Seriously? No thread on the Iowa caucuses yet?

[franklin]

And **** you again, because you have no clue which this country was founded upon you neo-conservative moron.

Definitely not a neo-con, but I do believe every single country will eventually fall the the US Constitution. At the exact point our greatest export has been adopted by all and we become a unified world living under sovereign democratic republics, the anti-Christ Timothy Tebow will spring from doing a Tebow to himself and try to usurp power. The allegorical great battle will ensue as we all fight with our television sets watching Thee New Hampshire primary debate rage on. Symbolic blood will be shed as words cut deeper than the sword, but in the end the Good Lord will exit triumphant to reign over us in His peaceful world under His One World Government.

No sarcasm either. Except Tebow. Maybe. Yahoo Answers confirms he's a perfect candidate and Sean Hannity is the whore riding his back.

 

[One Brow]

Yeah, be careful what you write in personal letters. If a Supreme Court Justice finds it useful to justify some decision, it'll become famous and a whole nation will be told by public educators that what you wrote is in the Constitution.

While personal letters may provide an occasional phrase that nicely sums up a concept, they are not used to justify decisions. Decisions do sometimes consider the debate involved within the deciding of the law, publically published position statements (like the Federalist papers), and similar things, but not on private letters.

 

[One Brow]

Hell.... I'm only 26, and I've read all the documents.

You've read the Federalist papers?

 

[franklin]

While personal letters may provide an occasional phrase that nicely sums up a concept, they are not used to justify decisions. Decisions do sometimes consider the debate involved within the deciding of the law, publically published position statements (like the Federalist papers), and similar things, but not on private letters.

Can we dump the Danbury letter then and allow states to put up crosses at HighPo death sites again?

 

[One Brow]

Can we dump the Danbury letter then and allow states to put up crosses at HighPo death sites again?

As long as you allow Muslim symbols to stand right next to the crosses, sure.

 

[Stoked]

As long as you allow Muslim symbols to stand right next to the crosses, sure.

Having them both is stupid. If the guy was Christian have a cross, if he was Muslim have a Crescent, Jewish a Star...something that relates to the deceased individual in question.

Placing a damn burial marker is not forcing religion on anyone.

 

[babe]

While personal letters may provide an occasional phrase that nicely sums up a concept, they are not used to justify decisions. Decisions do sometimes consider the debate involved within the deciding of the law, publically published position statements (like the Federalist papers), and similar things, but not on private letters.

If you actually believe what you're told by authorities about our courts, you might go on being this naive for a long time. Personally, I think you are intellectually on the same level as some backwoods villagers who are buying snake oil.

I didn't get my attitude about Judges until I had to try to get some to read the laws and live by them. You'll never get me to believe they give a ratzazz about law again. Maybe they read tea leaves, or know who's who around town, but the Constitution is given no actual respect. They will read rulings from foreign courts and if they think it's a forward step they'll incorporate that in their rulings, and they do believe in "Administrative Law" concepts generally which mean they get to solve mankind's problems like a sovereign sitting on a throne would, capriciously sending one man to the gallows and another chuckling off to the bank with legal heist, probably for the price of being well-connected or providing some discernible form of back scratching in return.

 

[One Brow]

Having them both is stupid. If the guy was Christian have a cross, if he was Muslim have a Crescent, Jewish a Star...something that relates to the deceased individual in question.

Placing a damn burial marker is not forcing religion on anyone.

Individual burial markers are already allowed to be religious. When franklin referred to something being allowed "again", I presumed it was something currently illegal, like a memorial for many soldiers.

 

[One Brow]

If you actually believe what you're told by authorities about our courts, you might go on being this naive for a long time. Personally, I think you are intellectually on the same level as some backwoods villagers who are buying snake oil.

I've actually read a couple of judges decisions on matters like this. So far, not one has mentioned a personal letter written over a decade after the fact as indicacting a valid interpretation of a point of law. Can you point to such a passage in decision?

 

[Stoked]

Individual burial markers are already allowed to be religious. When franklin referred to something being allowed "again", I presumed it was something currently illegal, like a memorial for many soldiers.

I was referencing the case in this link.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/695227390/Attorneys-argue-Utah-Highway-Patrol-cross-case.

 

[franklin]

Individual burial markers are already allowed to be religious. When franklin referred to something being allowed "again", I presumed it was something currently illegal, like a memorial for many soldiers.

SALT LAKE CITY — Three state agencies have sent letters to the Utah Highway Patrol Association requesting that all memorial crosses on public land be removed.

The action by the Utah Highway Patrol and the state departments of transportation and administrative services follow an Oct. 31 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to not hear Utah's appeal of a lower court decision banning the roadside memorials.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article...way-Patrol-Association-to-remove-crosses.html


There's argument that the Danburry letter is the reason the Constitution was interpreted as "Separation of Church and State" as opposed to "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", the difference being a emphasis on both state and federal as opposed to just federal.

 

[One Brow]

https://www.deseretnews.com/article...way-Patrol-Association-to-remove-crosses.html

If the religious preference of each officer is being sought and reflected, this process would be Constitutional. However, teh claim was made instead that the crosses are not religious, so it would be fine if an atheist officer, or a muslim officer, had a cross erected in their memory. Why would it be so bad to put up other markers for non-Christians, and why do Christian whine so loudly when they don't get to exclusively promote their religion?

There's argument that the Danburry letter is the reason the Constitution was interpreted as "Separation of Church and State" as opposed to "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", the difference being a emphasis on both state and federal as opposed to just federal.

Sure, there argument, just not sensible or meaningful argument. The notion that the federal government was prohibited by the First Amendment from promoting religion was part and parcel of the debates around the First Amendment in the first Congress. Narrower variations that specified not favoring onedenomination over another were rejected in favor of the the broader language.

Your use of "as opposed to" assumes a falsity: that there is some difference between "Separation of Church and State" and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"; they are the same thing.