Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

misterman · Dec 7, 2009

Ikari said:
No it wouldn't. Sure, it would be nice if they put up other symbols, but they don't have to. It's up to the community as to what they want displayed on their public land. End of story. If they want only a manger scene, so be it. So long as none of this is being codified into law where people are compelled to follow a certain god; there's nothing the federal government can rightfully do about it.

Wrong.

The community cannot vote to disregard the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't say that some vague, nondenominational "god" isn't religion. That's absurd.

misterman · Dec 7, 2009

EpicDude86 said:
Christmas as a federal Holiday is unconstitutional. See, it's got CHRIST in there...and you can't have CHRIST in a law! 1st Amendment just won't allow it!

:lol:

Wrong again.

Christmas is a federal holiday because 95% of the workforce would take it off with vacation time anyway, so there's no point in keeping the office open.

Ikari · Dec 7, 2009

misterman said:
Wrong.

The community cannot vote to disregard the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't say that some vague, nondenominational "god" isn't religion. That's absurd.

The Constitution doesn't speak to public displays of religion, even on public land. As such, it falls to the States and the Communities to decide. The only thing the Constitution says is that Congress will make no law to infringe upon the free practice and expression of religion. Which is what I said, so long as they don't codify these things into law which compel someone to worship a particular god, the community can do as they like.

misterman · Dec 7, 2009

Ikari said:
The Constitution doesn't speak to public displays of religion, even on public land.

The First Amendment clearly applies to public land.

The only thing the Constitution says is that Congress will make no law to infringe upon the free practice and expression of religion.

No, that's not all it says, and you know it.

Which is what I said, so long as they don't codify these things into law which compel someone to worship a particular god, the community can do as they like.

I'm not the only one who thinks you're wrong, the courts think so too.

texmaster · Dec 7, 2009

misterman said:
Wrong again.

Christmas is a federal holiday because 95% of the workforce would take it off with vacation time anyway, so there's no point in keeping the office open.

No, its a federal holiday because Congress voted on it and Grant signed it.

Ikari · Dec 7, 2009

misterman said:
The First Amendment clearly applies to public land.

"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."

Which part of that applies to public land? Since the amendment clearly states Congress shall make no law....

misterman said:
No, that's not all it says, and you know it.

Yes, it is all it says. The Constitution does not mention religious displays on public land. As such, it is reserved for the States and the People. It's their choice.

misterman said:
I'm not the only one who thinks you're wrong, the courts think so too.

Nothing says the courts are immune to treason and tyranny. The judicial branch can very easily overstep its bounds the same as any other branch of government.

Whip Comes Down · Dec 7, 2009

carlkay58 said:
The writers used a common speech common sense approach in all of their writings.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are full of vague ambiguous crap.

Second, you are right, dictionary meanings did not come into play until the 1800s with Webster and a few other compilers. Until then word meanings and spellings were pretty loosely followed.

There were dictionaries in 1787.

Using common sense can determine much of what it covers.

There were well established common law rules of construction in 1787.

misterman · Dec 7, 2009

Ikari said:
"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."

Which part of that applies to public land? Since the amendment clearly states Congress shall make no law....

Please educate yourself about incorporation of the Bill of Rights via the 14th Amendment.

Yes, it is all it says. The Constitution does not mention religious displays on public land. As such, it is reserved for the States and the People. It's their choice.

Uh, no. You don't even have to go to law school to punch through this ridiculous argument. The Constitution, like any law, is general language that applies to specific situations in the real world, and can't possibly mention everything.

Nothing says the courts are immune to treason and tyranny. The judicial branch can very easily overstep its bounds the same as any other branch of government.

Sure they can. But it's up to you to explain how they have, since they agree with me.

Ikari · Dec 7, 2009

misterman said:
Please educate yourself about incorporation of the Bill of Rights via the 14th Amendment.

Let's see here

"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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. "

So what part of that expands the first amendment to cover religious displays on public property. Maybe instead of me "educating" myself about the 14th, you should educate yourself on the 10th.

"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. "

So what does that say? It says powers NOT GRANTED to the federal government, nor prohibited from the State are reserved to the States or the People. Since the first amendment doesn't cover religious displays on public land, it is reserved to the State and the People. Thus it is up to them to handle this themselves, and is not up to the federal government.

misterman said:
Uh, no. You don't even have to go to law school to punch through this ridiculous argument. The Constitution, like any law, is general language that applies to specific situations in the real world, and can't possibly mention everything.

Which is why everything else is left to the States and the People. It looks like your "punch" couldn't get through a wet paper bag.

misterman said:
Sure they can. But it's up to you to explain how they have, since they agree with me.

The 9th and the 10th amendment.

misterman · Dec 7, 2009

Ikari said:
Let's see here

"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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. "

So what part of that expands the first amendment to cover religious displays on public property. Maybe instead of me "educating" myself about the 14th, you should educate yourself on the 10th.

"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. "

So what does that say? It says powers NOT GRANTED to the federal government, nor prohibited from the State are reserved to the States or the People. Since the first amendment doesn't cover religious displays on public land, it is reserved to the State and the People. Thus it is up to them to handle this themselves, and is not up to the federal government.

What a waste of bandwidth.

The First Amendment clearly applies to public land. Your argument is beyond absurd. It's hyperliteral. Not even the most extreme strict constitutionalist takes it to your crazy extremes. Please educate yourself.

Ikari · Dec 7, 2009

misterman said:
What a waste of bandwidth.

The First Amendment clearly applies to public land. Your argument is beyond absurd. It's hyperliteral. Not even the most extreme strict constitutionalist takes it to your crazy extremes. Please educate yourself.

If it's so clear, why don't you make a case. All you've managed to do thus far is to say "Nu uh!!!" and run away. That's it. I've posted the 1st, I've posted the 14th, I've posted the 10th, I've referenced the 9th and made arguments for each as to why it doesn't include public land. So where's your argument? If you're just going to say "Nu uh", then it's pointless to try to debate. If you have something of substance, please post it. Otherwise, engaging in childish antics and non-information does not benefit anyone nor does it advance the argument.

Toothpicvic · Dec 7, 2009

texmaster said:
LOL Yeah! Its separation of church and state!

What's wrong with removing Christmas' federal holiday status. I'd be for that. And I'm sure a lot of Christians would too, since it would help to remove the "commercialism" from Christmas and return it to a more traditional holiday like Easter.

texmaster said:
Wait, that isn't in the Constitution either.... never mind

Uh dude...

"Congress shall make no law establishing a religion..."

That's what separation of church and state means. You're being intellecutally dishonest. The exact words don't exist in the Constitution, but the concept is what the 1st Amendment is based on.

By allowing the integration of church and state, congress is by defacto establishing religion. And regardless of the 1st Amendment, it's still an ignorant idea to allow religion to creep into government. Religion has no place in our laws.

misterman · Dec 7, 2009

Ikari said:
If it's so clear, why don't you make a case. All you've managed to do thus far is to say "Nu uh!!!" and run away. That's it. I've posted the 1st, I've posted the 14th, I've posted the 10th, I've referenced the 9th and made arguments for each as to why it doesn't include public land. So where's your argument? If you're just going to say "Nu uh", then it's pointless to try to debate. If you have something of substance, please post it. Otherwise, engaging in childish antics and non-information does not benefit anyone nor does it advance the argument.

Because its so damn obvious.

The 9th and 10th doesn't prove the government isn't public land. The fact that public land, by definition, is land owned and managed by the government makes it the government. So incredibly obvious I shouldn't have to say it. You are the only person in the entire universe that would argue that the government doesn't include public land in the application of the First Amendment.

Stop wasting my time.

Ikari · Dec 7, 2009

misterman said:
Because its so damn obvious.

The 9th and 10th doesn't prove the government isn't public land. The fact that public land, by definition, is land owned and managed by the government makes it the government. So incredibly obvious I shouldn't have to say it. You are the only person in the entire universe that would argue that the government doesn't include public land in the application of the First Amendment.

Stop wasting my time.

Once again, but this time coherently please.

You've still offered up nothing but some confused argument that doesn't amount to anything. Once again, can you back up your claim? 1st amendment says Congress will make no law. It says nothing of display of religious symbols on public land. 14th holds the Bill of Rights to the States. So the State Congress can make no law. Once again, nothing about religious symbols on public land. 9th Amendment states that not all rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, others are reserved. Nothing about religious on public land. The 10th amendment says that if the power is not granted to the federal government and it is not prohibited to the States, then the power is reserved by the States and the People. Again, nothing about religious symbols on public land.

So in the end, I contend that religious symbols on public land is a decision to be made at the State and local level, not on the federal level. You just come up with a "Nu uh" argument and run off. So this time why don't you make a coherent argument which outlines your point. If you're incapable of doing so; then please save the rest of us grief and just move along. Angry, childish arguments aren't going to get us anywhere.

misterman · Dec 7, 2009

Ikari said:
1st amendment says Congress will make no law. It says nothing of display of religious symbols on public land.

Okay, this time SLOOOWLY.

Public land is bought and maintained by a government making laws. To acquire the land, a law was passed. To create the government agencies that manage it and make policies for it, a law was passed.

14th holds the Bill of Rights to the States. So the State Congress can make no law.

Right. Now, skipping over the other worthless crap...

So in the end, I contend that religious symbols on public land is a decision to be made at the State and local level, not on the federal level.

Yes. And you just admitted that the 14th amendment makes the 1st amendment apply to the states. So we're done here.

You just come up with a "Nu uh" argument and run off.

No, actually, I've already explained to you both my points here - the doctrine of incorporation and the fact that management of public land is "making law" in the sense of the First Amendment. You just aren't listening.

The silenced majority · Dec 7, 2009

Thanks misterman for making me root for Ikari on a debate about religion & public life.

It's something I rarely get to do.

misterman · Dec 7, 2009

The silenced majority said:
Thanks misterman for making me root for Ikari on a debate about religion & public life.

It's something I rarely get to do.

Too bad he's completely wrong. It's something you probably get to be alot.

The silenced majority · Dec 7, 2009

PHP:

misterman said:
Too bad he's completely wrong. It's something you probably get to be alot.

If the 14th amendment compels the 1st amendment to be applied to all of the states, then all that means is that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...in the individual sovereign states.

misterman · Dec 7, 2009

The silenced majority said:
PHP:

If the 14th amendment compels the 1st amendment to be applied to all of the states, then all that means is that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...in the individual sovereign states.

No, that's not what it means at all. It means the state governments are bound by the First Amendment too, just as if it said "Congress and the states shall make no law..."

The reasoning is this: the purpose of the 14th amendment is to make sure the states give people the same rights they have as citizens of the U.S., otherwise, being a citizen of the U.S. is worthless. If a state can completely deny all your rights, you still have no rights. It's called incorporation, and though it is still contorversial, it is sound, accepted legal doctrine.

Start here to educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

The silenced majority · Dec 7, 2009

misterman said:
No, that's not what it means at all. It means the state governments are bound by the First Amendment too, just as if it said "Congress and the states shall make no law..."

How do you get that it is illegal for there to be religious symbols on public land out of the writ of the 1st amendment?

Jerry · Dec 7, 2009

The silenced majority said:
How do you get that it is illegal for there to be religious symbols on public land out of the writ of the 1st amendment?

He's using Wiki as a valid resource for education...I think the problem is deeper than we can address online.

misterman · Dec 7, 2009

The silenced majority said:
How do you get that it is illegal for there to be religious symbols on public land out of the writ of the 1st amendment?

Okay, first of all, I didn't say it's always illegal. It can be though.

In a nutshell:

1. The First Amendment says you can't "respect an establishment of religion."
2. To me, that means the government can't endorse, or appear to endorse, a religion, or religion in general.
3. That applies to the state governments too (14th amendment).
4. Public land is the government - it is owned and controlled by the government.
5. Therefore, IF the government puts up a religious display, or allows someone to put one up without allowing any other religious displays, its the same thing as the government declaring that there is an official religion, and that would be a violation of the First amendment.

It's not like this isn't found all over the place in the caselaw though.

misterman · Dec 7, 2009

Jerry said:
He's using Wiki as a valid resource for education...I think the problem is deeper than we can address online.

Wiki has the simplest article for the beginner, that's why. Here, if you want a more authoritative source:

Understanding Federal and State Courts - Educational Outreach
(from www.uscourts.gov - the website for the federal court system)

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, shortly after the Civil War. It was created primarily to ensure that the rights of former slaves (freed by the 13th Amendment in 1865) would be protected throughout the nation. The need for the amendment was great, because up to this time the provisions of the Bill of Rights were not enforceable against state governments. This was due to the case of Barron v. Baltimore (1835). In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Bill of Rights were enforceable against only the federal government (and not against state governments) due to the federal structure of the nation. Therefore, without a constitutional amendment justifying federal intervention in the affairs of the states, states hostile to the interests of the newly freed slaves might still legally discriminate against or persecute them.

While some of the amendment's supporters felt that the amendment would incorporate all of the provisions of the federal Bill of Rights to the states, this was not to be. In the Slaughterhouse Cases (1875), the view of these supporters was rejected, and the U.S. Supreme Court held that the "privilege and immunities" clause did not automatically incorporate (apply) all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the state. Over time though, the Court began to use the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment to achieve the same end. The following is a list of all the provisions of the Bill of Rights that have thus far been incorporated by the U.S. Supreme Court to the states through the "due process" clause.
Year and Amendment Constitutional Provision Incorporated Supreme Court Case
1897 Fifth Just compensation clause Chicago, Burlington, Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago
1925 First Freedom of speech Gitlow v. New York
1931 First Freedom of the press Near v. Minnesota
1932 Sixth Right to counsel (in capital cases) Powell v. Alabama
1937 First Freedom of assembly/petition DeJonge v. Oregon
1940 First Free exercise clause Cantwell v. Connecticut
1947 First Establishment clause Everson v. Board of Education
1948 Sixth Right to a public trial In re Oliver
1949 Fourth Protection against unreasonable search and seizures Wolf v. Colorado
1962 Eighth Prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments Robinson v. California
1963 Sixth Right to counsel (non-capital felonies) Gideon v. Wainwright
1964 Fifth Right against self-incrimination Malloy v. Hogan
1965 Sixth Right to confront adverse witnesses Pointer v. Texas
1966 Sixth Right to an impartial jury Parker v. Gladden
1967 Sixth Right to a speedy trial Klopfer v. North Carolina
1967 Sixth Right to obtain favorable witnesses Washington v. Texas
1968 Sixth Right to a trial by jury in non-petty criminal cases Duncan v. Louisiana
1969 Fifth Prohibition of double jeopardy Benton v. Maryland
1972 Sixth Right to counsel in imprisonable non-felony cases Argersinger v. Hamlin

It is important to note, though, that not all provisions of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated to the states. In fact, in some cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has expressly refused to do so. For example, in Hurtado v. California (1884) the Court refused to incorporate the Fifth Amendment's grand jury requirement to the states.

Seriously, guys, I'm right about this, and you'd be laughed out of a courtroom if you challenged it. You can delude yourselves all you want and not go look it up, but it's right there.

other · Dec 7, 2009

misterman said:
2. To me, that means the government can't endorse, or appear to endorse, a religion, or religion in general.
.

And yet, it actually prohibits only the "establishment" of a religion by the government. There is nothing regarding whether or not the government may "endorse" a religion, on the contrary, it says that the government may not prohibit "the free exercise thereof."

The issue is whether or not some judge believes a religious symbol set up on public property is really the govermnent establishing that the symbol is the establishment of a new government religion or not. My interpretation is that that's a stretch, but I'm no judge.

Jerry · Dec 7, 2009

misterman said:
Wiki has the simplest article for the beginner, that's why. Here, if you want a more authoritative source:

Understanding Federal and State Courts - Educational Outreach
(from U.S. Courts | The Federal Judiciary - the website for the federal court system)

Seriously, guys, I'm right about this, and you'd be laughed out of a courtroom if you challenged it. You can delude yourselves all you want and not go look it up, but it's right there.

You haven't yet linked to a law preventing people from turning to God if they so choose.

Until you do, you truly have no argument.

No matter how much you want it to be true, being religious and acting accordingly is not illegal.

Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

Hippie Hater