the A.C.L.U.---protecting our CONSTITUTIONAL values

[RyanH]

This recent newsclipping reminds me of why I am so incredibly proud to be both an active member and financial contributor to the A.C.L.U. The A.C.L.U. has fought more cases before the United States Supreme Court than any person or entity and quite successfully. The following is a recent A.C.L.U. victory which remind us all of the bedrock principle of separation between church and state.
Ryan.

FRANKLINTON, La. — Residents of a small Louisiana town are fighting back after the ACLU won a lawsuit over signs the town put on public property that proclaimed their faith in God.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the town of Franklinton and forced town officials to remove four signs from public property that said, "Jesus Is Lord Over Franklinton."

Now, in a movement to have their own say, the town of 4,000 has posted more than 1,000 signs on lawns and store fronts that express their faith in God. The most popular sign says, "Jesus is Lord of All."

A local signmaker has sold about 2,800 more to people from surrounding towns, and a traveling salesman has started hawking them in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Florida.

The civil liberties group filed its federal lawsuit Jan. 29, demanding the removal of the signs leading into town. ACLU officials named Washington Parish and town officials in their complaint, saying public money was used to erect the signs — which violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

Parish President M.E. Taylor acknowledged that parish road crews put up the signs, but he said residents paid for them.

New Orleans resident Linton Carney, who joined the ACLU as a plaintiff, said he was offended when he first saw the signs in July while driving through Franklinton, which is 55 miles north of New Orleans near the Mississippi state line.

But the lawsuit stung many residents of this mainly Protestant town.

"Most people were a little angry at the ACLU," Fowler said. "This is a small, basically Christian town and we just strongly believe that Jesus is lord over all."

"There was sort of an outcry from the Christian community," said Gene Richards, pastor of Hill Crest Baptist Church. "It seems the ACLU is trying to de-Christianize the community."

ACLU officials say that's not true, they are merely defending the Constitution.

Joe Cook, executive director of the Louisiana ACLU, said he's satisfied that his suit removed religious content from public property.

Richards said the ACLU lawsuit was the latest in a string of suits over public Christian displays. Nearby towns have been hit with legal battles over nativity scenes on public property.

"These are types of displays of the Christian faith that had been accepted, even expected, and now we're being told they're illegal," Richards said. "These signs originally were a declaration of the faith of a large majority of people in Franklinton. They were never intended to be offensive or to discriminate against anyone."

The idea to put signs on private property came independently to pastors and a group of residents organizing their annual parish fair, said Madonna Fowler, 54, a retired Franklinton teacher.

Homeowners put them in their yards. Some put them inside car windows. Business owners planted them in front of Radio Shack, Crown Auto Sales and Winston Refrigeration.

 

[danielson]

sounds like a worthy organisation

imagine the reaction if residents in san fransisco wanted to place a rainbow flag over every public property....

is this organisation partially state funded or is it totally independant?

 

[bunnymt]

Sure this violates the constitutional tenet of the separation of church and state, yet the town is mainly protestant. It seems to me that these townspeople are mainly exploiting their constitutional right:

that congress shall not make a law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of the religion with freedom of speech entailed.

bunny

 

[p0ink]

*yawn*

 

[RyanH]

sounds like a worthy organisation

imagine the reaction if residents in san fransisco wanted to place a rainbow flag over every public property....

is this organisation partially state funded or is it totally independant?

the ACLU is privately funded, based in New York, and has fought an extraordinary number of cases before the United States Supreme Court, most very successfully.

Many critics tend to bash the ACLU, but whenever someone's civil liberties are threated or experiences discrimination first-hand, the ACLU is often who she turns to.

 

[RyanH]

*yawn*

I know, it's getting pretty tiring watching so many citizens trying to change our whole constitutional framework, isn't it?

But they continue to fail.

 

[RyanH]

*yawn*

I know, it's getting pretty tiring watching so many citizens trying to change our whole constitutional framework, isn't it?

Especially when they continue to fail.

 

[p0ink]

I know, it's getting pretty tiring watching so many citizens trying to change our whole constitutional framework, isn't it?

Especially when they continue to fail.

as it is getting tiring watching your party try to get the shays mehan bill signed into law. you know, the bill that gives the first amendment a good ass raping.

 

[danielson]

Many critics tend to bash the ACLU, but whenever someone's civil liberties are threated or experiences discrimination first-hand, the ACLU is often who she turns to.

 

[RyanH]

as it is getting tiring watching your party try to get the shays mehan bill signed into law. you know, the bill that gives the first amendment a good ass raping.

LOL. Good to hear your concern for first amendment rights, particulary when those rights are being used to destruct our political process. The first Amendment is subject to regulation, always has been, and will continue to be. None of our rights are absolute. For example, the states are not completely sovereign since the government restricts states rights where necessary.
Also, First amendment rights are not absolute in school settings either. The Supreme Court has limited constitutional rights time and time again where necessary to protect the welfare of our society.

This bill is just another example of a necessary restriction on first amendment rights in furtherance of the public good.

 

[bunnymt]

This bill is just another example of a necessary restriction on first amendment rights in furtherance of the public good.

The public good? It's a shame that the government and other factions have so much say as to what does the public good!

bunny

 

[p0ink]

LOL. Good to hear your concern for first amendment rights, particulary when those rights are being used to destruct our political process. The first Amendment is subject to regulation, always has been, and will continue to be. None of our rights are absolute. For example, the states are not completely sovereign since the government restricts states rights where necessary.
Also, First amendment rights are not absolute in school settings either. The Supreme Court has limited constitutional rights time and time again where necessary to protect the welfare of our society.

This bill is just another example of a necessary restriction on first amendment rights in furtherance of the public good.

you think making it illegal for the people to voice an opinion about a person running for office is a good thing? are you fucking kidding me? you think it's a good idea to have a 60 day blackout period before an election where no group or people can voice an opinion about a candidate? do you really hate america that much? or do you just try to piss people off?

 

[Code]

Reading Ryan's posts is like watching a 5 year old desperately trying to get attention.

 

[Warik]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

1) FRANKLINTON, La. is not Congress.

2) No law was made.

A protection of our Constitutional values? More like a direct assault on one's freedom to express his religious beliefs.

People need to actually read the Constitution before "'defending" it.

Besides, Ryan, since when do you have any respect for the Constitution or what it represents?

-Warik

 

[bunnymt]

1) FRANKLINTON, La. is not Congress.

2) No law was made.

A protection of our Constitutional values? More like a direct assault on one's freedom to express his religious beliefs.

People need to actually read the Constitution before "'defending" it.

Besides, Ryan, since when do you have any respect for the Constitution or what it represents?

-Warik

Sure no law was made. However, that is not the issue that I was addressing. Mainly paraphrasing from the Bill of Rights itself. (I have read the constitution). Agreed that it is an assault on one's freedom to express religious beliefs.

 

[danielson]

A protection of our Constitutional values? More like a direct assault on one's freedom to express his religious beliefs.

is it not an assault on one's religious beliefs to allow a sign that does not agree with his religious beliefs to be placed on all public property within that town? creating the impression that all the public within that town agree with that belief? should someone who potentially find that sign offensive be forced to live within eyesight of it?

 

[RyanH]

is it not an assault on one's religious beliefs to allow a sign that does not agree with his religious beliefs to be placed on all public property within that town? creating the impression that all the public within that town agree with that belief? should someone who potentially find that sign offensive be forced to live within eyesight of it?

Danielson is absolutely right, Warik. Who is to say that a Muslim passing through this small town would not feel excluded by the government endorsement of religion.

And Warik, of course, no law was made, but religion was endorsed by the government by allowing signs to be placed on government property. The establishment clause specifically forbids that sort of activity.

 

[RyanH]

Reading Ryan's posts is like watching a 5 year old desperately trying to get attention.

then please, scroll on by my threads. I would actually prefer that you do that.

 

[RyanH]

you think making it illegal for the people to voice an opinion about a person running for office is a good thing? are you fucking kidding me? you think it's a good idea to have a 60 day blackout period before an election where no group or people can voice an opinion about a candidate? do you really hate america that much? or do you just try to piss people off?

hard money is still acceptable under the bill. Only soft money will be limited which is money used as nothing more than for bribes by special interests groups. Individuals will still have their voice heard loud and clear, and the limits on hard money will also be raised under the bill, thus allowing for individual speech to have a greater impact.

Finally, you only question my love for our great nation because you hear a voice of dissent---something our nation was founded on.

 

[Warik]

is it not an assault on one's religious beliefs to allow a sign that does not agree with his religious beliefs to be placed on all public property within that town? creating the impression that all the public within that town agree with that belief? should someone who potentially find that sign offensive be forced to live within eyesight of it?

I see all sorts of Jewish paraphernalia all over the place around Hanukkah and I don't throw a hissy fit. Why? Two reasons.

1) I respect other's rights to place these items where they please. A business owner has the right to put whatever he wants in his store. If someone doesn't like it, that someone shouldn't shop there. Plain and simple.

2) I'm an adult. If it doesn't infringe on my rights or anyone else's rights, I don't care about it. If someone believes that the harmless displays of praise to Jesus is an infringement of their rights, then that person, quite frankly, is not an adult.

The fact of the matter is that no law was broken, yet legal action was taken. That, my friends, is wrong.

-Warik

 

[Test boy]

Your petty little ACLU would get squashed like a bug if it was not able to hide behind the behemoth gigantine strenght of the NRA to protect our constitutional rights.

Oddly... the porno industry also is afforded huge protection due to the NRA.

I cringe when I hear about "rights" because of all the officers who make up situational rules as they see fit. Bunch of idiots, most of them.

 

[gwl9dta4]

is it not an assault on one's religious beliefs to allow a sign that does not agree with his religious beliefs to be placed on all public property within that town? creating the impression that all the public within that town agree with that belief? should someone who potentially find that sign offensive be forced to live within eyesight of it?

Well, if you live in a democracy then you must be aware of the concept of majority rules. What will happed if Muslims start to do their daily prayer on a public piece of property with their carpet. Will the governmant step in and make it illegal for them to pray in certain places? What if 90% of that town IS Muslim? Then the remaining 10% will get their way cause they deem their habits offensive? Well, that more like minority rule, where the needs of the few, outweigh the needs of the many.

 

[RyanH]

Well, if you live in a democracy then you must be aware of the concept of majority rules. What will happed if Muslims start to do their daily prayer on a public piece of property with their carpet. Will the governmant step in and make it illegal for them to pray in certain places? What if 90% of that town IS Muslim? Then the remaining 10% will get their way cause they deem their habits offensive? Well, that more like minority rule, where the needs of the few, outweigh the needs of the many.

to the contrary. Our entire political system is designed around protecting the rights of minorities in the face of unfair oppression by the majority.

 

[RyanH]

Warik--you are missing a critical distinction:

endorsement of religion is acceptable on private property, but not on government property---that's the law. very simple.

 

[gwl9dta4]

to the contrary. Our entire political system is designed around protecting the rights of minorities in the face of unfair oppression by the majority.

LIKE I SAID.

"Well, that more like minority rule, where the needs of the few, outweigh the needs of the many."

 

[1911]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Code
Reading Ryan's posts is like watching a 5 year old desperately trying to get attention.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

then please, scroll on by my threads. I would actually prefer that you do that.

LOL - Don't flatter yourself. It's not your drivel that people click-on the thread to read, it's to read the responses from other's that are pissin' all over your "liberal subject du jour."

Unfortunately, I'm with the ACLU on this one. I would not want those signs all over my town either. But, common sense should dictate their placement/removal, not some horseshit legal team from the ACLU.

Later,

 

[Warik]

Warik--you are missing a critical distinction:

endorsement of religion is acceptable on private property, but not on government property---that's the law. very simple.

Wait a sec - government property? Be more specific, because the article was not. I was under the impression that all of this whining was about store owners and such putting these things in their stores, etc.

What's the real story?

-Warik

 

[RyanH]

Wait a sec - government property? Be more specific, because the article was not. I was under the impression that all of this whining was about store owners and such putting these things in their stores, etc.

What's the real story?

-Warik

the article is very clear----signs were placed on public property...the ACLU could care less or myself, for that matter, as to what one does on his/her own private property.

Of course, citizens have also placed signs on their private property as well, but that's not what the ACLU challenged.

Gheez, Warik, brush up on those reading comprehension skills, will ya?

 

[danielson]

I see all sorts of Jewish paraphernalia all over the place around Hanukkah and I don't throw a hissy fit. Why? Two reasons.

1) I respect other's rights to place these items where they please. A business owner has the right to put whatever he wants in his store. If someone doesn't like it, that someone shouldn't shop there. Plain and simple.

2) I'm an adult. If it doesn't infringe on my rights or anyone else's rights, I don't care about it. If someone believes that the harmless displays of praise to Jesus is an infringement of their rights, then that person, quite frankly, is not an adult.

The fact of the matter is that no law was broken, yet legal action was taken. That, my friends, is wrong.

-Warik

this wasnt a store owner saying 'god is great' on his store, this was over 4000 signs or something being placed on every public building within that town

were it a single store owner im guessing most wouldnt mind as one store owner placing signs on private property is expressing his belief. public property owned by the government insinuates everyone in that town holds that belief.

hanukkah signs dont state everyone in the town is grateful to the 'god' jews worship (note 'god' in comma's as different religions views and perceptions of god are different, no disrespect intended)

 

[danielson]

Well, if you live in a democracy then you must be aware of the concept of majority rules. What will happed if Muslims start to do their daily prayer on a public piece of property with their carpet. Will the governmant step in and make it illegal for them to pray in certain places? What if 90% of that town IS Muslim? Then the remaining 10% will get their way cause they deem their habits offensive? Well, that more like minority rule, where the needs of the few, outweigh the needs of the many.

since when do the needs of the many include placing signs on public property stating the towns universal love of jesus. its not necessarily a bad thing for a christian but is it necessary?

neo-natal care is only needed by a minority of babies.....should we close those wards down? forcing seeds which create sterile plants upon american farmers benefits a minority, in this case executives of a biotech firm. yet this was allowed....the democracy we live in sometimes supports whoever has the most $$ whether they are minority or majority

what if there was a town with a 90% muslim population, and they wanted to place signs up stating 'everyone in this town loves our god'......do you REALLY think they would be allowed this?

 

[gwl9dta4]

what if there was a town with a 90% muslim population, and they wanted to place signs up stating 'everyone in this town loves our god'......do you REALLY think they would be allowed this?

Maybe i am too accepting, but if that was the case i would not mind. Whatever. I respect everyones beliefs, and so they sould be able to express them. Maybe i am naive, but that's me.

Incidentally i did not take into consideration that they were referring ONLY to goernment property. That does make a big difference. BUt what if they posted the 10 commandments?
Afterall, logic would dictate that those are universal laws for living in peace and wellness, but because they are of Christian origin, would it be illegal too?

 

[danielson]

Maybe i am too accepting, but if that was the case i would not mind. Whatever. I respect everyones beliefs, and so they sould be able to express them. Maybe i am naive, but that's me.

Incidentally i did not take into consideration that they were referring ONLY to goernment property. That does make a big difference. BUt what if they posted the 10 commandments?
Afterall, logic would dictate that those are universal laws for living in peace and wellness, but because they are of Christian origin, would it be illegal too?

maybe

but legally we are not enforced to live by the 10 commandments, only morally. we are alllowed to covet thy neighbours wife for instance, even if it is a terrble thing to do....plus i think i would be a little freaked out in a town where the law was printed on a huge sign on the side of every public building

were they wanting to display these signs on private property, provided they conformed to building regulation etc i doubt many would mind. i see a jesus saves sign a church i often drive past, i have absolutely no problem with this. however while i may not mind im guessing others might. its nice to know that there are many out there who share your beliefs about respecting other peoples rights, but there are many who dont. if the shoe was on the other foot i suspect many would object to those signs about a muslims god being up

i just saw a jackass clip where a guy dressed up like satan (i.e. a comical red spandex suit with tail and horns and a plastic trident) and said that the bible was lying about him and he was really a nice guy and held up a sign saying so. most luaghed, some frowned and one guy ran up to him, broke his sign, swore many times and punched him. people get offended by seemingly tame things

which is why i think the government of that town shouldnt have allowed those signs. i always thought christianity didnt like making a grand show of things.....something i learnt when i was in high school so my memory might be bit funny but roman catholic churches were always shiny and showy and lots of gold and paintings etc about whereas christian churches were much more down to earth and subdued in nature

 

[gwl9dta4]

i just saw a jackass clip where a guy dressed up like satan (i.e. a comical red spandex suit with tail and horns and a plastic trident) and said that the bible was lying about him and he was really a nice guy and held up a sign saying so. most luaghed, some frowned and one guy ran up to him, broke his sign, swore many times and punched him. people get offended by seemingly tame things

which is why i think the government of that town shouldnt have allowed those signs. i always thought christianity didnt like making a grand show of things.....something i learnt when i was in high school so my memory might be bit funny but roman catholic churches were always shiny and showy and lots of gold and paintings etc about whereas christian churches were much more down to earth and subdued in nature

I see and share your point. People are wierd sometimes.

BTW that was a GREAT episode of jackass. Even better one was when that one dude went to audio stores and started dancing in a thong for the salesman. But that is another thread.

 

[danielson]

I see and share your point. People are wierd sometimes.

BTW that was a GREAT episode of jackass. Even better one was when that one dude went to audio stores and started dancing in a thong for the salesman. But that is another thread.

yeah....that show cracks me up

johnny knoxville is one crazy SOB....its probably good for him that show got axed

 

[VicTusDeuS]

RyanH would much rather have them erect a sign that said, Allah is Lord,Kill the Infidels.

 

[JohnyJuice]

....where necessary to protect the welfare of our society.

This bill is just another example of a necessary restriction on first amendment rights in furtherance of the public good.

Hmmm. was that communist propoganda i heard dripping from your boner oven?

 

[Warik]

the article is very clear----signs were placed on public property...the ACLU could care less or myself, for that matter, as to what one does on his/her own private property.

Of course, citizens have also placed signs on their private property as well, but that's not what the ACLU challenged.

My mistake. Bullshit law, but it's the law. Kind of pathetic that people would whine about it, though, no?

Gheez, Warik, brush up on those reading comprehension skills, will ya?

MCIYM :Q

-Warik

 

[big4rt]

Ryan,
As you may well know I am in agreement with you. I only wish I could have joined this conversation earlier. However, as I look upon this one dollar bill I see "In God We Trust" printed on the back. I know this has been challenged or at least questioned before. This is a one dollar bill printed by the only legal source of currency in these United States--the federal government.
Let's examine this a little more closely, and I will give you your chance to attack these statements. (I am playing devil's advocate.) As you have already stated public property may not be used to endorse a religion thereby lending to the notion that the government is endorsing religion. AM I DOING OK SO FAR??
Now, as I stare at this dollar bill I am reminded that it is mine. I earned it. It's in my pockt. It is my personal and private property. AM I STILL DOING OK??? So, if I want "In God We Trust" on my dollar, then it's "cool", right?
Remember, I am not authorized to print money. The federal government may only produce legal tender.
So, whose money is it? Is it private or public? Was it the government's (public) to begin with? If so, then why are they printing "In God We Trust" on this "public property"?
I hope I made this as clear as possible. I am very curious as to what the ACLU would say about our cold hard cash!!! Ok, maybe you can't speak for the ACLU, but could comment in your individual capacity? Thanks, man.

 

[gwl9dta4]

Ryan,
As you may well know I am in agreement with you. I only wish I could have joined this conversation earlier. However, as I look upon this one dollar bill I see "In God We Trust" printed on the back. I know this has been challenged or at least questioned before. This is a one dollar bill printed by the only legal source of currency in these United States--the federal government.
Let's examine this a little more closely, and I will give you your chance to attack these statements. (I am playing devil's advocate.) As you have already stated public property may not be used to endorse a religion thereby lending to the notion that the government is endorsing religion. AM I DOING OK SO FAR??
Now, as I stare at this dollar bill I am reminded that it is mine. I earned it. It's in my pockt. It is my personal and private property. AM I STILL DOING OK??? So, if I want "In God We Trust" on my dollar, then it's "cool", right?
Remember, I am not authorized to print money. The federal government may only produce legal tender.
So, whose money is it? Is it private or public? Was it the government's (public) to begin with? If so, then why are they printing "In God We Trust" on this "public property"?
I hope I made this as clear as possible. I am very curious as to what the ACLU would say about our cold hard cash!!! Ok, maybe you can't speak for the ACLU, but could comment in your individual capacity? Thanks, man.

A very good point indeed. One that i am curious on how it will be solved. But i know for a fact that money is the property of the US government, and thus defacing or destroying it is illegal and punishable. Believe it or not but those penny machines at the boardwalk that sqush a penny into a madallion for 25 cents are technically illegal. All used up currency MUST be returned to the goverment for destruction.

So you bring an interesting point indeed. Let's hear some comments.

 

[Golfer18--old]

I love reading Wariks responses to RyanH

 

[ROMAGOLDSBACKBITCHES]

Why don't you go back to playing with that Easy Bake Oven and leave intelligent conversation to the grown-ups.

I see you making a slur like that again, I will make it my mission in life to make your existence on Elite a nightmare.

Are we clear??

 

[str8manwithadickinhisass]

Regardless, public funds ( more commonly known as taXes) were used to pay someone to put these signs up. Nobody of any religion should be forced to pay for cutesy "What Would Jesus Do" signs. If you want to eXpress your religous beliefs then pay for your own fucking signs (including labor costs) and put them in your own damned yard. Religous freaks piss me off.

 

[Warik]

I love reading Wariks responses to RyanH

Thanks - I think.

-Warik

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

For example, the states are not completely sovereign since the government restricts states rights where necessary.

Circular logic again Ryan, your favorite fallacy.

what you are saying is: "States are not completely sovereign, because the [federal] government restricts them. "

OR

They are not sovereign because they are not allowed to be sovereign. Interesting logic.



Explain where that can be found in the Constitution. Further, where is the ACLU in defense of the 10th Amendment, the one most egregiously violated by the federal government?

I like the ACLU. I support the effort you discuss. I also like their efforts in defending the skinheads in Skokie, Illionois.

In other news...There are no necessary restrictions to the first amendment,as you claimed. Speech and expression by itself is harmless. Restriction of any speech is the first step toward tyranny.

 

[dimitrios]

*yawn*

I'm with you on this one

 

[p0ink]

ryan?

 

[manny78]

euhh whats wrong with that ? Jesus is Lord of all, I thought it was a fact ?

 

[RyanH]

what you are saying is: "States are not completely sovereign, because the [federal] government restricts them.

that's precisely right, and Matt, perhaps you ought to consider a course in logic. The definition of sovereign according to the American Heritage Dictionary is: one that exercises supreme power, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit. Now, this definition would naturally allow an entity to NOT be sovereign in several ways. For example, an entity might not be sovereign because it is restricted by a ruler, restricted by a theocracy, restricted by a monarchy, or restricted by the powers of a broad representative body/Congress. Thus, there are a mulitude of ways in which an entity is not sovereign. Being restricted by the broader powers of a Democratic form of government is just one of them, and it is this definition that applies to our present discussion.
States are not completely sovereign because the federal government restricts them in a multitude of ways---through the Commerce Clause, through the taxing power, etc. My earlier statement would only be circular if there was only one way that an entity could not be sovereign---which just isn't the case. Nevertheless onto more important issues.

Explain where that can be found in the Constitution. Further, where is the ACLU in defense of the 10th Amendment, the one most egregiously violated by the federal government?

The 10th Amendment only states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States. Therefore, states basically get what the United States Supreme Court and Congress deem do not belong to the federal government. Of course, there are traditional areas that have always been left to the states such as matters of divorce, the family, safety/crime, and healthcare issues. But, the Federal government through the Commerce Clause has managed to intrude into those areas as well. Example: The Supreme Court has invalidated many state safety laws (an area traditionally afforded to the states but not longer because of its impact on intestate commerce). In short, it's not very difficult for Congress to encroach on states rights so long as it can find a sufficient nexus between the interest at play and its effect on interstate commerce----which is very easy to do. So to say that states are sovereign in theory is correct, but in actuality it is just simply not the case.

In other news...There are no necessary restrictions to the first amendment,as you claimed. Speech and expression by itself is harmless. Restriction of any speech is the first step toward tyranny.

Of course, there are many restrictions on the First Amendment. For instance, schools have every right to limit a student's first amendment speech if that speech creates a "material disruption", and local communities have the constitutional right to limit obscenity from being sold (sexually oriented speech) if a community finds that it is not in accordance with its standards. The list goes on; I could cite many other examples, but time limits me.

 

[RyanH]

Ryan,
As you may well know I am in agreement with you. I only wish I could have joined this conversation earlier. However, as I look upon this one dollar bill I see "In God We Trust" printed on the back. I know this has been challenged or at least questioned before. This is a one dollar bill printed by the only legal source of currency in these United States--the federal government.
Let's examine this a little more closely, and I will give you your chance to attack these statements. (I am playing devil's advocate.) As you have already stated public property may not be used to endorse a religion thereby lending to the notion that the government is endorsing religion. AM I DOING OK SO FAR??
Now, as I stare at this dollar bill I am reminded that it is mine. I earned it. It's in my pockt. It is my personal and private property. AM I STILL DOING OK??? So, if I want "In God We Trust" on my dollar, then it's "cool", right?
Remember, I am not authorized to print money. The federal government may only produce legal tender.
So, whose money is it? Is it private or public? Was it the government's (public) to begin with? If so, then why are they printing "In God We Trust" on this "public property"?
I hope I made this as clear as possible. I am very curious as to what the ACLU would say about our cold hard cash!!! Ok, maybe you can't speak for the ACLU, but could comment in your individual capacity? Thanks, man.

You've brought up a very interesting issue, but right now, I have other work to do. I'll think about what you said, and post tomorrow.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

that's precisely right, and Matt, perhaps you ought to consider a course in logic. For example, an entity might not be sovereign because it is restricted by a ruler, restricted by a theocracy, restricted by a monarchy, or restricted by the powers of a broad representative body/Congress. Thus, there are a mulitude of ways in which an entity is not sovereign. Being restricted by the broader powers of a Democratic form of government is just one of them, and it is this definition that applies to our present discussion.

My earlier statement would only be circular if there was only one way that an entity could not be sovereign---which just isn't the case. Nevertheless onto more important issues.

All of those arguments are circular. The means of restriction doesn't matter froma logical standpoint. You are saying states are not sovereign for any number of reasons theocracy. monarch, Congress, etc. But your conclusion is arrived at by circular logic: they are not sovereign becuae they are not sovereign. You're right, but it's a clear 360.

The 10th Amendment only states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States. Therefore, states basically get what the United States Supreme Court and Congress deem do not belong to the federal government. Of course, there are traditional areas that have always been left to the states such as matters of divorce, the family, safety/crime, and healthcare issues. But, the Federal government through the Commerce Clause has managed to intrude into those areas as well. Example: The Supreme Court has invalidated many state safety laws (an area traditionally afforded to the states but not longer because of its impact on intestate commerce). In short, it's not very difficult for Congress to encroach on states rights so long as it can find a sufficient nexus between the interest at play and its effect on interstate commerce----which is very easy to do. So to say that states are sovereign in theory is correct, but in actuality it is just simply not the case.

Interesting word choice. The 10th Amendment says "powers granted by teh Consitituion". That is crystal clear. It does not say, "powers granted by Congress and the Supremes". Both entities overstep their bounds when they act in this fashion.

You acknowldege this by your use of the word "intrude". Congress has intruded into state sovereignty, to teh great detriment of our conutry.

Of course, there are many restrictions on the First Amendment. For instance, schools have every right to limit a student's first amendment speech if that speech creates a "material disruption", and local communities have the constitutional right to limit obscenity from being sold (sexually oriented speech) if a community finds that it is not in accordance with its standards. The list goes on; I could cite many other examples, but time limits me.

I understand that there are many limits on teh first amendment. (Please read more carefully ryan) I just say that none of them are justified. The schools one is kinda touchy. The obscenity stuff ios ridiculous; I should not be restricted from viewing whatever I want by some Puritan.

 

[bigguns7]

I know, it's getting pretty tiring watching so many citizens trying to change our whole constitutional framework, isn't it?

Ryan do you really think that that is what these citizens are really trying to do? "Change our constitutional framework?" I can almost guarantee that these people were not plotting an elaborate scheme to debase the constitution. They are God-fearing people who put up some signs to show their beliefs. Whether you believe in God or not, to distort this simple expression of beliefs into a covert operation to break our Constitution apart is totally ridiculous.

This is the kind of statement that gives liberals a bad name. I can somewhat agree with you that the signs should not be posted on public property using public money. But to assert that these small-town folks were working toward constituational revolution is classic liberal hyperbole.

You're smarter than that Ryan.

 

[dballer]

No.. No he is not.

 

[ROMAGOLDSBACKBITCHES]

Why don't you go back to playing with that Easy Bake Oven and leave intelligent conversation to the grown-ups.

I see you making a slur like that again, I will make it my mission in life to make your existence on Elite a nightmare.

Are we clear??

Ooooooooooooohhhhhh, I'm sooooooo afraid. After seeing that picture of you in your avatar. I bet you have big teeth under that black snout. BTW, who's the faggot above you with his right hand rubbing your balls???

See - there is no need to edit that as it applies only to me. Apparently a little bitch can learn a new trick. SO why don't you just leave. Go. By go, I mean leave the George Micheal autographed Dildo, your collection of Nysnc fully fucntional figures, your Strawberry Shortcake underoos, and your seated pogo stick.....actually on second thought, take the pogo stick. Perhaps the seat will break and you will ream yourself. At least that way you will leave with a fond memory of EF....and you will leave my friend, very soon.

 

[curling]

Just like the ACLU(Anti Christ's Law Union). They are nothing but a bunch of commy bastards(read their history their founder was a commy bastard). Sorry about the language but this organization pisses me off so much I lose my cool. I wish they would pack up their piece of crap liberal trash lawyers and move to another country and ruin that one instead of ours. They are also hyprocrites they say they fight for the constitution and the bill of rights but I have never seen them support the second ammendment.

I mean what do they care if they see Jesus is Lord in a town that believes that. Why don't they mind their own freak'n business. COMMY BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[aurelius]

All of those arguments are circular. The means of restriction doesn't matter froma logical standpoint. You are saying states are not sovereign for any number of reasons theocracy. monarch, Congress, etc. But your conclusion is arrived at by circular logic: they are not sovereign becuae they are not sovereign. You're right, but it's a clear 360.

You should take up ryan´s offer of a logic class. You´re way off.

A sovereign entity is controlled by nothing but itself.
Stated can be controlled by entities other than itself.
Therefore, states are not sovereign.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Aurelius,

You crazy foreigner.

I know what he is saying, and stated that way, it is OK. when Ryan wrote it, he said (to the effect of)

states are not sovereign because the (fed) governement does not allow them to be sovereign.

Kind of like saying "the ball is not round because it is oblong."

Circles.

 

[Warik]

All of those arguments are circular. The means of restriction doesn't matter froma logical standpoint. You are saying states are not sovereign for any number of reasons theocracy. monarch, Congress, etc. But your conclusion is arrived at by circular logic: they are not sovereign becuae they are not sovereign. You're right, but it's a clear 360.

Not necessarily. It all depends on the kind of information you seek from the question.

Why does 2^2 = 4, Matt?

Obviously, because raising a number to the power of two means multiplying it by itself, and 2 times 2 is equal to 4.

Or, in other words, 2^2 = 4 because 2^2 = 4.

It's not circular logic - it's an answer.

Do you want to know why, in terms law, the states are not sovereign? If so, Ryan's answer is correct - because the federal government restricts the states' rights where "necessary." Now, if you wish to know WHY the states are not sovereign, that is, why they have been declared sovereign by the government, yet they really are not, then that answer is even simpler - because our government has grown too large to fill its shoes and it does not wish to give the states that power; therefore, they claim that the states are sovereign, yet they restrict their rights in hopes that no one with the means to do anything about it will complain.

When you scrutinize things enough, all logic could be circular.

Why is ammonia bad for fish?

Ammonia is bad for fish because too much ammonia will kill fish.

So, basically, ammonia is bad for fish because ammonia is bad for fish. Oh no! Circular logic!

-Warik

 

[Sushi X]

so ryan, you support a muslims right to pray in public and show his faith but not a christian?

i think people should be allowed to show their faith in public but i don't see the point in putting signs up everywhere to show it. i'm not sayin i agree with the ACLU cause i don't, what i'm saying is that there was no real need to put the signs up, just put them up on your own property. that works all the same.

 

[aurelius]

You crazy foreigner.

I find this quote deeply offensive. You clearly have violated some right of mine. Expect a call from my lawyer...

 

[RyanH]

Bump in response to another thread attempting to darken the light that ACLU has brought to our great nation.

Ryan.

 

[dballer]

so ryan, you support a muslims right to pray in public and show his faith but not a christian?

i think people should be allowed to show their faith in public but i don't see the point in putting signs up everywhere to show it. i'm not sayin i agree with the ACLU cause i don't, what i'm saying is that there was no real need to put the signs up, just put them up on your own property. that works all the same.

RYAN??? ??

scared to comment???

 

[p0ink]

Ryan,

Are you also in support of the ACLU defending NAMBLA in the case where they are being sued by the parents of a 10 year old boy that was lured into these rapists car, raped repeatedly, and then killed. They found a bunch of NAMBLA materials in the car of these sick fucks and in their homes. The material was all about how to have sex with children and get away with it, so this family sued, and yet the ACLU has no problem with any of this and is still defending them. I am really curious to see your position on this one

 

[Kahn]

Besides, Ryan, since when do you have any respect for the Constitution or what it represents?
-Warik

No shit.

 

[p0ink]

where are your ACLU buddies on the Shays-Meehan/McCain-Feingold bill??? that is a DIRECT violation of the first amendment. oh thats right, it serves the liberal agenda, so they wont want to mess with that.

god bless the NRA

 

[The Dude]

STOP, STOP, STOP!!! There is NO constitutiounal separation of church and state as some have indicated here. The constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...THAT'S ALL IT SAYS. Nowhere else does is even allude to religion or the separation of church and state (except in Article VII where God is mentioned prior to the signatures).

All it says is the federal government cannot declare a state government and it cannot prohibit people from exercising whatever religious beliefs that they choose.

We still live in a Christian state. It was founded that way and has always been that way. Check you money or government monuments or the opening of congressional sessions or Article VII of the Constitution if you've forgotten.

 

[EYEPEEE]

TERR A.C.R.U. TO SAVE ME FROM JOHHNYWANG!!!! AND MAKE OPEN MY EYES!!!!PREASE!!!!


AND ARSO MAKE BAN ON CHINESE HANDCUFF!!!

 

[Sushi X]

again, ryan aludes questioning. slick willy's got nothing on you ryan.

the aclu defends only those who they feel are worthy of having rights to defend. when are they gonna defend my right to own and carry a firearm? i'm a nonviolent law abiding citizen, so why is it i am punished for the crimes of a few? when are they gonna defend my right to say God in a public place such as school or a courtroom? it's almost humanistic blashpemy to say that name.

ACLU=anti christian liberals union.

 

[huntmaster]

STOP, STOP, STOP!!! There is NO constitutiounal separation of church and state as some have indicated here. The constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...THAT'S ALL IT SAYS. Nowhere else does is even allude to religion or the separation of church and state (except in Article VII where God is mentioned prior to the signatures).

All it says is the federal government cannot declare a state government and it cannot prohibit people from exercising whatever religious beliefs that they choose.

We still live in a Christian state. It was founded that way and has always been that way. Check you money or government monuments or the opening of congressional sessions or Article VII of the Constitution if you've forgotten.

good post--

where are the liberals now.

 

[RyanH]

STOP, STOP, STOP!!! There is NO constitutiounal separation of church and state as some have indicated here. The constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...THAT'S ALL IT SAYS. Nowhere else does is even allude to religion or the separation of church and state (except in Article VII where God is mentioned prior to the signatures).

All it says is the federal government cannot declare a state government and it cannot prohibit people from exercising whatever religious beliefs that they choose.

We still live in a Christian state. It was founded that way and has always been that way. Check you money or government monuments or the opening of congressional sessions or Article VII of the Constitution if you've forgotten.

LOL. I suppose you are clueless as to the Establishment Clause to the United States Constitution, aren't you? The Establishment Clause as well as other Supreme Court decisions have upheld the principle of separation of church and state again and again. If you really like, I'll be more than happy to cite several cases as well as U.S. Supreme Justices doing just that.

Ryan.

 

[RyanH]

RYAN??? ??

scared to comment???

and what is there to comment on, Dabller? It's very simple---the government, in the present case, allowed religious signs to be placed on tax supported, government-owned property-----which amounts to the government impermissibly respecting religion.

Ryan.

 

[curling]

LOL. I suppose you are clueless as to the Establishment Clause to the United States Constitution, aren't you? The Establishment Clause as well as other Supreme Court decisions have upheld the principle of separation of church and state again and again. If you really like, I'll be more than happy to cite several cases as well as U.S. Supreme Justices doing just that.

Ryan.

And who says the Supreme Court always makes "Supreme" decisions? Since they are on men instead of Supreme like God is they screw up and they screw up big. Look at Roe Vs Wade they thought it was perfectly fine to kill unborn Americans what gives them the right to made a decision like that. Boy I would hate to be the them(the ones that voted abortion is ok) when they sit on the Judgement seat of God. It says in the Bible that people in Authority figures ie preachers, teaches, judges are held to a higher accountability then us. And since their horrible decision that day millions of babies have been killed.

 

[aurelius]

where are your ACLU buddies on the Shays-Meehan/McCain-Feingold bill??? that is a DIRECT violation of the first amendment. oh thats right, it serves the liberal agenda, so they wont want to mess with that.

Do me a favor. Find out which lobby is most strongly opposed to this legislation.

 

[curling]

Do me a favor. Find out which lobby is most strongly opposed to this legislation.

Do me a favor. See how many times the ACLU has worked to protect our 2nd ammendment freedom? If it wasn't for the NRA the liberal govt would already have taken all of guns away(or at least tried)

 

[aurelius]

Do me a favor. See how many times the ACLU has worked to protect our 2nd ammendment freedom? If it wasn't for the NRA the liberal govt would already have taken all of guns away(or at least tried)

Not interested about their work for the 2nd amendment. Any thoughts on my quiry?

What is all this hate toward the gov? It´s a republican adminstration now, you know.

 

[curling]

Not interested about their work for the 2nd amendment. Any thoughts on my quiry?

What is all this hate toward the gov? It´s a republican adminstration now, you know.

Why not about the 2nd amendment? You understand the 2nd amendment is what seperates us from most of the world and it keeps our govt in check.

I don't have toward the govt but I also don't trust blindly like most liberals do. They have made too many mistakes. I do feel better about a republican govt than I do a democratic on.

 

[Sushi X]

Not interested about their work for the 2nd amendment. Any thoughts on my quiry?

What is all this hate toward the gov? It´s a republican adminstration now, you know.

as of right now, the house and the senate are controlled by the democrats. that will soon change as people are tired of 8 years of failed leadership.

 

[Varg_Vikernes]

The ACLU was founded in the 1930s in order to provide operatives of the Communist Party of the United States with legal in aid in the event that they ran afoul of the law (which the often did). Some interesting facts about the ACLU:

-ACLU attorneys have argued that, under the consititution, school children can NOT assemble on public school property to engage in religious activities even after school hours.

-ACLU attorneys have argued that the State may not introduce evidence into criminal trials regarding the fact that the defendants involved were active members of an orgination of child molestors (NAMBLA)

-ACLU have argued that "racist" political positions are not protected by the 1st Amendment of the US constitution.

Moral of the story:
According to ACLU, Christians and "racists" have no 1st amendment rights/privileges. Child molestors have the right to be left alone.
-Varg

 

[Sushi X]

good post varg.

 

[Varg_Vikernes]

Ryan H:
during the first 150 years of the Republic, congressional sessions opened with a Christian prayer. Was this unconstitutional? If you take the time to read the establishment clause of the aforementioned document, it was designed to guarantee the FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION without state interference. I do not believe that the founding fathers intended to guarantee the free exercise of religion by banning all forms of religious expression from public life. In fact, that sounds more like the precepts outlined by V.I. Lenin, in his quintessential work entitled "Imperialism". I am not a Christian, but I respect the rights of adherents to the faith to practice their religion unmolested. If you are opposed to religion, that is fine, but do not attempt to hijack the constitution and wear it as a cloak of legititmacy. That argument carries no weight, regardless of how you stand on the issue.
-Varg
"Wotan Mit Uns!"

 

[Sushi X]

**hears a whip cracking in the background**

varg, keep em coming man.

 

[p0ink]

"This bill is just another example of a necessary restriction on first amendment rights in furtherance of the public good. " - RyanH

^this really shows your true colors.

and sushi x, you used to be conservative; what happened?

 

[curling]

Danielson is absolutely right, Warik. Who is to say that a Muslim passing through this small town would not feel excluded by the government endorsement of religion.

If they don't like it they fly freak'n towel butts back to their piece of crap sand dune desert ass country as long as they don't hit any of our buildings along the way back. Muslims???...Ryan who give a flying ass screw what a Muslim thinks in our country they are lucky we don't put their ass in camps like we did the japs after pearl harbor.

oh the btw I hate the ACLU, matter of fact, they were founded by communist. And it seems like if you inherited alot of money you wouldn't like communist because they would take it from you and devide among everyone here at Elite(hmmm on second thought that is not a bad idea)

 

[cockdezl]

that's precisely right, and Matt, perhaps you ought to consider a course in logic. The definition of sovereign according to the American Heritage Dictionary is: one that exercises supreme power, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit. Now, this definition would naturally allow an entity to NOT be sovereign in several ways. For example, an entity might not be sovereign because it is restricted by a ruler, restricted by a theocracy, restricted by a monarchy, or restricted by the powers of a broad representative body/Congress. Thus, there are a mulitude of ways in which an entity is not sovereign. Being restricted by the broader powers of a Democratic form of government is just one of them, and it is this definition that applies to our present discussion.
States are not completely sovereign because the federal government restricts them in a multitude of ways---through the Commerce Clause, through the taxing power, etc. My earlier statement would only be circular if there was only one way that an entity could not be sovereign---which just isn't the case. Nevertheless onto more important issues.

The 10th Amendment only states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States. Therefore, states basically get what the United States Supreme Court and Congress deem do not belong to the federal government. Of course, there are traditional areas that have always been left to the states such as matters of divorce, the family, safety/crime, and healthcare issues. But, the Federal government through the Commerce Clause has managed to intrude into those areas as well. Example: The Supreme Court has invalidated many state safety laws (an area traditionally afforded to the states but not longer because of its impact on intestate commerce). In short, it's not very difficult for Congress to encroach on states rights so long as it can find a sufficient nexus between the interest at play and its effect on interstate commerce----which is very easy to do. So to say that states are sovereign in theory is correct, but in actuality it is just simply not the case.

Again, RYAN, you show your socialist indoctrination from that fine establishment of Emory. I am sure they never required you to read anything concerning the Constitutional Debates or what the legislative intent was in regards to our government, since this would contradict the socialist professors' agendas.

Here are the facts, straight from their mouths:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." - James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 25

"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

"There is in the nature of government an impatience of control that disposes those invested with power to look with an evil eye upon all external attempts to restrain or direct its operations. This has its origin in the love of power. Representatives of the people are not superior to the people themselves." - Alexander Hamilton - Federalist Paper No.15, 1787.

"Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrants." - James Madison

"No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representative of the people is superior to the people." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 78.

"The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson

Your logic is flawed because it states that States are subservient to the Federal Government, because the Federal Government imposes its will upon the States, and it is obvious that this is not by Constitutional design, but by the whims of men.

If you can find me a reference where the Founders stated that all States would be subject to the Central Government's will, I would be very interested. This would be no different than a feudal state.

Of course, there are many restrictions on the First Amendment. For instance, schools have every right to limit a student's first amendment speech if that speech creates a "material disruption", and local communities have the constitutional right to limit obscenity from being sold (sexually oriented speech) if a community finds that it is not in accordance with its standards. The list goes on; I could cite many other examples, but time limits me.

This is correct, and this is because, there are some degrees of a right that are restricted due to being members in a social contract, but your logic allows for the constant, unimpeded restrictions on rights that could easily allow for Sedition laws to return.

As for your reasoning why states are subject to the central government, you are not basing this on law, but on present state of affairs. It would be like saying "I can't own anything, because it just gets stolen everyday." Judicial activism and wild interpretations of text can alter reality to whatever one wishes it to be.