It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No clemency for cross! War Memorial Cross must go!

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
Were these government funds federal or more local? If they're not federal, then what part of the California state constitution, or any other law that this area follows makes this illegal?


it's still illegal if it's local funds... they are still a group that must abide by the constitution. the law they must follow is the first amendment.




posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That's the First Amendment.

It says Congress, not state legislature.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That's the First Amendment.

It says Congress, not state legislature.


all laws applying to the federal government apply to the state and local governments. i think it's in article four, but it's simple highschool civics, everyone in the USA should know that.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
all laws applying to the federal government apply to the state and local governments. i think it's in article four, but it's simple highschool civics, everyone in the USA should know that.

And yet you're too oblivious to understand your own constitution. Pretty pathetic if you ask me, which you didn't.

You're talking about the Supremacy Clause. Article VI, Clause 2. (Obviously not "article four". Article IV outlines the limits imposed on the states.)


This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

That means, for those of us who are confused, that the Constitution, if it conflicts with any state/local laws, is supreme.

I'll show you the First Amendment again.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


It says NOTHING here about the states. Only CONGRESS, the FEDERAL body. If the state makes a law, it doesn't violate this since it's not Congress.

But there's more. Our founding fathers wanted to prove that this was their intent.

Amendment X


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Self-explanatory. And there you have it, folks.

[edit on 9-7-2007 by Johnmike]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Johnmike, under rulings by the supreme court it's clear that the first amendment applies to ALL levels of goverment, just look at everson v board of education.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Johnmike, under rulings by the supreme court it's clear that the first amendment applies to ALL levels of goverment, just look at everson v board of education.



You don't get it do you? JohnMike just handed you your............



anyhow, I have been delayed in catching up, that was funny.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
You don't get it do you? JohnMike just handed you your............



anyhow, I have been delayed in catching up, that was funny.

Actually, I did some research on Everson v. Board of Education. It seems that my interpretation of the First Amendment was correct, but that the Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment was enough to have this apply to the states.

This is the Due Process Clause.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Everson v. Board of Education was a dispute between an Arch R. Everson and the local school district. Basically, it was legal in New Jersey to use tax money to transport kids between private schools, including religious schools (Catholic in particular). I don't understand how this could be interpreted in such a way, but in a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court figures that it is so. They've taken the bolded part of the Due Process Clause and somehow used this as justification to impose the regulation of the First Amendment onto the way states use their tax money. I strongly disagree with this ruling, though the idea itself is sound, since I feel that this was neither the intent of the authors of the Constitution, nor of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The First Amendment specifically mentions Congress and nothing else and the Tenth Amendment specifically reserves all powers not mentioned within the Constitution to the states.

Basically, the Supreme Court is trying to say that by supporting a religion in some way, the people are being "deprived of life, liberty, or property" or "denied equal protection of the laws."

This makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't believe that this is in the Constitution in any shape or form, but madnessinmysoul appears to be correct in the sense that the Establishment Clause can now be applied to the states through this court ruling.

This ruling bothers me, severely undermining my belief that Supreme Court is a fair body that upholds the Constitution whether or not they believe that it's best.

[edit on 11-7-2007 by Johnmike]



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Hmmm well in a way I am glad you admitted your mistake, but I too am troubled by this. Maddnesinmysoul was right about this one, but he is wrong about others in my opinion.


Heck , just today I saw a story about a school in California somewhere that is allowing Muslim student to hold 1 hour prayer times in a segregated environment sponsored and condoned by the school. That is scary.

Point is, these people will not be satisfied until every vestige of Christianity is wiped out, Christians are the new target not all religions.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 07:13 AM
link   
edsinger, i don't agree with the california schools thing... but they aren't exactly spending taxpayer money with it, so it's not quite as bad as erecting a monument of the ten commandments.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
edsinger, i don't agree with the california schools thing... but they aren't exactly spending taxpayer money with it, so it's not quite as bad as erecting a monument of the ten commandments.


Oh but they are and during school hours, lets just see what happens if a group of Christians want to have a meeting during school! One other thing, its a taxpayer funded school and I do believe tax payer funded 'teacher' to give them Islamic instruction.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I don't even know if I would call it a mistake. I used the Constitution, and wrongfully assumed that the courts would uphold it. This really does disturb me; I sound like a broken record, but the fact that the Supreme Court can impose anything on anyone through a false interpretation of the Due Process Clause is terrifying.

Don't get me started on the hypocrisy of how this is applied, either. As edsinger's been saying, Christians seem to be targeted like there's no tomorrow while special exceptions are made for religions like Islam.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Ever heard of legislating from the bench?


Well that 5-4 vote will probably go the other way now....


Thank GOD! If you can't beat-em join-em.


And yes our constitution is being skirted everyday.

It never says in there "Separation of Church and State", that is a liberal addition and creation.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 05:35 AM
link   
johnmike, the constitution says Congress, not the FEDERAL congress. want to take a guess as to why it's capitalized? it's at ... the beginning of a sentence. johnmike, it's a word representing "legislative body" in the amendment.

upholding the constitution means taking down this cross.
and edsinger, they wouldn't be "legislating from the bench"
that's just a catchphrase made to demonize the courts when they actually do their job. a general move from a certain executive minded administration to further lessen the power of one of the other 3 branches of government.

seperation of church and state isn't a "liberal creation"... the entire bill of rights is. having a set guideline of rights is a creation of "liberals"

the seperation is inherent in the establishment clause. if you cannot make a law regarding the establishment of reigion then the government and religion have no business with each other.

[edit on 7/13/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
"legislating from the bench"that's just a catchphrase made to demonize the courts when they actually do their job.


I bet you really believe this, look at the western Federal district courts and then repeat your above sentence to yourself....

Judges DO legislate from the bench, but I will grant you that it is not an exclusively liberal act.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
johnmike, the constitution says Congress, not the FEDERAL congress. want to take a guess as to why it's capitalized? it's at ... the beginning of a sentence. johnmike, it's a word representing "legislative body" in the amendment.

Apparently you think you know more than the Supreme Court, then. Do you have a doctorate in law? What kind of law do you study and practice? What you're saying now explicitly goes against what the highest court in our nation decided, so I'm wondering what your credentials are.

See, maybe you didn't pay attention, but just by saying something so...interesting, you've proven that you didn't really bother to read, or at least understand, my post. So I'll just quote myself and hope that you give enough of a damn to read it this time. Hell, I'll even bold a part of it, just for you.


Originally posted by Johnmike
This is the Due Process Clause.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Everson v. Board of Education was a dispute between an Arch R. Everson and the local school district. Basically, it was legal in New Jersey to use tax money to transport kids between private schools, including religious schools (Catholic in particular). I don't understand how this could be interpreted in such a way, but in a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court figures that it is so. They've taken the bolded part of the Due Process Clause and somehow used this as justification to impose the regulation of the First Amendment onto the way states use their tax money. I strongly disagree with this ruling, though the idea itself is sound, since I feel that this was neither the intent of the authors of the Constitution, nor of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The First Amendment specifically mentions Congress and nothing else and the Tenth Amendment specifically reserves all powers not mentioned within the Constitution to the states.


They couldn't just use the First Amendment to do this; at least they're not that oblivious. To apply it to the states, they had to use Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Get it?

[edit on 13-7-2007 by Johnmike]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
i'll admit it, i'm not the best constitutional scholar (nor did i ever claim to be...) but let's take this from a purely moral perspective...

were all the dead soldiers christians?

that should settle it. i wouldn't mind it if they were... but it's severly doubtful that they were.

there are atheists in foxholes, so they shouldn't have to stand having their memory overshadowed by that of the religion of their fellow soldiers.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I don't know if you can prove if all of them are/were... I wouldn't mind it, if there were different sections of national cemeteries for each religion, but really, there are so many religions that you can't represent them all. I was raised a Christian, though I'm kind of agnostic right now, but even if I was a full-blown practicing Protestant, I find cross imagery a bit offensive. At worst it's an idol, at best it's a device of execution.

It's a very difficult issue. If you remove religious imagery, you "hurt", or at least dishonor, the dead who believed in that. If you leave it, you do the same to anyone who didn't.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnmikeIt's a very difficult issue. If you remove religious imagery, you "hurt", or at least dishonor, the dead who believed in that. If you leave it, you do the same to anyone who didn't.



Wow What a great way to put it, and it shows that not everyone can be happy.

So who should prevail? the majority? the minority?

How about let dead dogs lie, pardon the pun, but these places have been that way for years, why change it for a few that want to take it away...

How about a vote on it, are we a democracy? no we are not, we are a representative democracy....so it will all result in a vote of politicians with their own interests in mind.....sadly.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by JohnmikeIt's a very difficult issue. If you remove religious imagery, you "hurt", or at least dishonor, the dead who believed in that. If you leave it, you do the same to anyone who didn't.



Wow What a great way to put it, and it shows that not everyone can be happy.

So who should prevail? the majority? the minority?

How about let dead dogs lie, pardon the pun, but these places have been that way for years, why change it for a few that want to take it away...

How about a vote on it, are we a democracy? no we are not, we are a representative democracy....so it will all result in a vote of politicians with their own interests in mind.....sadly.



so tyranny of the majority....
sorry, i wouldn't trust a vote in a country where atheists are less trusted than convicted felons who have become born again christians. i wouldn't trust a vote in a country where over 50% of people wouldn't vote for a candidate just because they were an atheist.

oh, and we aren't a democracy. it's a republic with democratically elected officials.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul sorry, i wouldn't trust a vote in a country where atheists are less trusted than convicted felons who have become born again christians. i wouldn't trust a vote in a country where over 50% of people wouldn't vote for a candidate just because they were an atheist.


And I would not like to have an atheist in an office with such power. I feel that it is necessary for someone to have it. That is just my opinion and I am so entitled.

You ever wonder why all US Boomer Captains and EXO's are Christians, married for at least 10 years, faithful to their wives, and trustworthy? I will tell you, it takes someone to realize that there is a greater power that is in control of these things and to recognize the weakness of man and his urges to sin.




Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
oh, and we aren't a democracy. it's a republic with democratically elected officials.



uh that is what I said "How about a vote on it, are we a democracy? no we are not, we are a representative democracy....so it will all result in a vote of politicians with their own interests in mind.....sadly.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join