governmental ones (Establishment Clause.)

[ QUOTE ]
Also it is worth noting that 1) the clause specifically refers to Congress, and 2) there is nothing precluding the individual states from establishing a religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

For good or bad, the First Amendment applies to the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Basically, the courts have held that when the Due Process clause prohibits the states from denying liberty without due process of law, part of those fundamental liberties/protections are those found within the first amendment to the Constitution.

[ QUOTE ]
the clause specifically refers to Congress,

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it be okay for the President to create an executive order declaring Islam the official religion of the United States? How about for a judge requiring that anyone entering his courtroom say a prayer to Jesus? While the First Amendment does, by its terms, only apply to Congres it would lead to a strange world where freedoms of speech, assembly, and the free exercise of religion could be trambled on by 2 of the 3 branches of government.

[Cyrus]

"Every question has a simple answer - and it's usually wrong."

/images/graemlins/cool.gif [ QUOTE ]
I guess you, Cyrus, put more faith in judges and their decisions than in your own reading and thinking and understanding.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am merely saying that, although I believe I can reasonably understand (and interpret) English text, the interpretation of the courts is what counts in the United States of America, and any other country with the Anglo-Saxon system of common law. There have been decisions of the courts with which I have disagreed (the US SC Electoral coup d' etat of 2000 comes to mind). But civil disobedience or mere dissent does not change the fact that the American society's laws are shaped according to (a) how laws are made in the legislative branch, and (b) how those laws are interpreted in the judicial branch.

Disagree as much as you like (as I do, oftentimes) but the situation will not change. That's how it has always been.

[ QUOTE ]
The words "wall", "separation" and the phrase "church and state" are not even found in the document.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, if you don't agree with the courts' interpretation of the Constitution is another matter. You have every right to disagree. But, again, I'm saying that telling me that the Constitution says this or that when decision after decision of the courts have said something different makes for a good academic exercise but ultimately of little practical use.

[ QUOTE ]
Your "faith" in our judges has been abused, as the courts have repeatedly betrayed their solemn duty to interpret the Constitutional accurately and without injecting their own opinions, preferences, and activist urges.

[/ QUOTE ]
I happen to personally agree with everything that the American courts have decided on the matter of Religion and State. I also believe in the same things that numerous notable legal scholars and judges of the past and the present have held, namely that the application of the law is NOT * like "applying a medical prescription", whereby one follows blindly the written instructions. The law, like every other human text, is a dynamic expression of human intentions and gets changed or shaped according to society's changes; some call that progress, others call it hubris against the holiness of the text!

It is also quite significant that the U.S. Supreme Court, in its various line-ups (including its most conservative line-ups), has not dented the WALL OF SEPARATION between religion and state in America.

(* : This particular aspect of Anglo-Saxon law is evident in the "job description" of a jury, which is instructed to make a decision based on its members' understanding of what happened, and not necessarily obeying the "letter of the law" or the instructions of the judge!)

[Cyrus]

"My God, is the word "God" now a four letter word?"

Actually it's a three-letter word.

But, yes, it is a swear word. Always has been.

<font color="white"> . </font>

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Would it be okay for the President to create an executive order declaring Islam the official religion of the United States?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not on the federal level. What MMMMMM is saying is that it would be OK for a state to have an official religion - which could be, yes, Islam.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[elwoodblues]

No, MMMMMMM was saying two things. 1) that the first amendment says "Congress shall..." (not the president, or the government, or the state) and 2) that it doesn't apply to states.

[elwoodblues]

I always find it funny when a movie that uses the phrase "God Damn" on network tv the "God" gets bleeped, but the Damn doesn't.

[Chris Alger]

"The rules for enemy combatants in a foreign conflict are different..."

No they're not. First, there are no "rules for enemy combatants" except for the ones the White House made up. "Enemy combatant" does not appear in the 1949 Geneva Convention and isn't a term of art in international law. Second, the existence of a "foreign conflict" would tend to preclude the applicability of the term, as the Geneva Convention's distinction between "illegal combatants" refers to belligerant acts other than those during wartime (like 9/11), but excludes from this definition acts by militia, resistance forces under occupation or any case where the character of the prisoner is in doubt. Third, to the extent that a prisoner is not entitled to protected status under the Geneva Convention, he is entitled to more, not fewer, rights -- the same rights to counsel, a fair trial and other legal protections accorded the criminally accused.

[MMMMMM]

Obviously we are not going to agree on this.

Which of the following is the basis of our entire legal system:

A) The U.S. Constitution

B) Jefferson's Orations

C) Lincoln's Addresses

If you answered anything but "A" you are dead wrong.

One last point: Whether a "wall of separation" is, in fact, a good thing or not for our country and people is not the issue at hand (maybe it should be). The issue is what does the Constitution say. And it doesn't say anything remotely resembling anything about a wall or separation.

Now, perhaps it should. Maybe the Amendment should be modified or a new Amendment written. Maybe a "wall of separation" is a good concept. Until such time as those changes are undertaken by prescribed process, however, it is plainly wrong for any courts to claim that the Constitution says that which it most clearly does not say--regardless of however much they might believe it "ought to " or it "would be a good thing".

Shame on our courts for disregarding the most important foundation of our liberty and country: the integrity of the U.S. Constitution. This shame is not limited to this example only; there are many examples of the courts trampling the Constitution, or changing its meaning through sleight-of-word and tortuous reasonings.

Our founding fathers would be turning over in their graves at much that has happened to undermine the Constitution in the last century. As well they should.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"he (prisoners) is entitled to more, not fewer, rights"

Geez....what planet are you from? Your entitled to your opinions but your not not entitled to make up your own facts. I dare you to prove the above statement. You can't......

Only countries that signed the Geneva Convention are bound by it when they take prisoners from another country who signed the Geneva convention. Al Queda ***NEVER*** signed this treaty. Therefore there is a debate to what rights should be given to Al Queda prisioners... Loony Democrats what to follow the "Oprah" approach with this head-chopping scum while men (i.e. Republicans) want to let them rot in small cells with 24 hour a day.

[lastchance]

Oh, Republicans want to do more than that, and you know it.

Not saying any of that is wrong or anything, BTW.

[ACPlayer]

... and removing the word "God" does not make any of us any poorer in a cultural, emotional, or religious sense.

The hysteria whipped up by the administration made this little tempest in a teapot into a GREAT BIG DEAL -- has to be politics and religion mixing, right?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously we are not going to agree on this.

Which of the following is the basis of our entire legal system:

A) The U.S. Constitution

B) Jefferson's Orations

C) Lincoln's Addresses

If you answered anything but "A" you are dead wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course we are not going to "agree on this".

How can we agree when you can't even read English?

Where did I suggest that Jefferson's orations or Lincoln's speeches were the "basis of the American legal system"? You are, once again, unfortunately, setting up your preferred imaginary arguments for the opposition - and then attacking them! Nice work, Don Quixote.

So, I repeat : In the United States, the legislative branch formulates the wording of the laws, according to the Constitution. (If a law is unconstitutional, who gets to say so? Read on.) The judicial branch interprets and applies those laws. In the process of that interpretation and application, precedent is important. (Why is that? Think about it.)

And that's as simple as it gets -- and the fact that no one from the many conservatively-minded lawyers posting here has come to defend your silly position in the matter should warn you already about its worth.

[ QUOTE ]
It is plainly wrong for any courts to [say] that the Constitution says that which it most clearly does not say.

[/ QUOTE ]
Says you. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]

"The (prisoner) is entitled to more, not fewer, rights"

Geez....what planet are you from? Your entitled to your opinions but your not not entitled to make up your own facts. I dare you to prove the above statement. You can't......

[/ QUOTE ]

As it happens, Alger is 100% correct.

Cut - print - we have a take!

I will let you google up the proof yourself, as an exercise.

(Tip: Use the words "Geneva", "protocols" and "convention", OK? /images/graemlins/cool.gif)

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Where did I suggest that Jefferson's orations or Lincoln's speeches were the "basis of the American legal system"? You are, once again, unfortunately, setting up your preferred imaginary arguments for the opposition - and then attacking them! Nice work, Don Quixote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cyrus you likable chucklehead you, I was merely being facetious with the quiz in asking which is the basis of out legal system--in order to demonstrate that Jefferson's orations etc. should have little or no bearing on whether the Constitution sets forth a "wall of separation" between church and state. It's all right there in the Constitution! And all you have to do is READ it. Specifically, read the First Amendment. The First Amendment references no wall, no separation, no church, no state. In fact the clause in question is so plain a third-grader could read it and understand it fully. Why more learned men can't, is symptomatic of the confusion that muddles many a poor head in this complex world.

There isn't a single ambiguous word or turn of phrase in the clause or the amendment. It would be impossible to miss a verbal SAT question based on that clause. Yet those with muddled heads, tend to muddle what they read and think about, thereby increasing the amount of muddle in the world as a whole. All in all it is a sad prospect for those with clarity of thought, and a fine day for those who enjoy muddle-wallowing.

So, Happy Muddling, Cyrus! Far be it from me to deprive you of this fine pleasure! And you're in plenty of good company, to be sure! Many fine men, more learned than you or I, enjoy muddle-wallowing so much they have based their entire careers on it! And it pays quite well, too! Have you ever considered a change of career? Might as well be doing something you enjoy, right? A good place to start would be to place your faith in professional muddle-wallowers, and by the by, see if you can turn a profit at it by your own hand.

The highest level of the Art of Muddle-Wallowing is displayed by those who can take something that is utterly simple and plain, and through various sophistries, turn it into something that is opaque and convoluted. Some day, mark my words, we will see brocaded arguments that 2+2=5 as well as it does 4, and many people will have a hard time not thinking it could be so, or it ought to be so, due to the confusion thrown over the entire matter. More especially if some judges should rule that it is so. And one day, at the end of our lives, when all the nonsense is stripped instantly away from our vision and mental acuity in those last few instants of our lives on this Earth, we shall realize the monumental extent of our Muddle-Wallowing and question if it was really worth it to have muddled so much. Well...was it?

Autumn Harvest Coffee done; time to go make some dough. May you muddle well, dear Cyrus...if muddle you must.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
There isn't a single ambiguous word or turn of phrase in the clause or the amendment

[/ QUOTE ]

Please help this muddlehead understand what the phrase "establishment of religion" means and what are the standards we should follow to know when an establishment has occurred.


How about this one:
"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Doesn't the plain language here suggest that the right to peacable assemble is only guaranteed where the people also (note the word "and") petition the government for a redress of their grievances. All of the rest of the clauses in the first amendment use "or" to mean "or", wouldn't this last one suggest something different because it uses the word "and"?

[MMMMMM]

Hi elwood,

"ambiguous" is not synonymous with "not comprehensively definitive".

Ambiguous means unclear due to having alternate meanings. If I use a word that has dual meanings without giving a clue as to which meaning I intend, that is ambiguous. If however I say "the stone is red" that is not an ambiguous statement merely because I did not specify dark red, light red, or some further definition. Lack of comprehensivity or lack of further definition is not the same as ambiguity, although either may leave some things unspecified.

Regarding the Establishment clause, it is fine to question what constitutes "an establishment of religion". My view is that the Founders intended to preclude a state-religion, such as the Church of England. Given the historical background of the Founders and of the times, I think this is a very likely. They certainly didn't intend it to prohibit prayer in schools, since prayer in schools continued right along after the amendment was enacted, and neither did they intend it to prohibit government officials' expressions of religious faith, since government officials continued right along referencing God whenever they pleased.

Your question about what standards we should apply to know when "an establishment of religion" has occurred is fine, too. It goes back to your earlier question, though.

[ QUOTE ]
How about this one:
"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Doesn't the plain language here suggest that the right to peacable assemble is only guaranteed where the people also (note the word "and") petition the government for a redress of their grievances. All of the rest of the clauses in the first amendment use "or" to mean "or", wouldn't this last one suggest something different because it uses the word "and"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that necesarily implies that they must petition in order to assemble peaceably.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
There isn't a single ambiguous word or turn of phrase in the clause or the [First] Amendment. Yet those with muddled heads, tend to muddle what they read and think about, thereby increasing the amount of muddle in the world as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just as some Kerry supporters are living in deep denial or post-election shock, you are reacting to the news the same way. And since I enjoy seeing you react with such spasmodic flailing-around lacrimosity, here's the news again:

Those you call "muddle heads" are the Justices of the United States Supreme Court! They interpreted the First Amendment in the manner that so delightfully upsets conservative knuckleheads. Such as you.

And the fact that those Justices were appointed also, if not mostly, by conservative Presidents, makes it all the more delicious.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Oh, and did I mention that there ain't nothing you can do about it?

[ QUOTE ]
I was merely being facetious!

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, OK, the facetious argument. Your trump card. Alright. Yeah. Right. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
in order to demonstrate that Jefferson's orations etc. should have little or no bearing on whether the Constitution sets forth a "wall of separation" between church and state. It's all right there in the Constitution!

[/ QUOTE ]

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM arguing against framer's intent

[ QUOTE ]
My view is that the Founders intended to preclude a state-religion, such as the Church of England. Given the historical background of the Founders and of the times

[/ QUOTE ]

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM arguing for framer's intent

------------------

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that necesarily implies that they must petition in order to assemble peaceably.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does the word "and" mean in that context then as it must be different than "or" else the framers would have used the word "or."

[MMMMMM]

elwood,

I wasn't "arguing for Framer's intent"; I was merely stating what I thought Framer's intent was because you posed the question of what "establishment" meant. "establishment" is in the clause itself, so questioning its definition is valid. "Wall of separation" is NOT in the amendment, nor is the concept of wall of separation, so divining Founder's intent regarding "wall of separation" is a huge stretch compared with merely trying to define a word actually used in the Amendment!


[ QUOTE ]

What does the word "and" mean in that context then as it must be different than "or" else the framers would have used the word "or."

[/ QUOTE ]

OK let's see:

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

A) the right of the people (to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances)

B) the right of the people (to peaceably assemble) and (to petition the government for a redress of grievances)

C) Both of the above

(note: using "or" could potentially have undesirable exclusionary implications)

You seem to be presuming that it is "A", not "B" or "C". I think it is obvious that it is "C", since there can be no logical reason to permit both rights but with the restriction that they can ONLY be used in tandem.

Anyway, my intended point was that the establishment clause is very plain and unambiguous, and should not be not subject to mis-reading.

I'm afraid I can't afford to waste any more time arguing over this; this has already cost me at least $50 today. Thanks for the interesting discussion Elwood.

[MMMMMM]

Yes Cyrus it is indeeed unfortunate that there are some muddle-heads on the Supreme Court. Of course this probably seems all well and good to other muddle-heads.

This is the sort of thing that is increasingly convincing me to leave this world of dust to its own devices, and to start moving once again through the world in the manner of my own kind.

Au revoir, good Cyrus! I shall fondly think of you in my journeys.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid I can't afford to waste any more time arguing over this; this has already cost me at least $50 today. Thanks for the interesting discussion Elwood.

[/ QUOTE ]

The $50 check is in the mail.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

The $50 check is in the mail.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Elwood; I will frame it.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
(the US SC Electoral coup d' etat of 2000 comes to mind)

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it interesting that all of the conservatives who decry judicial activism never mention this ruling. The Constitution cleary puts the states in charge of choosing members of the Electoral College, yet the US Supreme Court overturned a state court ruling on the recounting of ballots.

I think the best definition of judicial activism is, "any interpretation of constitutional or statutory law that I disagree with".

I believe that both Gore and Bush were shooting every angle they could to win that election, Bush by doing everything he could to prevent a recount, and Gore by trying to cherry pick Democratic precincts to recount.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Do your own homework.....

While your at it, take a freshman class in Logic. The first thing you will learn is:
*You can not prove a negative

For example, if Alger claims there is a Santa Claus, then the burden of proof is on the Alger to PROVE there is a Santa Claus. Not for me to prove there is not.

But emotions govern Algers mind, not logic....
And I suspect the same is true for you as well....

[Chris Alger]

You seem to be under the impression that foreign nationals seized by the U.S. have no rights whatsover except those accorded by the Geneva Convention. Therefore, if they have no Geneva Convention rights, constitutional and statutory requirements of due process have no applicability.

No U.S. law so provides. Foreign nationals in U.S. custody, provided there have not come to the U.S. in violation of the law, have the same rights as the criminally accused, such as the rights to counsel, to a hearing, to present evidence, to be presumed innocent. The Bush administration's arguments to the contrary were recently rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Rasul v. Bush. It held that federal District Courts have jusridiction to entertain habeas petitions of the Guantanamo captives, both (alleged) Taliban and al Qaeda. The right to access civilian federal courts also confers the panoply of rights above. As the Center for Constitutional Rights (which won Rasul) described, "the core contention of the litigation was that the United States cannot order indefinite detention without due process. The detainees have the right to challenge the legality of their detention in court. To make that challenge meaningful, they have the right to be informed of the charges they face, and the right to present evidence on their own behalves and to cross-examine their accusers."

POW's under the Geneva Convention have rights, but nothing like those accorded the criminally accused.

[adios]

Thanks for supporting the point I've made all along that the gitmo detainees are better off being classified as such rather than POWs yet the ABB faction (check out Cyrus posts as an example) has continually clamored for the gitmo detainees to be classified as POWs. Go figure.

[Felix_Nietsche]

No, you have the wrong impression.....
There is a debate on how these prisoners should be classified. My position is the less rights these prisoners have the better.....

Many have committed war crimes and we can hopefully try and execute those prisoners quickly in a Nuremburg type trial. One of the detainees in Cuba who was released later murdered several Chinese construction workers when he returned to Pakistan. Nice guy huh... The USA screwed up in releasing this guy.

Amazingly, the Democratic party has politicized this issue as a lame attempt to embarass the Bush43 administration. For all practical purposes, the Democratic party has become defense attourney's for these human scum. The Dems care more about regaining power than they do for the welfare of the US. And don't think people aren't noticing.....

But....one positive aspect is the Democratic party is alienating more of the swing voters, so the Repubs can keep winning more elections...

[ACPlayer]

You seem to have trouble arguing with those with whom you disagree without getting into a huff (in this thread you have managed to disagree with much of the legal establishment -- you did agree with the distinguished intellectual Rush Limbaugh though /images/graemlins/grin.gif) as well Messrs Cyrus and Elwood. Two questions spring to mind:

1. Is this a sign of that superior intellectual capability you keep referring to?
/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
2. How long before you start posting again this time?
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for supporting the point I've made all along that the gitmo detainees are better off being classified as such rather than POWs yet the ABB faction (check out Cyrus posts as an example) has continually clamored for the gitmo detainees to be classified as POWs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, the proper classification of anyone captured on Afghani terrain doing battle with American troops is a Prisoner Of War. There can be no doubt about that in the mind of anyone who thinks straight and has not surrendered logic or fairness to his ideological agenda.

But as to what's best for the prisoners, there can be no doubt either that they are better off being treated as suspects for crimes under US law. (You realize, I trust, that I am aware of the protection afforded to the rights of such suspects, under US law.) It sure as hell would NOT be the proper classification, but if I was the lawyer of a Gitmo detainee, I'd be ecstatic to have my client classified as a crime suspect!

Hope this helps.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
"The degree of civilisation in a society can be judged by entering its prisons" - Dostoevski.

[/ QUOTE ]

"No, you have the wrong impression."

Actually, it is you who has the wrong information.

"There is a debate on how these prisoners should be classified."

Yeah, right, a "debate". A debate between the Bush administration and the rest of the world, more like it.

There is no legal scholar with any self-respect that would ever deny that those captured in Afghanistan are POWs and that the (US-ratified) Geneva Convention protocols apply to their full extent.

"My position is the less rights these prisoners have the better."

It's amusing how the loud, breast-beating Libertarians of this forum keepconveniently mum about this issue. Oh, well, "First they came for the communists,and I was silent. Then they came for the socialists, and I was silent. Then they came for the Jews, and I was silent.."

"Many [of those Gitmo detainees] have committed war crimes and we can hopefully try and execute those prisoners quickly in a Nuremburg type trial."

Another hot-tempered, ignorant comment. If only by probability alone, the number of prisoners so far released from Guantanamo Bay without being accused of any crimes should have led you to be more cautious.

"One of the detainees in Cuba who was released, later murdered several Chinese construction workers when he returned to Pakistan. The USA screwed up in releasing this guy."

Hmmm, severe lack of foresight there by the US authorities! /images/graemlins/grin.gif They should have consulted a crystal ball gazer, you think?

You realize, of course, that the man was accused of being a terrorist and yet, when released, he committed a non-terrorist crime?, right? (I.e. If he was to appear next on the news as an airplane hijacker, you might have had a point.)

...I understand that it is very tough for your brain's synapses to make all the above connections at once, but do give it your best shot. Good for your poker game as well. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to have trouble arguing with those with whom you disagree without getting into a huff

[/ QUOTE ]

I have very rarely gotten in a huff.


[ QUOTE ]
1. Is this a sign of that superior intellectual capability you keep referring to?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was, I have little doubt that you would fail to recognize it.


[ QUOTE ]
2. How long before you start posting again this time?

[/ QUOTE ]

I will be posting; I just won't be arguing.


ACPlayer, maybe one day you too will finally come to appreciate the profound truth of the following proverb:

Arguing on the Internet is like competing in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.

[ACPlayer]

Arguing on the Internet is like competing in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.

Well, OK, you have more posts than me while arguing on the internet. I further admit that you have been doing it longer than I have.

You just cant seem to win the points you favor. The rest fits.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
You just cant seem to win the points you favor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the scoreboard at? I thought it was a discussion forum, not a debate geek forum...

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
My position is the less rights these prisoners have the better

[/ QUOTE ]
Which means that we shouldn't even waste time with Nuremburg-style trials or any trials at all, and just kill the "human scum" regardless of guilt. You have a psychopathic identification with the American state. If you were an Arab, you'd be cheerleading Arab terrorists, if a German, the Nazis, if Russian, etc. etc. In other words, everything you say is moronic and reading it a waste of time.

[zaxx19]

Which means that we shouldn't even waste time with Nuremburg-style trials or any trials at all, and just kill the "human scum" regardless of guilt. You have a psychopathic identification with the American state. If you were an Arab, you'd be cheerleading Arab terrorists, if a German, the Nazis, if Russian, etc. etc. In other words, everything you say is moronic and reading it a waste of time.

Daddy, what does moral relativism mean......

[ACPlayer]

Right this is a discussion forum not an opinion free zone.

[Felix_Nietsche]

LOL....You have a fixation with Nazi's. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I have lost count of how many times you bring Nazi's in your posts. When you're not calling people Nazi's, you are indirectly comparing people to Nazi's. This might idea might seem alien to you but it is possible to disagree with you and not be a Nazi. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

As usual your posts are highly emotional and highly entertaining. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I have lost count of how many times you bring [up] Nazis in your posts

[/ QUOTE ]

Hah. You forgot that it was you that brought up first the Nazis in this thread? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

What are you on, some kind of Memento-type stuff? Chris Alger simply showed how absurd it is to invoke the punishment of Nazis in Nurenberg when you don't even believe in such a process! (Lord knows what you believe in.)

...your own post, dummy!| (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1498082&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;s b=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1)

[Chris Alger]

I'm not comparing you, directly or indirectly, to Nazis. I said that in Nazi Germany you'd support them, just as you'd support the Communists if you were Russian or the Great Khan if you were Mongolian and lived 500 years ago. You've chosen to abandon your uman capacity for independent thought in favor of being a cipher, an empty shell of an echo chamber for propaganda, a servile instrument for higher powers, like a parrot or a dog that salivates on cue. In any other country, you'd also ape the assumptions of the highest authorities, demanding that their designated enemies also deserve as few rights "as possible."