Arkansas new Ten Commandments monument at Capitol destroyed

[Visbek]

Allowing SCOTUS to modify the Constitution in ANY way gives them far too much power.

So I take it you were outraged when Scalia reinterpreted the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, which was not how it was originally written, or treated by our laws and legal system for over 200 years?

It gives them not only the ability to apply the law, but to create it as well.

Yeah, not so much.

The SCOTUS cannot pass amendments, and cannot force people to file lawsuits. They can't even take a case unless someone shows they have standing, and goes through an entire appeals process.

In contrast, Congress can write and pass laws at pretty much any time, as long as it's in session. The Executive can act on those laws at any time as well, though there are frequently lengthy procedures to flesh out parts of laws as delegated to the Executive by the Legislature. Amendments can pretty much be passed at any time.

And of course, there are numerous checks and balances on the SCOTUS. The Executive nominates; the Legislature confirms; justices can be impeached; amendments can (and did) override SCOTUS rulings.

Would you be OK if SCOTUS could interpret a law as meaning that they had the authority to remove from office any Congresscritter for any reason and replace them with one of their choosing??

They do not have that authority. Thanks for the Straw Man, though.

Once you allow SCOTUS to change any law AS IT WAS WRITTEN, you open the doors to this kind of abuse.

That's not how it works.

What the SCOTUS does is review laws to ensure they are constitutionally sound. If parts or all of a law are not sound, they can block the unconstitutional parts. E.g. the SCOTUS found that the ACA's requirement for states to accept the Medicaid expansion was unconstitutional, thus in your terms they "changed the law AS IT WAS WRITTEN." Was that a bad ruling? Was the SCOTUS not doing their job? It doesn't look that way. I'm a supporter of the ACA, but the legal reasoning seemed sound to me.

Along those lines, it is the job of the SCOTUS to figure out if an action of the government violates the Establishment and/or Free Exercise clause, and this power of review was extended to states and municipalities via incorporation (14th Amendment). There should be little doubt that planting a big Ten Commandments monument on public property is an establishment of religion. If you doubt it, imagine that the city had put a monument to the Twelve Imams of Islam, and refused all requests to put a replica of the Ten Commandments there. Would you defend the city's choice? Or would you criticize it as the state promulgating a religious belief?

Mind you, I do not support vandalism in any form, including by those who share my views. However, there is no question that these types of monuments do not belong on public property. Private property, no problem, as long as you follow zoning laws. Public? Nope, not allowed.

 

[BillRM]

May be it was some out of his mind drunk and not some hateful atheist who had his feelings hurt.

Hateful atheist that does not wish one brand of Religion to be sold to the people with the help of the government?

Shame on him for not wishing to glamourfly by the bible story a mass murder of not only his own people but of women and children of other people.

He did save the young women who had yet to know a man.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Perhaps if folks actually lived out these principles in their daily lives, they wouldn't need to erect monuments to them.

 

[BillRM]

I'm betting they're Cowards who can only do what they do in The Dark of Night and not in The Light of Day.

Know anyone like that?

Who the cowards the ones who place the religion monument up on public property without any notice?

 

[jimbo]

SCOTUS is, in my opinion, the most powerful branch because of their ability to interpret. This is why it takes the other 2 branches to confirm the appointees to prevent irrational individuals from wielding too much power. You wont have a majority on the Supreme Court elected that would make those types of irrational interpretations if the other branches do their due diligence. Once SCOTUS rules, their ruling is final until SCOTUS rules differently on a similar case, or congress acts to amend the constitution. Though it may seem like too much power; the SCOTUS ability to interpret the vaguely written constitution allows it to evolve with the times, and is the reason our constitution is the oldest active constitution.

The problem is that SCOTUS has decided that their role is making rather than interpreting, and the other two branches have gone along.

I should never be able to predict the vote on the next issue to come before SCOTUS, but I can. It well be 5-4 Conservative, unless the rumors of a coming retirement are true, or their is a death. Then it will be 6-3.

 

[BillRM]

Perhaps if folks actually lived out these principles in their daily lives, they wouldn't need to erect monuments to them.

Too bad Mosses did not live up to the no killed commandment himself in the bible story.

Footnote you should never never leave a child access to a bible on his own if you hope he will grow up being a 'good' Christian.

Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be true.
Thomas Paine

 

[BillRM]

So I take it you were outraged when Scalia reinterpreted the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, which was not how it was originally written, or treated by our laws and legal system for over 200 years?



Yeah, not so much.

The SCOTUS cannot pass amendments, and cannot force people to file lawsuits. They can't even take a case unless someone shows they have standing, and goes through an entire appeals process.

In contrast, Congress can write and pass laws at pretty much any time, as long as it's in session. The Executive can act on those laws at any time as well, though there are frequently lengthy procedures to flesh out parts of laws as delegated to the Executive by the Legislature. Amendments can pretty much be passed at any time.

And of course, there are numerous checks and balances on the SCOTUS. The Executive nominates; the Legislature confirms; justices can be impeached; amendments can (and did) override SCOTUS rulings.



They do not have that authority. Thanks for the Straw Man, though.



That's not how it works.

What the SCOTUS does is review laws to ensure they are constitutionally sound. If parts or all of a law are not sound, they can block the unconstitutional parts. E.g. the SCOTUS found that the ACA's requirement for states to accept the Medicaid expansion was unconstitutional, thus in your terms they "changed the law AS IT WAS WRITTEN." Was that a bad ruling? Was the SCOTUS not doing their job? It doesn't look that way. I'm a supporter of the ACA, but the legal reasoning seemed sound to me.

Along those lines, it is the job of the SCOTUS to figure out if an action of the government violates the Establishment and/or Free Exercise clause, and this power of review was extended to states and municipalities via incorporation (14th Amendment). There should be little doubt that planting a big Ten Commandments monument on public property is an establishment of religion. If you doubt it, imagine that the city had put a monument to the Twelve Imams of Islam, and refused all requests to put a replica of the Ten Commandments there. Would you defend the city's choice? Or would you criticize it as the state promulgating a religious belief?

Mind you, I do not support vandalism in any form, including by those who share my views. However, there is no question that these types of monuments do not belong on public property. Private property, no problem, as long as you follow zoning laws. Public? Nope, not allowed.

See the quote below as it is right on.

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.
[Robert A. Heinlein

 

[chuckiechan]

Foundation of modern law indeed with special note of by the bible story that when Mosses first brought the commandments down and found his people misbehaving he order mass killing among them.

In any case if any jury member have any respect for the separation of church and state they would hang the jury.

That was Old Testament.

 

[BillRM]

Except for the lack of a strong religion element at the moment at least he might had been talking about Trump with his anti-science and anti foreigners and how he had gotten into power.

As for the second notion, the idea that we could lose our freedom by succumbing to a wave of religious hysteria, I am sorry to say that I consider it possible. I hope that it is not probable. But there is a latent deep strain of religious fanaticism in this, our culture; it is rooted in our history and it has broken out many times in the past. It is with us now; there has been a sharp rise in strongly evangelical sects in this country in recent years, some of which hold beliefs theocratic in the extreme, anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, and anti-libertarian.

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. This is equally true whether the faith is Communism or Holy-Rollerism; indeed it is the bounden duty of the faithful to do so. The custodians of the True Faith cannot logically admit tolerance of heresy to be a virtue.

Nevertheless this business of legislating religious beliefs into law has never been more than sporadically successful in this country – Sunday closing laws here and there, birth control legislation in spots, the Prohibition experiment, temporary enclaves of theocracy such as Voliva’s Zion, Smith’s Nauvoo, a few others. The country is split up into such a variety of faiths and sects that a degree of uneasy tolerance now exists from expedient compromise; the minorities constitute a majority of opposition against each other.

Could it be otherwise here? Could any one sect obtain a working majority at the polls and take over the country? Perhaps not –

but a combination of a dynamic evangelist, television, enough money, and modern techniques of advertising and propaganda might make Billy Sunday’s efforts look like a corner store compared to Sears Roebuck. Throw in a depression for good measure, promise a material heaven here on earth, add a dash of anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Negroism, and a good large dose of anti-“furriners” in general and anti-intellectuals here at home and the result might be something quite frightening – particularly when one recalls that our voting system is such that a minority distributed as pluralities in enough states can constitute a working majority in Washington.

From Concerning Stories Never Written: Postscript in Revolt in 2100
Robert A. Heinlein
Colorado Springs, Colorado
October 1952

 

[Tanngrisnir]

So I take it you were outraged when Scalia reinterpreted the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, which was not how it was originally written, or treated by our laws and legal system for over 200 years?



Yeah, not so much.

The SCOTUS cannot pass amendments, and cannot force people to file lawsuits. They can't even take a case unless someone shows they have standing, and goes through an entire appeals process.

In contrast, Congress can write and pass laws at pretty much any time, as long as it's in session. The Executive can act on those laws at any time as well, though there are frequently lengthy procedures to flesh out parts of laws as delegated to the Executive by the Legislature. Amendments can pretty much be passed at any time.

And of course, there are numerous checks and balances on the SCOTUS. The Executive nominates; the Legislature confirms; justices can be impeached; amendments can (and did) override SCOTUS rulings.



They do not have that authority. Thanks for the Straw Man, though.



That's not how it works.

What the SCOTUS does is review laws to ensure they are constitutionally sound. If parts or all of a law are not sound, they can block the unconstitutional parts. E.g. the SCOTUS found that the ACA's requirement for states to accept the Medicaid expansion was unconstitutional, thus in your terms they "changed the law AS IT WAS WRITTEN." Was that a bad ruling? Was the SCOTUS not doing their job? It doesn't look that way. I'm a supporter of the ACA, but the legal reasoning seemed sound to me.

Along those lines, it is the job of the SCOTUS to figure out if an action of the government violates the Establishment and/or Free Exercise clause, and this power of review was extended to states and municipalities via incorporation (14th Amendment). There should be little doubt that planting a big Ten Commandments monument on public property is an establishment of religion. If you doubt it, imagine that the city had put a monument to the Twelve Imams of Islam, and refused all requests to put a replica of the Ten Commandments there. Would you defend the city's choice? Or would you criticize it as the state promulgating a religious belief?

Mind you, I do not support vandalism in any form, including by those who share my views. However, there is no question that these types of monuments do not belong on public property. Private property, no problem, as long as you follow zoning laws. Public? Nope, not allowed.

Spot on.

The amount of sheer, unadulterated pig-ignorance of the constitution, historical illiteracy and rank dishonesty that people try and pass off as a reasonable take on things around here is, to say the least, bracing.

 

[BillRM]

That was Old Testament.

You do know that the ten commandments is old testament or do you not?

 

[apdst]

they were recently doing something similar to monuments down south here recently, monuments that had been in place for many decades

I guess intolerance gets around ........




one has to wonder, why would a 'religious' sculpture be allowed to be permanently displayed on government property?

that could be construed as the state endorsing religion.

separation of church & state ...........

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law establishing religion". It doesn't say anything about a state putting up a monument.

 

[Renae]

they were recently doing something similar to monuments down south here recently, monuments that had been in place for many decades

I guess intolerance gets around ........




one has to wonder, why would a 'religious' sculpture be allowed to be permanently displayed on government property?

that could be construed as the state endorsing religion.

separation of church & state ...........

There is no separation of church and state, just a ban on Congress establishing a national religion.

 

[Cephus]

Jesus, less that 24 hours and there was no advance warning of it being put up? Either the suspect knew in advance or is a very quick minded individual. Regardless of the religious nature, this is a blatant case of destruction of public property and I'm sure the court appearances will be swift.

It's not public property, it was privately funded. It had no business being there at all.

 

[katzgar]

There is no separation of church and state, just a ban on Congress establishing a national religion.

true it isnt in the constitution but it is a well understood concept in the united states, but not so much in the south.

 

[Mr Person]

Why didn't god protect it?

Needed more shrubbery

 

[Renae]

true it isnt in the constitution but it is a well understood concept in the united states, but not so much in the south.

Oh we get that judicial activism perverted the Constitution and it is our purpose and drive to reset that miscarriage of law and justice.

 

[SocialD]

they were recently doing something similar to monuments down south here recently, monuments that had been in place for many decades

I guess intolerance gets around ........




one has to wonder, why would a 'religious' sculpture be allowed to be permanently displayed on government property?

that could be construed as the state endorsing religion.

separation of church & state ...........

Which religion would this one be endorsing.. Judaism? Christianity? Islam? they all follow the ten commandments from what ive read.

 

[ModerateRN]

Which religion would this one be endorsing.. Judaism? Christianity? Islam? they all follow the ten commandments from what ive read.

They do follow theme some variation, but that isn't all the major religions out there. So it can be interpreted as our government endorsing a group of religious beliefs over others

 

[ModerateRN]

There is no separation of church and state, just a ban on Congress establishing a national religion.

The SCOTUS said there is separation of Church and State based on their interpretation of the constitution.

 

[SocialD]

They do follow theme some variation, but that isn't all the major religions out there. So it can be interpreted as our government endorsing a group of religious beliefs over others

It wouldn't be a conflict with the establishment clause.

 

[katzgar]

Oh we get that judicial activism perverted the Constitution and it is our purpose and drive to reset that miscarriage of law and justice.

dont buy that for a second. Texas? Really?

 

[Cephus]

true it isnt in the constitution but it is a well understood concept in the united states, but not so much in the south.

No, they just think that their imaginary friend in the sky is more important than the law. They don't care what's in the Constitution (or the law books), they care what's in the Bible. These people are morons.

 

[Zalatix]

Jesus, less that 24 hours and there was no advance warning of it being put up? Either the suspect knew in advance or is a very quick minded individual. Regardless of the religious nature, this is a blatant case of destruction of public property and I'm sure the court appearances will be swift.

I'm conflicted over this. I'm religious but state and religion must never, ever mix. Knocking over a monument of state-endorsed religion is an illegal act of destroying public property but the monument itself is Constitutionally illegal. Any talk of illegal behavior by the driver must be accompanied by the illegality of the monument. Ultimately the government's illegality is a bigger concern because it strikes at the Constitution.

 

[BillRM]

Which religion would this one be endorsing.. Judaism? Christianity? Islam? they all follow the ten commandments from what ive read.

They do follow the ten commandments? As I had not taken note of any of them doing so.