How the republicans plan to make the US a two branch government...
Re:How the republicans plan to make the US a two branch government...
I bet they would declare it unconstitutional! It really needs to be an amendment to get any teeth. But given how Congress has been acting as of late, and the homophonic rantings of the controlling power show, I doubt such an amendment would pass.
Re:How the republicans plan to make the US a two branch government...
I don't support this bill, but I certainly can understand where it came from considering so many liberal judges now feel obligated to legislate from the bench on a daily basis. After all, why are they not held accountable to any checks and balances?
Re:How the republicans plan to make the US a two branch government...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DancerWealth link=board=1;threadid=9467;start=msg113274#msg1132 74 date=1085369230
I don't support this bill, but I certainly can understand where it came from considering so many liberal judges now feel obligated to legislate from the bench on a daily basis. After all, why are they not held accountable to any checks and balances?
Explain to me a law that they ever passed?
Most of the conservative grief comes from them nixing a law regarding a fundamental right in the constitution.
Every law passed is one less freedom and liberty we have. I say, good to knock down laws.
Re:How the republicans plan to make the US a two branch government...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deogol link=board=1;threadid=9467;start=msg113276#msg1132 76 date=1085369630
Explain to me a law that they ever passed?
Most of the conservative grief comes from them nixing a law regarding a fundamental right in the constitution.
Every law passed is one less freedom and liberty we have. I say, good to knock down laws.
I'll do one better. I'll tell you how some liberal judges nullified a state constitutional amendment. Our idiot governor of Nevada, Kenny Guinn, ran for governor openly telling the constitutents of Nevada that he was going to "change the tax policy" of the state but wouldn't tell anyone what that meant until after the election. Well, Nevadan's fell for it I guess and he was re-elected. Prior to his taking office, the citizens of Nevada passed a state constitutional amendment that said that the state must balance the budget.
Guinn, at the last day before the budget deadline, asked for a $1 billion increase to go as a deficit to the budget claiming it was for "education". This was against the constutution as was absolutely illegal. The legislature refused his budget on those grounds and our governor then sued the legislature (no joke) and took the case to the Nevada Supreme Court who he stocked. They decided that they just didn't feel like obiding by the state constitution and voted in favor for him. This was fodder for every local talk-show host for weeks and made news even on a national level. Essentially a bunch of judges just decided to ignore law and rather than interpret what the law said, they basically legislated a constitutional amendment invalid.
Then there was the 9th Circus Court of Appeals that decided to postpone the California recall election because there were some votors who still used punch-card ballots would be “disenfranchised.”
Then there was the bench legislation of the Texas sodomy laws. As moronic as they are, the bench decided that they were illegal not on their own merrits, but because they violated the 14th amendment under "right to privacy" even though no such provision exists.
Then there was the case of Alabama Chief Justics Moore who was ordered to take down the 10 Commandments based on no law whatsoever.
There there is the "under god" issue with the Pledge of Allegiance which is absolute judicial activism because there isn't one law that they can base their arguments on (for those who aren't in the know, the "separation of church and state" issue is not law. It never has been). On a similar note, it was a court that ruled it illegal to have prayer in public school graduations in '92 again, with zero foundation in law.
So there you go.
Re:How the republicans plan to make the US a two branch government...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DancerWealth link=board=1;threadid=9467;start=msg113321#msg1133 21 date=1085376793
Then there was the case of Alabama Chief Justics Moore who was ordered to take down the 10 Commandments based on no law whatsoever.
There there is the "under god" issue with the Pledge of Allegiance which is absolute judicial activism because there isn't one law that they can base their arguments on (for those who aren't in the know, the "separation of church and state" issue is not law. It never has been). On a similar note, it was a court that ruled it illegal to have prayer in public school graduations in '92 again, with zero foundation in law.
Thomas Jefferson wrote "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus, building a wall of separation between Church and State" (January 1, 1802, Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed., Writings, 16:281).
I think this means the law is supposed to in fact keep them separate.
James Madison wrote: "The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment'" (February 27, 1811, Writings, 8:133).
"Appropriation of funds" would include spending money on expensive sculptures promulgating Judeo-Christian religious values on government property.
and he also wrote:
"the general government is proscribed [prohibited] from the interfering, in any manner whatsoever, in matters respecting religion..."
Such as ADDING, by legislation, the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, which had worked perfectly fine in its original state, during the height of the anti-communism scare. Since communists don't believe in God, all true patriots must do so--or so goes the apparent logic. Personally, I would love to see the original Pledge restored, if it could be done without spending several million dollars.
I would feel much more patriotic pledging my allegiance without any dieties being consulted, unless maybe Thor could help us out with those pesky Arabs.
And one of my favorites: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" (U. S. Constitution, 1787, Art. 6, Sec. 3).
This quotation from the constitution is completely ignored, by unspoken agreement, in the electoral process today. Imagine, if you will, the election of a President who failed to constantly remind us all of his Christian (preferably non-Catholic) piety, or how frequently he prays.
Re:How the republicans plan to make the US a two branch government...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djoser link=board=1;threadid=9467;start=msg113334#msg1133 34 date=1085379702
Quote:
I would feel much more patriotic pledging my allegiance without any dieties being consulted, unless maybe Thor could help us out with those pesky Arabs.
:laughing: :laughing:
Re:How the republicans plan to make the US a two branch government...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djoser link=board=1;threadid=9467;start=msg113334#msg1133 34 date=1085379702
Thomas Jefferson wrote "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus, building a wall of separation between Church and State" (January 1, 1802, Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed., Writings, 16:281).
...and your point is? This isn't how the law is written. Jefferson may have said this, but this isn't the law. The law states that, " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Having the Ten Commandmens in a public building does not violate that. In fact, they are posted on the wall in the Supreme Court for goodness sake!
Quote:
I think this means the law is supposed to in fact keep them separate.
As quoted yes. As written in law, no.
Quote:
James Madison wrote: "The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment'" (February 27, 1811, Writings, 8:133).
Again, your point is? I think it's interesting that Madison wrote it, but it isn't law.
Quote:
Such as ADDING, by legislation, the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, which had worked perfectly fine in its original state, during the height of the anti-communism scare. Since communists don't believe in God, all true patriots must do so--or so goes the apparent logic.
Although I agree that the addition of the "under god" quote was unneccessary and was done for the reasons mentioned, it still does not violate the 1st amendment. "God" falls under a lot of different categories and religions and is not used in any way to establish one of them as an official religion which is what the amendment refers to.
Quote:
Personally, I would love to see the original Pledge restored, if it could be done without spending several million dollars.
I couldn't care less about it. I was taugh with the "under god" part and I'm perfectly cool with it.
Quote:
I would feel much more patriotic pledging my allegiance without any dieties being consulted, unless maybe Thor could help us out with those pesky Arabs.
We certainly agree here!
Re:How the republicans plan to make the US a two branch government...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DancerWealth link=board=1;threadid=9467;start=msg113338#msg1133 38 date=1085380440
Having the Ten Commandmens in a public building does not violate that. In fact, they are posted on the wall in the Supreme Court for goodness sake!
Moore should have tossed up a pic of the magna carta and the codex of Hammurabi (SP?) And solved the whole thing. The Supreme Court has other stuff up there other than the 10 Rules.
It is kinda silly to assume our laws are based on the ten commandments anyway, since only a few of them make it into law.
You'll noptice that the first five are spiritual in nature, and are thus invalid as far as our laws are concerned, even TOTALLY unconstitutional. The first one is a statement that YHWH is God, it's not even a law.
Exodus 20:2. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exodus 20:3. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exodus 20:4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Exodus 20:5. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exodus 20:6. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Exodus 20:7. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Exodus 20:8. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exodus 20:9. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exodus 20:10. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exodus 20:11. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
First five as they appear in exodus. None of that is illegal. These, being spiritual, are even given prescedence over the last five.
Exodus 20:12. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. You should chill on your mom and dad, but being an ungrateful child isn't illegal.
Exodus 20:13. Thou shalt not kill. Makes it in, though it is more properly "Thou shalt not MURDER."
Exodus 20:14. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Probably a good idea to listen to this one, lest your wife walk outside and start cutting the SUV in half, but it's not illegal anymore.
Exodus 20:15. Thou shall not steal. Makes it into law.
Exodus 20:16. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Makes it in.
Exodus 20:17. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. Checking out your neighbor's wife's tits might be crass, but it isn't illegal. (Though that part about coveting her ass is just plain cruel on YHWH's part)
I count THREE that have anything to do with our criminal law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DancerWealth link=board=1;threadid=9467;start=msg113338#msg1133 38 date=1085380440
Although I agree that the addition of the "under god" quote was unneccessary and was done for the reasons mentioned, it still does not violate the 1st amendment. "God" falls under a lot of different categories and religions and is not used in any way to establish one of them as an official religion which is what the amendment refers to.
The whole "under god" thing is ludicrous. There are far more important things to worry about than two words in a poem, for god's sake. I was livid about that whole thing being an issue.
I can see the Ten Commandments being challenged, because non-christians walf to walk past that thing to go to court as well. It's one thing if it's a display, but if I, an Agnostic, was stuck walking past the sanctified big 10 to appear in rabid christian Moore's courtroom... I'd be a little put off from the start.
Re:How the republicans plan to make the US a two branch government...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DancerWealth link=board=1;threadid=9467;start=msg113338#msg1133 38 date=1085380440
...and your point is? This isn't how the law is written. Jefferson may have said this, but this isn't the law.
As quoted yes. As written in law, no...
Again, your point is? I think it's interesting that Madison wrote it, but it isn't law...
"God" falls under a lot of different categories and religions and is not used in any way to establish one of them as an official religion which is what the amendment refers to.
Well, seeing as how Jefferson and Madison had an integral role in the drafting of the Constitution, it might behoove us to pay attention to what they had in mind when they wrote it.
It's pretty clear to me that they intended that Church and State be kept separate, and the recent efforts by fundamentalists to influence government and public education scares me. A lot.
Almost as much as their fervent desire to see all strippers, stripclub DJs, and stripclub patrons burn in hellfire eternally, and go to jail or be put out of business here on Earth. This means you and me.
These people are downright unAmerican.
As far as the Pledge goes...now if "God' wasn't capitalized, I might be more inclined to agree with you.
It is the supreme arrogance (not necessarily in your mind, but quite clearly in so many others) of this that ruins it for me--'there can be only one God'. Naturally there are many definitions of what that God might be like, which has led to uncounted torture sessions, executions, and extremely brutal wars in His name.
It really isn't worth the bother to take it out, since it would entail a huge and expensive legal battle, so f**k it...
Hey, Madcap, thanks for the picture of thor--now if we could just get one of him hammering Osama bin Laden, I would sacrifice chickens to him for sure.
Re:How the republicans plan to make the US a two branch government...
This means diddly. You can get 10% of the legislature to support making 1+1=3 on Wednesday. there is not one midwestern legislator on the list which means it would never get out of comittee or even get a serious hearing. This is a "show" item for local politiccing.
Re:How the republicans plan to make the US a two branch government...
Actually, the Democrats seem to have achieved a 1 1/2 branch government - the courts, pus a large enough minority of both houses of congress to prevent closure of filibusters. This allows them to prevent progress by the republican majority of both houses, while enacting new legislation from the bench !
Re:How the republicans plan to make the US a two branch government...
I feel uncomfortable when there is a heavy christain influence somewhere. I kinda get this 'they are gonna come after me with pitchforks and torches' feeling..... I guess I just got too much of the whole "I will save you child, I will pray for you to accept Him into your heart...." stuff as a teen..... I dont mind people praying for me, in whatever religion they belive in, I just dont want them to try and change me. Its kinda creepy.... So anything heavily christian makes me feel more like an outsider, like I have no chance.......
Besides, the "under God" thing is an issue because it was ADDED, it was not in there originally, its kinda wrong to modify something like that, especilly in that way. but thats my opinion sliping in there.......
Re:How the republicans plan to make the US a two branch government...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ami link=board=1;threadid=9467;start=msg113699#msg1136 99 date=1085486388
Besides, the "under God" thing is an issue because it was ADDED, it was not in there originally, its kinda wrong to modify something like that, especilly in that way. but thats my opinion sliping in there.......
Yep, sometime in the 1950's. A lot of people like to go on about how it is part of the country's foundations. It is not.
It is the bible thumpers that are doing their best to destroy this country.
But one must keep an ever eye out on freedom.
Re:How the republicans plan to make the US a two branch government...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deogol link=board=1;threadid=9467;start=msg113708#msg1137 08 date=1085488388
Quote:
Originally Posted by ami link=board=1;threadid=9467;start=msg113699#msg1136 99 date=1085486388
Besides, the "under God" thing is an issue because it was ADDED, it was not in there originally, its kinda wrong to modify something like that, especilly in that way. but thats my opinion sliping in there.......
Yep, sometime in the 1950's. A lot of people like to go on about how it is part of the country's foundations. It is not.
It is the bible thumpers that are doing their best to destroy this country.
But one must keep an ever eye out on freedom.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Re:How the republicans plan to make the US a two branch government...
WOW, this one is interesting. Madcap qouting the Bible and discussion about liberal judges. Who says Americans have become cynical about the political process. That's all this is - politics. The Constitution already has a means of Congress overuling the Supreme Court. The bill being put forth is just a restating of Article 5 without the part where the states must ratify the change. There are judges out there who are legislating from the bench, but this is the same arguement that has been going on since the court was founded. Plus it doesn't matter what the framers intended, if it wasn't written down and voted on it can not be considered. The whole purpose was to have checks and balances and it seems to be working even though it can be frustrating at times.
The fact of the matter is that even though we may not agree with each other, the purpose of the Constitution was to protect the rights of everyone, chirstian, non-christian, agnostic, etc... I don't have a problem with under God being in the pledge regardless of the reasons why it was added. The whole problem I have with that situation is that the man unilaterally made the decision to challenge the pledge and used his child to do it, without even consulting the mother. Not to diminsh his role as father, but when it comes to children I don't believe they should be dragged into some political squabble. The mother was opposed to what he was doing. Everything he did was to try and make a political statement and he used his daughter to do it. In my book that was wrong.
There are people who believe in a moral code or moral law. Whether we believe in it or not they have every right to it. Not every professing christian is out there trying to convert everyone. Look at what's going on right now with the Episcople and Methodists churchs, and the role of homsexuals. Yes there are people out there who feel it is their duty to convert other people to their way of thinking, but what organization doesn't do that. Alot of environmental organizations preach the protection of the planet and are trying to get people to accept their way of thinking. Should they stop trying to win over followers.
Deogol, I don't see "bible thumpers" as trying to destroy are country, when these same "bible thumpers" were the ones who founded our country. Many of the same people who signed the Constitution were in fact christians. I just see them as having a different idea of how the country should be just like everyone else does, and the whole reason we have a Congress is to represent the people. Okay so we don't agree with each other, but hey that's the process at work. I have friends who are professing christians and they know I go to clubs, and I hear about it, but hey my choice. And AMI no one can change unless you want to be changed.
Re:How the republicans plan to make the US a two branch government...
Quote:
Originally Posted by awboy link=board=1;threadid=9467;start=msg113761#msg1137 61 date=1085500226
WOW, this one is interesting. Madcap qouting the Bible and discussion about liberal judges. Who says Americans have become cynical about the political process. That's all this is - politics. The Constitution already has a means of Congress overuling the Supreme Court. The bill being put forth is just a restating of Article 5 without the part where the states must ratify the change. There are judges out there who are legislating from the bench, but this is the same arguement that has been going on since the court was founded. Plus it doesn't matter what the framers intended, if it wasn't written down and voted on it can not be considered. The whole purpose was to have checks and balances and it seems to be working even though it can be frustrating at times.
The fact of the matter is that even though we may not agree with each other, the purpose of the Constitution was to protect the rights of everyone, chirstian, non-christian, agnostic, etc... I don't have a problem with under God being in the pledge regardless of the reasons why it was added. The whole problem I have with that situation is that the man unilaterally made the decision to challenge the pledge and used his child to do it, without even consulting the mother. Not to diminsh his role as father, but when it comes to children I don't believe they should be dragged into some political squabble. The mother was opposed to what he was doing. Everything he did was to try and make a political statement and he used his daughter to do it. In my book that was wrong.
There are people who believe in a moral code or moral law. Whether we believe in it or not they have every right to it. Not every professing christian is out there trying to convert everyone. Look at what's going on right now with the Episcople and Methodists churchs, and the role of homsexuals. Yes there are people out there who feel it is their duty to convert other people to their way of thinking, but what organization doesn't do that. Alot of environmental organizations preach the protection of the planet and are trying to get people to accept their way of thinking. Should they stop trying to win over followers.
Deogol, I don't see "bible thumpers" as trying to destroy are country, when these same "bible thumpers" were the ones who founded our country. Many of the same people who signed the Constitution were in fact christians. I just see them as having a different idea of how the country should be just like everyone else does, and the whole reason we have a Congress is to represent the people. Okay so we don't agree with each other, but hey that's the process at work. I have friends who are professing christians and they know I go to clubs, and I hear about it, but hey my choice. And AMI no one can change unless you want to be changed.
You do not listen to talk radio to much do you?
This is not about the protection of a person's right to practice christianity - that I certainly believe to be a valid thing.
But to use the "morals" and the pretense "that it always has been" to encode that belief system into our pledges, money, and motto's - that is not right. History repeatedly shows "Under God" was NOT in the original pledge that lasted for decards. History shows that In God We Trust was not mentioned on federal money ever until recent history.
I hope that you open your eyes, and realize, that there are powerful forces who are attempting to make America in their image. For example, the Christian Coalition unites "activist churches" to vote according to their faith on law - law that is then enforced upon all the rest of us. How is that NOT the codification of their belief system of what is right and wrong into our laws?
Having these beliefs being the basis for law passed is VERY different from your friends "tsk tsk'ing" you about going to clubs. You do not have the choice anymore, and while many christians are liberal individually, when in groups, as in any group of people, these things melt away to the very basic purpose of the group.
Operation Rescue is nearly the level of the Taliban, with practical riots in front of women's clinics, bombings, and shootings of friggin hospitals and doctors. All because the medical procedures do not match their belief system.
I say, have your kid recite "Under Allah" when they pledge allegiance, and see how flexible the people who insist upon Under God are when it comes to this thing.
Re:How the republicans plan to make the US a two branch government...
Hey, you want to see something grotesque, truly disgusting, and downright spine-chilling? Look at this link, posted by Cardinal on another one of these political threads:
http://kimdutoit.com/dr/essays.php?id=P2327
No, not the essay, which is great for a joke, unless he is for real (a guy named KIM, bitching about "male pussification", lol??).
The ad in the upper right hand corner of the page, for the book, The Faith of George W. Bush. Complete with a hokey picture of GWB bowing his head reverently, looking all pious and humble.
And the blurb: "a story of spiritual awakening" says The Wall Street Journal, a publication I have heretofore had respect for, even if I didn't always agree with it.
Re:How the republicans plan to make the US a two branch government...
Quote:
Originally Posted by awboy link=board=1;threadid=9467;start=msg113761#msg1137 61 date=1085500226
WOW, this one is interesting. Madcap qouting the Bible and discussion about liberal judges. Who says Americans have become cynical about the political process.
Had you actually read my post, you'd know that i was demonstrating how stupid it is to think American law relies on the 10 commandments when only three of them are recognized in american law.
Re:How the republicans plan to make the US a two branch government...
Well first no I don't listen to talk radio anymore, because the right wing has their shows bad mouthing the left wing and vice versa. NPR, which should be moderate, isn't IMO. My point was that our country has become so polarized that all we're doing now is opposite views shouting at each other, and no one is listening. We can't just discount opposing view points and call people who have those views names. So their opinion upsets us, so what, my opinion probably upsets them. I find it amusing how hypocritical are society has become. Case in point, during the 90's when the Republican Senator from Oregon, Bob Packwood, had an affair with a female staffer, he was forced out on sexual harrasment charges. Many liberal organizations (NOW) led the charge, but when Clinton does the same thing they rush to his defense. Get real, in my book it is one or the other. The same goes for the right wing, when they supposedly support "family values", but they condemned Janet Reno when she reunited Elain Gonzales with his Dad. To me both of those situations are hypocritical, and it seems to be the norm in our country.
Case in point, refering to these people as like the Taliban does them a diservice in my opinion. Are they passionate in their belief? yes. Is the belief correct? I don't know. Should the opposing parties talk about and try to find common ground? Yes. That is my point, the original framers of the Constituion came from diverse backgrounds, some christians, some deists, some non-christians, and it took them 7 years to come up with a document that all parties would sign. They had to sit in a room with each other and find common ground. Today, we would rather shout at each other and call each other names. Plus, it's intersting you refer to them as the Taliban where in Afganistan during the Taliban rule if the woman was pregnant, then abortion would not be an option or she would have been stoned in public or killed by the husband for defaming his honor.
The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing - Socrates. IMO the only way our country is going get anywhere, is by stopping the finger pointing and name calling and admit that my ideas are not the only way and that other people have equally important ideas.
We may not agree, but this is still an interesting post.