Arkansas new Ten Commandments monument at Capitol destroyed

[Renae]

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

Based on judicial activism. Not the writer's intent, actions or wording. Which is something that needs to be reversed.

 

[Renae]

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.

Actually, it's caring ABOUT the constitution that matters.

 

[Cephus]

Actually, it's caring ABOUT the constitution that matters.

And they don't. They care about what makes them feel good.

 

[ModerateRN]

Based on judicial activism. Not the writer's intent, actions or wording. Which is something that needs to be reversed.

The writers intent was for the SCOTUS to evolve the understanding of constitution over time based on the will of the people. They left the constitution vague and gave SCOTUS the power to interpret and reinterpret the constitution. T. Jefferson himself was the one who came up with the phrase 'separation of church and state'. The SCOTUS is working as intended.

 

[ModerateRN]

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

That is up for interpretation. The establishment clause has been interpreted to include barring states from favoring one religion over the other. Allowing this religious monument, and not allowing other religions or atheists to place their own monuments shows clear favoritism.

 

[matchlight]

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 ...........

If you want to understand that issue, I suggest you read the Supreme Court's decisions involving religious monuments.

 

[matchlight]

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.

You might want to read the Supreme Court decisions which involved religious monuments and depictions of the Ten Commandments in public places. They do not necessarily violate anything in the Constitution. Nor does the placement of a religious monument on public property prove that the state endorses anything stated or depicted on the monument.

 

[chuckiechan]

I waiting to hear what his reasoning for carrying this out was...

And for breaking all Ten Commandments at the same time.

BTW, it's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

 

[matchlight]

SCOTUS is, in my opinion, the most powerful branch because of their ability to interpret.

The Constitution meant the judicial branch to be, by far, the least powerful of the three. That's why it's the subject of Article III, and not Article I or II.

This is why it takes the other 2 branches to confirm the appointees to prevent irrational individuals from wielding too much power.

If you have evidence that was the reason for that design feature of the Constitution, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Once SCOTUS rules, their ruling is final until SCOTUS rules differently on a similar case, or congress acts to amend the constitution.

It's not quite that simple. A President may simply decline to enforce a Supreme Court decision, as President Lincoln did with Dred Scott v. Sandford. And Congress may preempt a Supreme Court decision on a particular matter by acting to remove the Court's appellate jurisdiction. See Ex Parte McCardle. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court far less power than many people seem to believe. And the Court itself has skillfully encouraged the public to sit in awe of its presumed power.

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.

Malarkey. The only legitimate way for the Constitution to change to fit changing circumstances is by amending it. The very fact the Constitution dedicates an entire article to the processes of its own amendment is evidence that the people who drafted and ratified that document did not intend it to be revised except by amendment.

 

[Visbek]

If you want to understand that issue, I suggest you read the Supreme Court's decisions involving religious monuments.

Such as... Lemon v. Kurtzman, which produced the "Lemon Test" ?

• The statute must have a secular legislative purpose
• The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion
• The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion

How about Van Orden vs. Perry? Which says that a 10 Commandments monument is acceptable, depending on the context, because the Court chose to downplay or ignore the religious content, and classify it as a historical artifact and/or had a secular purpose? (In that case, the 10 Commandments monument was one of more than a dozen similar monuments, and nearly 2 dozen historical markers, relating to the history of Texas.)

Or perhaps McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, which barred multiple separate displays of the Ten Commandments, on the basis that those displays did not have a secular purpose?

Stone Vs Graham (10 Commandments displays violated Establishment Clause)
Lynch v. Donnelly (Nativity displays are OK because they have a secular purpose)
County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (A nativity scene violated the Establishment Clause, because of how it was presented; a Menorah display did not, because of how it was presented)

Cuban Smokes' inquiry is valid. The answer to his question is, "it's allowed if you can convince a court that your religious display has a secular purpose, typically based on intent, context and other factors."

In this case, if Arkansas planted a 10 Commandments monument on a lawn, in isolation, with no prior notice, in the dead of night? I doubt it'd survive a court challenge.

Again, this does not justify vandalism. But it does answer Cuban's question.

 

[Mr Person]

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

Based on judicial activism. Not the writer's intent, actions or wording. Which is something that needs to be reversed.

lol...

Virtually none of the people who use the term "judicial activism" have the slightest bit of experience or training to fully understand one single SCOTUS decision. You'd need google to find out what the difference is between citing a case without putting anything before it, putting "see" before the citation", putting "see also", and putting "see generally". You wouldn't know why some citations include parentheticals and why others don't.

All that happened is that some guy in a suit appeared on Fox or other media, and called a decision 'activist'.


If you knew the history, then you would know that anyone who claimed that there was one single original intent is lying out their ***, because there was no one true intent. Everything was a bargain amongst multiple intents, worded so people could go back home and sell ratification to their respective states. Meanwhile, all but two framers (your "writer", but multiple) fully intended English common law style interpretation to apply to laws, and for the Supreme Court (and those A3 courts established by congress) to apply it to laws when reviewing for constitutionality.

So called "originalists" are utterly full of it. If you actually read and understand a whole bunch of decisions, you'll see that both they and the Accused Activists go looking for original intent in primary source material. They just choose different material. And then, they BOTH have to apply it to a question that wasn't squarely before the framers. You might as well call every judge an "activist," as there can be no true original intent about whether or not using an infared scanner to detect heat emanating from a house is a search in the constitutional sense. Every judge in a case like that (Kyllo) just goes about finding the primary sources that support what they think is the logical result, in light of what types of searches were carried out in the past, and then write the decision backwards from there.

At least the ones typically accused of being "activist" are honest about the fact that SCOTUS regularly faces questions the framers couldn't have imagined, or simply weren't thinking about because of common societal practice at the time.


There is no One True Intent and there is no One True Judicial Philosophy. "Judicial activism" is just another typical attempt by certain types of conservative to make their claims look stronger than they are. All they really mean is "decision I didn't like because personal reasons shut up."

 

[Tanngrisnir]

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

Wow. There's that rabid intellectual dishonesty again.

Have someone explain 'case law' to you.

 

[Winchester]

View attachment 67219275


LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Officials say Arkansas’ new Ten Commandments monument was destroyed by someone driving a vehicle into it less than 24 hours after the monument was placed on state Capitol grounds.

Secretary of State’s Office spokesman Chris Powell says Capitol Police arrested the male suspect early Wednesday. The suspect’s name and motive haven’t been released.

The stone monument fell to the ground and broke into multiple pieces.

The privately funded monument was 6 feet tall (1.8 meters) and weighed 6,000 pounds (2,721 kilograms). It was installed Tuesday morning on the southwest lawn of the Capitol with little fanfare and no advance notice. A 2015 law required the state to allow the display near the Capitol, and a state panel last month gave final approval to its design and location.


Read more: https://apnews.com/cd6d8a4529a24681...en-Commandments-monument-at-Capitol-destroyed


Yea Yea Yea I know, we need wait for more information :2razz:

Maybe it was a strong Storm that blew it over :roll:

Moses came back:

 

[Cigar]

Moses came back:

... and he's pissed :lamo

 

[Mr Person]

And in Boston, asshole throws rock through Holocaust memorial, upsets man whose camp number was etched into the pane he destroyed:

https://www.boston.com/news/local-n...ed-with-damaging-holocaust-memorial-in-boston




Elsewhere in MA, drunk crashes into monument to some settler, but doesn't break it entirely:

https://www.boston.com/news/local-n...drove-drunk-crashed-into-century-old-monument

 

[Mr Person]

FYI, mentally ill man who has a habit of attacking such monuments arrested:

https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2017/06/28/10-commandments-monument-broken-up

 

[Zalatix]

You might want to read the Supreme Court decisions which involved religious monuments and depictions of the Ten Commandments in public places. They do not necessarily violate anything in the Constitution. Nor does the placement of a religious monument on public property prove that the state endorses anything stated or depicted on the monument.

That's insane. Why can't atheists put up their own monument on public grounds? Or *puke* Satanists? Any court that says one can be favored over the other is an illegitimate court and needs to be kicked off the bench. In the eyes of the Constitution, all belief groups are equal.

 

[Renae]

The writers intent was for the SCOTUS to evolve the understanding of constitution over time based on the will of the people. They left the constitution vague and gave SCOTUS the power to interpret and reinterpret the constitution. T. Jefferson himself was the one who came up with the phrase 'separation of church and state'. The SCOTUS is working as intended.

No, you are a subscriber to the "living constitution" which is an absurd notion.

 

[Renae]

Wow. There's that rabid intellectual dishonesty again.

Have someone explain 'case law' to you.

Judicial activism.

 

[Renae]

lol...

Virtually none of the people who use the term "judicial activism" have the slightest bit of experience or training to fully understand one single SCOTUS decision. You'd need google to find out what the difference is between citing a case without putting anything before it, putting "see" before the citation", putting "see also", and putting "see generally". You wouldn't know why some citations include parentheticals and why others don't.

All that happened is that some guy in a suit appeared on Fox or other media, and called a decision 'activist'.


If you knew the history, then you would know that anyone who claimed that there was one single original intent is lying out their ***, because there was no one true intent. Everything was a bargain amongst multiple intents, worded so people could go back home and sell ratification to their respective states. Meanwhile, all but two framers (your "writer", but multiple) fully intended English common law style interpretation to apply to laws, and for the Supreme Court (and those A3 courts established by congress) to apply it to laws when reviewing for constitutionality.

So called "originalists" are utterly full of it. If you actually read and understand a whole bunch of decisions, you'll see that both they and the Accused Activists go looking for original intent in primary source material. They just choose different material. And then, they BOTH have to apply it to a question that wasn't squarely before the framers. You might as well call every judge an "activist," as there can be no true original intent about whether or not using an infared scanner to detect heat emanating from a house is a search in the constitutional sense. Every judge in a case like that (Kyllo) just goes about finding the primary sources that support what they think is the logical result, in light of what types of searches were carried out in the past, and then write the decision backwards from there.

At least the ones typically accused of being "activist" are honest about the fact that SCOTUS regularly faces questions the framers couldn't have imagined, or simply weren't thinking about because of common societal practice at the time.


There is no One True Intent and there is no One True Judicial Philosophy. "Judicial activism" is just another typical attempt by certain types of conservative to make their claims look stronger than they are. All they really mean is "decision I didn't like because personal reasons shut up."

And a long winded insult of "you're too stupid to understand the real truth".

I get the case law, I disagree with it and would love to see a case hit SCOTUS that reverses that non-sense.

 

[matchlight]

Such as... Lemon v. Kurtzman, which produced the "Lemon Test" ?

• The statute must have a secular legislative purpose
• The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion
• The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion

How about Van Orden vs. Perry? Which says that a 10 Commandments monument is acceptable, depending on the context, because the Court chose to downplay or ignore the religious content, and classify it as a historical artifact and/or had a secular purpose? (In that case, the 10 Commandments monument was one of more than a dozen similar monuments, and nearly 2 dozen historical markers, relating to the history of Texas.)

Or perhaps McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, which barred multiple separate displays of the Ten Commandments, on the basis that those displays did not have a secular purpose?

Stone Vs Graham (10 Commandments displays violated Establishment Clause)
Lynch v. Donnelly (Nativity displays are OK because they have a secular purpose)
County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (A nativity scene violated the Establishment Clause, because of how it was presented; a Menorah display did not, because of how it was presented)

Cuban Smokes' inquiry is valid. The answer to his question is, "it's allowed if you can convince a court that your religious display has a secular purpose, typically based on intent, context and other factors."

In this case, if Arkansas planted a 10 Commandments monument on a lawn, in isolation, with no prior notice, in the dead of night? I doubt it'd survive a court challenge.

Again, this does not justify vandalism. But it does answer Cuban's question.

Your Wikilaw research reflects your usual diligence. But you seem to overestimate the status of the Lemon test. Support for that test among the justices began to erode after Allegheny, twenty-eight years ago. Justice O'Connor once proposed a modification of its second prong, and Justice Kennedy is disinclined to apply the test. Justice Scalia was even less inclined to find Establishment Clause violations under the Lemon test, and so is Justice Thomas. Justice Alito and the Chief Justice seem not to like the test much, either.

Also, there are a couple interesting cases you left out. In Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinette, a 1995 case, the Court held that Ohio did not violate the Establishment Clause by allowing the KKK to place a Klan cross near other crosses in a public square in front of the statehouse. There is also Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, from 2009. In that case, the Court held that a monument to the Summum religion put up by private persons in a city park was government speech and therefore raised no First Amendment issue.

 

[SocialD]

That is up for interpretation. The establishment clause has been interpreted to include barring states from favoring one religion over the other. Allowing this religious monument, and not allowing other religions or atheists to place their own monuments shows clear favoritism.

Are there any atheist monuments?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Judicial activism.

Utterly and laughably false on the face of it.

You just have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[cuban smokes]

If you want to understand that issue, I suggest you read the Supreme Court's decisions involving religious monuments.

could give a **** less; many on both sides of the issue here .............

 

[Renae]

Wow. There's that rabid intellectual dishonesty again.

Have someone explain 'case law' to you.

The wall you're so proud of was not the one Jefferson spoke of, his wall was putting the Federal Govt on one side, and states and Religion on the other. This is easily seen in his actions, as Gov. of Virginia he designated a day for "publick and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God."
Yet as President he refused to do the same at the Federal Level.

Justice Black, in the Everson vs Board of Education misapplied the intent and I would say maliciously usurped the words of Jefferson to apply a standard never intended by framers of the Constitution. It's that misapplication of intent and original meaning, not just the actual CONSTITUTION'S own rules, that I am against.

I am just as against a Federal religious dictate, but to take that to a state or even local level is absurd. Again, one can only hope that over the next 4-8 years, after a justice or two are replaced with more level headed Scalia types interested in the original intent of the Constitution we might get a chance to see that poorly crafted "separation of church and state" reapplied more correctly to Federal and not State or Local government actions.