I'm well aware that standard deviation is a math term. My point was that you used it in an out of place situation in an attempt to convey intelligence.Originally Posted by SKILMATIC
What on EARTH are you talking about?Why does this not suprise me? I knew you, being a liberal, were going to bring up John Roberts in this sometime or another. First off this has nothing to do with the constitutional matter of prayer in that him performing his judicial duties as a supreme court judge by upholding the law as its very difinitevely defined much like the constitution is. Alot of mental disorders are unwiavered in anything that Roberts exclaims as if they never listened to his answers. But you know what? The thing is it doesnt matter since the vote is predominantly conservative he is already admitted anyway. Is this enough, or do I have to write you a book? Which btw I am not going to do anyway casue its getting late.
a) I'm not a liberal, I'm a conservative
b) I supported wholeheartedly John Roberts for the court
c) You're right, this has nothing to do with prayer. That's not what I asked. I asked about precedent vs. Stare Decisis. That has nothing to do with religion, in the slightest. You completely and utterly missed the point and argued with yourself. Good work.
Um, sort of. Those are the two most famous cases dealing with freedom of the press and libel, respectively. Both of them were famous for questioning the reach of the 1st amendment, a point which I guess you missed.IS THAT THE MONTGOMERY ALABAMA ONE? Its been a long while so bare with me on this one. This was like 3 yrs ago. The trial was held somewhere in the mid 1960's and it was about the civil rights movement. Sullivan was a commissioner and it was Brennan who was the justice. Lets see what else do I remember? And they awarded somethig like a .5million bucks? Thats seriously all I remember from that case. IM not a law guy I am a history guy but I also study the constitution and mostly just the constitution. I do poli sci for fun and History is my hobby(well war stuff).
Actually, that's not what the 6th amendment claims. The 6th doesn't mention the press. It offers the right to a fair trial, which can be challenged by a reporters right to confidentiality for sources.You mean the point that the first claims that congress shall not abridge freedom of speech in the press, but in the 6th it claims that press shall have no influence or a biased view in that trial? Which in a way limits speech. Yeah I have heard argiments both ways for that as well. Again I am not going to write a book. But your much abliged to for me if you want.
Let me be blunt. Your interpretation is misguided. Your analysis of the context in which the authors of the constitution is incredibly lacking in both facts and relevance. It doesn't matter what the founders were thinking when they wrote the constitution, it matters how what is on paper has been interpreted by the courts. And the courts have, since day one, disagreed with your interpretation.Well not really. I just read repetatively what the constitution says word for word in regarding this matter then exlained what it meant very deligently. I broke it down in regards of English and dissection therof. And I broke it down to them as far as the context in which they wrote it and why they wrote what they did.
There IS a mandate. The recitation of the pledge is mandated by state and local school boards.Because in no shape or form doen it imply God at all being unconstitutional. Just religions which were the threat. God isnt a threat its the religions who consistently have a problem with using God as their reasoning. And not to mention as you said before that there needs to be a mandate for it to be illegal. So there you go you just solved your own argument. If you dont ahve anything else then I think I ma going to bed. I am tired. But it was good debating with you.