Modern Liberalism at Work: Pledge of Allegiance Deemed Unconstitutional

[quote name='Derwood43']This thread is pure gold.

I love watching all the "enlightened" thinkers squirm when they realize our country was founded on the Christian God.

Yes, yes, attack what you don't believe to be truth. You don't believe that the Christian God is the true God. So it must be true, right? Because it's what you perceive to be the truth? Can't the same be said for the person who believes there is a God, more to the point, who believes he is the God of Christianity?

Please refute, scientifically, that there is no God. While you're at it, refute that the framers didn't want to include the Christian God.


I await your responses.


EDIT: I mean this in all seriousness. I'm not trying to start a flame war.[/QUOTE]

This sounds like a flame to me. It walks like a flame. Gee, it must be a flame.

"Please refute, scientifically, that there is no God." Hmm, you want us to refute that there is no God. So, you want us to argue that God exists? No thanks, that is your job.
 
Personally I think taking something to court like this is stupid, especially considering you don't even have to say it. The lawyer doing this just kinda seems like the Jack Thompson of god, like he's making this his purpose as a lawyer (Honestly who sues as a parent on the be half of a child they have no custody of).

However, I do think the pledge in schools could use either revising or just be retired. I'm honestly not convinced it does anything useful anymore and like someone else may have mentioned has just sort of become a stale, empty routine at most schools. Look at it this way, kids say the pledge everyday for 12 years and you'd be shocked at the number of wrong answers or blank stares you get when you ask even college students if the USA is a republic. If they can't even pull that from the pledge something needs to be done to refresh it. Even some of the oldest traditions change when the need for it has come....
 
[quote name='sgs89']I'm not sure how to respond to this as it is quite unintelligible.

Here are some points, though:
* The Lemon test is not the only way the SCOTUS analyzes Establishment Clause issues. The Court is divided on the issue of what test or framework to employ.
* You have totally ignored all of the precedent I pointed to in my post, including precedent DIRECTLY ON POINT (that is to say, finding "in God we trust" to be consistent with the Constitution).
* You have failed to recognize the intent of the Framers of the First Amendment. Do you dispute that public invocation of religion, even "state-sponsored" invocations -- was commonplace at the time of the drafting of the Constitution? Do you think the Framers intended the First Amendment to abolish all reference to religion in the public square?
* The fact that you don't like the motto on our currency -- neither do I -- does not mean it is unconstitutional. The people have chosen that motto through their elected representatives. If you don't like it, vote them out and elect people who see the issue in the same way as you do.
* As for my writing style, it is what it is. Believe me, I am not trying to impress anyone with flowery language.[/QUOTE]

I'm not disputing any of that garble. You haven't provided any real proof concerning SCOTUS or how they feel about the Lemon Test, so I will leave that aside.

Your constitutionalist argument puts the Constitution up there with the 10 commandments as some sort of holy document that can never be changed. Do I think the framers did who in the what? Not really, I don't care, either.

Discussing religion in the public square is tricky. If you want to talk about it, fine, but as soon as you introduce God or any other word like that it flexes the muscle of a religious agenda. I don't belive in God at all, why should I have to pledge my allegience to a country that does? And where does it say that I cannot be atheist?

The founders made mistakes, they were human. We have amendments.

To say, "it's legislative, vote em' out and do something about it" is the oldest trick in the book. The law is unjust to Atheist, plain and simple. I have a right to religious freedom, as in to not be religious if I don't want to be. Making me or my chlid say the pledge is a violation of that right. The law is unjust so I appeal to the courts.

The "one nation, under god" didn't even exist til 1954, so don't give me that hoo haw about historically we're christian blah blah blah - tell that to the millions of chinese, jews, indian, pakistani, japanese, etc. etc. who are Americans.

Do you think Jefferson was thinking "gee, California is going to have a huge Asian population so I should account for the 100 different types of Buddhism when I draft this puppy"

I don't think so. Those old dead guys were smart, very smart. However, times have changed, more people who are not so homogeneous as us good ole' mericans are here and are expecting equal treatment.

sorry if this isn't intelligible - I tried to find cited facts and cases in your statment, but couldn't find any, though those bullets shure wer prrty!
 
[quote name='Derwood43']This thread is pure gold.

I love watching all the "enlightened" thinkers squirm when they realize our country was founded on the Christian God.

Yes, yes, attack what you don't believe to be truth. You don't believe that the Christian God is the true God. So it must be true, right? Because it's what you perceive to be the truth? Can't the same be said for the person who believes there is a God, more to the point, who believes he is the God of Christianity?

Please refute, scientifically, that there is no God. While you're at it, refute that the framers didn't want to include the Christian God.


I await your responses.


EDIT: I mean this in all seriousness. I'm not trying to start a flame war.[/QUOTE]

Weren't some of the founding fathers deists?
 
[quote name='Derwood43']This thread is pure gold.

I love watching all the "enlightened" thinkers squirm when they realize our country was founded on the Christian God.

Yes, yes, attack what you don't believe to be truth. You don't believe that the Christian God is the true God. So it must be true, right? Because it's what you perceive to be the truth? Can't the same be said for the person who believes there is a God, more to the point, who believes he is the God of Christianity?

Please refute, scientifically, that there is no God. While you're at it, refute that the framers didn't want to include the Christian God.


I await your responses.


EDIT: I mean this in all seriousness. I'm not trying to start a flame war.[/QUOTE]

Kinda funny that I have this discussion with my wife every other day. I believe that there is a God (I'm Baptist), but I do believe in separation of church and state.

Religious belief should only guide one person's opinion (ideas) and not be the base of law. This country may have started out mainly under the Christian God, but you have so many different religions among us now. For government to represent the people, it has to compromise for the good of all.

I believe if a person's religion does not harm another, I would work with them to make this world a better place. It is our jobs as Christians to spread the word, not to judge others. It's never going to be perfect. That is why we have the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and separation of church and state.

To me Christians take it to far when it comes to government. Just because we are the majority in this country does not mean we have to push our beliefs on people. If they want to listen I would be more than glad to tell them. If not, I would be more than glad to live with them in peace.

The whole thing is really silly. Since "under God" does not represent everyone, it should be removed. It is a song of patriotism and not faith. Why do most Christians need the feeling that the government backs them? Why do most Christians have to announce it to the whole world that they are in control? I believe in my faith, but I cast doubt on those who follow it.
 
[quote name='Dogpatch']Kinda funny that I have this discussion with my wife every other day. I believe that there is a God (I'm Baptist), but I do believe in separation of church and state.

Religious belief should only guide one person's opinion (ideas) and not be the base of law. This country may have started out mainly under the Christian God, but you have so many different religions among us now. For government to represent the people, it has to compromise for the good of all.

I believe if a person's religion does not harm another, I would work with them to make this world a better place. It is our jobs as Christians to spread the word, not to judge others. It's never going to be perfect. That is why we have the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and separation of church and state.

To me Christians take it to far when it comes to government. Just because we are the majority in this country does not mean we have to push our beliefs on people. If they want to listen I would be more than glad to tell them. If not, I would be more than glad to live with them in peace.

The whole thing is really silly. Since "under God" does not represent everyone, it should be removed. It is a song of patriotism and not faith. Why do most Christians need the feeling that the government backs them? Why do most Christians have to announce it to the whole world that they are in control? I believe in my faith, but I cast doubt on those who follow it.[/QUOTE]

ZOMG, A VOICE OF REASON!

HIDE! HIDE! LEST THEY FIND YOU! ;)

Great points.

Ever since the Awakening (which some belive to still be going on) there has been this sense in America that Christians are on the defensive, as if someone or faction is out to undermine christianity.

It's too bad that this insanely powerful and strong minority (among Christians, mind you) is such a presence that it does quite literally create a divide between non-religious people and religious people.
 
[quote name='Sleepkyng']I'm not disputing any of that garble. You haven't provided any real proof concerning SCOTUS or how they feel about the Lemon Test, so I will leave that aside.

Your constitutionalist argument puts the Constitution up there with the 10 commandments as some sort of holy document that can never be changed. Do I think the framers did who in the what? Not really, I don't care, either.

Discussing religion in the public square is tricky. If you want to talk about it, fine, but as soon as you introduce God or any other word like that it flexes the muscle of a religious agenda. I don't belive in God at all, why should I have to pledge my allegience to a country that does? And where does it say that I cannot be atheist?

The founders made mistakes, they were human. We have amendments.

To say, "it's legislative, vote em' out and do something about it" is the oldest trick in the book. The law is unjust to Atheist, plain and simple. I have a right to religious freedom, as in to not be religious if I don't want to be. Making me or my chlid say the pledge is a violation of that right. The law is unjust so I appeal to the courts.

The "one nation, under god" didn't even exist til 1954, so don't give me that hoo haw about historically we're christian blah blah blah - tell that to the millions of chinese, jews, indian, pakistani, japanese, etc. etc. who are Americans.

Do you think Jefferson was thinking "gee, California is going to have a huge Asian population so I should account for the 100 different types of Buddhism when I draft this puppy"

I don't think so. Those old dead guys were smart, very smart. However, times have changed, more people who are not so homogeneous as us good ole' mericans are here and are expecting equal treatment.

sorry if this isn't intelligible - I tried to find cited facts and cases in your statment, but couldn't find any, though those bullets shure wer prrty![/QUOTE]

Here's your problem -- you don't respect the rule of law. You think that any law you don't like should be overturned. Look, we live in a democracy of sorts; the minority has to suffer the will of the majority within certain limits.

You underestimate the Framers - they DID anticipate that there would come a time when the majority may want to change the constitution. It is called the amendment process. But unless you adhere to the Framers' intent, you will have lost part of the rule of law. All of a sudden, you have judges acting as a super-legislature, something that was never intended in our system. I hope you can understand that.
 
My wife feels that the pledge should not be changed. She also felt that the Confederate flag should stay atop the SC state house (another long story). I'm the exact opposite on both counts, so you can imagine my household. :)
 
[quote name='sgs89']Here's your problem -- you don't respect the rule of law. You think that any law you don't like should be overturned. Look, we live in a democracy of sorts; the minority has to suffer the will of the majority within certain limits.

You underestimate the Framers - they DID anticipate that there would come a time when the majority may want to change the constitution. It is called the amendment process. But unless you adhere to the Framers' intent, you will have lost part of the rule of law. All of a sudden, you have judges acting as a super-legislature, something that was never intended in our system. I hope you can understand that.[/QUOTE]

You hope I can understand that?

First off, NO, the minority does not have to suffer by the will of the majority concerning contractual rights. That is totally ridiculous - think Civil Rights movement or Women's Suffrage.

Judges don't act as super-legislature, they interpret the constitution - I HAVE CLEARLY OUTLINED THE JUDGES DECISIONS OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS - do you want me to go back further?

You have provided no evidence of the judges decisions. The Framers intent is contractual - which is very important - but that is their only intent.

The idea is that we ALL have to agree on the contract. Otherwise the laws hold no power. IF YOU don't understand that, do yourself a favor and pick up some Rawls, Locke or Kant.

With that said, Laws are then created based on the the contract (as I have previously stated), if those laws seem unjust we go back to the contract using some old guys and gals at the SCOTUS to decide. And since they have decided (don't believe me? look it up, for the love.) pretty clearly what is and what isn't unconstitutional concerning religion, the argument for "one nation, under god" simply does not hold up.

give me some concrete evidence that it does. Find in the contract (not in the preamble or the rhetoric, but in the actual contractual agreements contained in the constitution) ANYWHERE that it says that I DO NOT have the freedom to be an atheist and in the public space not feel encroached by other beliefs.

FIND IT AND SHOW ME.

sorry, it ain't there, thanks for playing.
 
[quote name='Dogpatch']My wife feels that the pledge should not be changed. She also felt that the Confederate flag should stay atop the SC state house (another long story). I'm the exact opposite on both counts, so you can imagine my household. :)[/QUOTE]

hahaha, yah, I know how that is. My last girlfriend was a good ole catholic law student.

but man, the make up sex... :hot::drool:
 
[quote name='Sleepkyng']You hope I can understand that? Judges don't act as super-legislature, they interpret the constitution - I HAVE CLEARLY OUTLINED THE JUDGES DECISIONS OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS - do you want me to go back further?

You have provided no evidence of the judges decisions. The Framers intent is contractual - which is very important - but that is their only intent.

The idea is that we ALL have to agree on the contract. Otherwise the laws hold no power. IF YOU don't understand that, do yourself a favor and pick up some Rawls, Locke or Kant.

With that said, Laws are then created based on the the contract (as I have previously stated), if those laws seem unjust we go back to the contract using some old guys and gals at the SCOTUS to decide. And since they have decided (don't believe me? look it up, for the love.) pretty clearly what is and what isn't unconstitutional concerning religion, the argument for "one nation, under god" simply does not hold up.

give me some concrete evidence that it does. Find in the contract (not in the preamble or the rhetoric, but in the actual contractual agreements contained in the constitution) ANYWHERE that it says that I DO NOT have the freedom to be an atheist and in the public space not feel encroached by other beliefs.

FIND IT AND SHOW ME.

sorry, it ain't there, thanks for playing.[/QUOTE]

Once again, you totally miss the point. The Constitution is a limitation on federal power. It is YOUR burden to point ME to the portion of the Constitution that disallows the government from acting in a specified way. You have not done that. The Establishment Clause does not say what you are implying it says.

I have pointed you to authority that has UPHELD "in God we trust." You have not pointed me to any authority that deems it unconstitutional.

If you want cites, here are some cites:

Gaylor v. U.S., 74 F.3d 214 (10th Cir. 1996) (upholding use of "in God we trust" on the currency under the Establishment Clause)

Lambeth v. Board Of Commissioners Of Davidson County, NC, 407 F.3d 266 (4th Cir. 2005) (upholding use of "in God we trust" on a public building under the Establishment Clause)

Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (upholding legislative prayer sessions; “This unique history leads us to accept the interpretation of the First Amendment draftsmen who saw no real threat to the Establishment Clause arising from the practice of prayer similar to that now challenged.”)

In short, you have adduced NO EVIDENCE that your position is correct. The courts have uniformly rejected the very argument that you are advancing -- that use of "in God we trust" and similar mottos is unconstitutional. Holding your breath until your face turns blue won't change that.
 
[quote name='Derwood43']This thread is pure gold.

I love watching all the "enlightened" thinkers squirm when they realize our country was founded on the Christian God.[/QUOTE]

Hey Derwood,

Why does the dollar bill include pagan symbology, like the eye of Horus (an Egyptian god, a pagan god :shock: , symbol of illumination and enlightenment), the pyramids (built by people who weren't positively portrayed in the Christian bible), and a quote from the Vergil's Aeneid (a pagan myth) asking Jupiter to bless this undertaking (ANNUIT COEPTIS)

You'd think that a group of men trying to create a theocracy would be careful to avoid such blatant heresy.

In God We Trust was only added to the dollar bill as a reactionary move against "godless communists" at the end of the second red scare in 1957, a time best remembered for the tyranny of Joe McCarthy and the commie witch-hunts (was America thinking rationally back then, I would argue NO).

The same goes for the pledge, the God part was only added in the 1950s.

The founding fathers were comprised of deists, philosophers, and lovers of freedom.

George Washington: "The United States is in no sense founded upon
Christian Doctrine"

Thomas Jefferson: "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there
are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Thomas Paine: I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church,
by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the
Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own
Church.

Thomas Jefferson: The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus,
by the Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be
classified with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of
Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and the freedom of
thought in these United States will do away with this artificial
scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of
this most venerated Reformer of human errors.

James Madison: During almost fifteen centuries the legal establishment
known as Christianity has been on trial, and what have been the fruits,
more or less, in all places? These are the fruits: pride, indolence,
ignorance, and arrogance in the clergy. Ignorance, arrogance, and
servility in the laity, and in both clergy and laity, superstition,
bigotry, and persecution.

Thomas Jefferson: I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming
feature.

John Adams: The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.
Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths,
Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in
Christianity.

Thomas Paine: Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in
religion is the worst."

Benjamin Franklin: As to Jesus of Nazareth, I think the system of Morals
and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or
is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting
Changes, and I have, with the most of the present Dissenters in England,
some doubts to his divinity.

Just to show that this view has been shared by later presidents:

Abraham Lincoln: The Bible is not my Book and Christianity is not my
religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of
Christian dogma.

I, Derwood, am not squirming one iota.
 
[quote name='Derwood43']This thread is pure gold.

I love watching all the "enlightened" thinkers squirm when they realize our country was founded on the Christian God.

Yes, yes, attack what you don't believe to be truth. You don't believe that the Christian God is the true God. So it must be true, right? Because it's what you perceive to be the truth? Can't the same be said for the person who believes there is a God, more to the point, who believes he is the God of Christianity?

Please refute, scientifically, that there is no God. While you're at it, refute that the framers didn't want to include the Christian God.


I await your responses.


EDIT: I mean this in all seriousness. I'm not trying to start a flame war.[/QUOTE]

This has been argued many times, if you really care that much do a search. Many of the founders were deist and god is often referred to in deist terms. It was not founded on christianity, among other things, a comparison of the 10 commandments with our laws shows that. I'm to lazy to reargue this, so I'll just cut and paste previous arguments I made:

One of the main goals was to stop church gaining real political control, and to keep politics out of church affairs, neither is being done here.

But, seriously, when the references to god are in deist form, when many of the founding fathers were deist, and when only 2 and a half (lie/perjury being the half) of commandments are illegal, it's nearly impossible to come to your conclusion......

Though deists do believe in god, and people can pray without hoping for a personal revelation and without asking god to intervene. That's your definition of prayer, not the only one. Buddhists, for example, pray even though they do not believe in a god. Christianity being so woven into life in the 18th century that, christian or not, you carried yourself and acted as a christian without even thinking about it. There is a difference between that and consciously putting christianity into the constitution. Also, if you read the constitution, nowhere does it refer to god or any such being. In the declaration of indepence there are references to a god, but god is refered to as "nature's god" and "creator", these are the ways that a deist would refer to god.

The argument that this was founded as a christian nation, or as a christian society, is revisionist history, when in reality it was merely founded by a generally christian society.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Once again, you totally miss the point. The Constitution is a limitation on federal power. It is YOUR burden to point ME to the portion of the Constitution that disallows the government from acting in a specified way. You have not done that. The Establishment Clause does not say what you are implying it says.

I have pointed you to authority that has UPHELD "in God we trust." You have not pointed me to any authority that deems it unconstitutional.

If you want cites, here are some cites:

Gaylor v. U.S., 74 F.3d 214 (10th Cir. 1996) (upholding use of "in God we trust" on the currency under the Establishment Clause)

Lambeth v. Board Of Commissioners Of Davidson County, NC, 407 F.3d 266 (4th Cir. 2005) (upholding use of "in God we trust" on a public building under the Establishment Clause)

Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (upholding legislative prayer sessions; “This unique history leads us to accept the interpretation of the First Amendment draftsmen who saw no real threat to the Establishment Clause arising from the practice of prayer similar to that now challenged.”)

In short, you have adduced NO EVIDENCE that your position is correct. The courts have uniformly rejected the very argument that you are advancing -- that use of "in God we trust" and similar mottos is unconstitutional. Holding your breath until your face turns blue won't change that.[/QUOTE]

the constitiution doesn't limit federal power, it is the only power. How do we get those branches of government without the constitution?

If you really believe what you're saying, then the contract has failed you.
 
[quote name='Derwood43']This thread is pure gold.

I love watching all the "enlightened" thinkers squirm when they realize our country was founded on the Christian God.

Yes, yes, attack what you don't believe to be truth. You don't believe that the Christian God is the true God. So it must be true, right? Because it's what you perceive to be the truth? Can't the same be said for the person who believes there is a God, more to the point, who believes he is the God of Christianity?

Please refute, scientifically, that there is no God. While you're at it, refute that the framers didn't want to include the Christian God.


I await your responses.


EDIT: I mean this in all seriousness. I'm not trying to start a flame war.[/QUOTE]


if you knew anything about our founding fathers you would know that they were deist - The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. That is why u are wrong about them including a christian god. They mention god but god does not matter with the creation of the new nation that was America
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']if you knew anything about our founding fathers you would know that they were deist - The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. That is why u are wrong about them including a christian god. They mention god but god does not matter with the creation of the new nation that was America[/QUOTE]

word

http://www.deism.org/foundingfathers.htm
 
[quote name='Sleepkyng']the constitiution doesn't limit federal power, it is the only power. How do we get those branches of government without the constitution?

If you really believe what you're saying, then the contract has failed you.[/QUOTE]

Typical non-answer I've come to expect.

The Amendments, which we have been discussing in this thread, are indeed a limitation on federal power.

You have no answer for my case cites or my argument.

Good night.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Typical non-answer I've come to expect.

The Amendments, which we have been discussing in this thread, are indeed a limitation on federal power.

You have no answer for my case cites or my argument.

Good night.[/QUOTE]

You cases were in no way a rebuttal to mine - but it's no biggie.

If you don't realize that the constitution is a contract that everyone in america agrees with, then you're right, we won't come to an understanding.

you think the constitution is some document that is there to be used when we need to "balance power"

that is total bullshit, and it's "constitutionalists" like yourself that devalue the idea of the constitution as a contract.

As soon as we begin to politicize the constitution we devalue it as a doctrine, as something that is at its very base the contract for a society. It isn't a bunch of clauses and legal issues that help us out when we're in a jam, IT IS THE THING THAT WE ABIDE BY IN THIS COUNTRY.

But we've taken it to be a holy document, as well as just some tool of the government. People everywhere should know that they can expect the ideals of the constitution to be held up and because people don't, they get fucked.

Roe vs. Wade should have never happened, there is no place for this private nonesense in the public light. How is it possible to decide such personal and impossible moral questions between people who fundamentally disagree?

Likewise when it comes to "God."

Personally I'm tired of politicians and smug lawyers and smart-talkers who try to pass this idea off as something that doesn't concern the constitution. As if We should just assume that god and unreasonable (ie things that simply cannot be discussed with so many opinions) topics are undoubtedly fine for public discourse.

And thanks for answering my questions, and finding a place in the constitution that refutes my fundamental right to raise children who don't believe in God.

This is all very moot considering we'll know soon enough, but it's clear to me that you're more interested in talking talking talking instead of considering the power that contractual agreements can really possess, especially this one.

But somehow I doubt you're interested in that.

"Bring it up in legislature!" - this is so absurd it's laughable. Got a problem with racial inequality? Bring it up in the legislature!

This God in school business is such a non-issue, but of course, Constitutionalists feel the need to cling to the idea that the ink on that paper is untainted gold, created by those powerful god-like men who could forsee everything and consider all possibilities beyond the limitations of experience.

But I understand, everyone likes to smell their own farts, and you seem like a connoisseur.
 
[quote name='Sleepkyng']You cases were in no way a rebuttal to mine - but it's no biggie.

If you don't realize that the constitution is a contract that everyone in america agrees with, then you're right, we won't come to an understanding.

you think the constitution is some document that is there to be used when we need to "balance power"

that is total bullshit, and it's "constitutionalists" like yourself that devalue the idea of the constitution as a contract.

As soon as we begin to politicize the constitution we devalue it as a doctrine, as something that is at its very base the contract for a society. It isn't a bunch of clauses and legal issues that help us out when we're in a jam, IT IS THE THING THAT WE ABIDE BY IN THIS COUNTRY.

But we've taken it to be a holy document, as well as just some tool of the government. People everywhere should know that they can expect the ideals of the constitution to be held up and because people don't, they get fucked.

Roe vs. Wade should have never happened, there is no place for this private nonesense in the public light. How is it possible to decide such personal and impossible moral questions between people who fundamentally disagree?

Likewise when it comes to "God."

Personally I'm tired of politicians and smug lawyers and smart-talkers who try to pass this idea off as something that doesn't concern the constitution. As if We should just assume that god and unreasonable (ie things that simply cannot be discussed with so many opinions) topics are undoubtedly fine for public discourse.

And thanks for answering my questions, and finding a place in the constitution that refutes my fundamental right to raise children who don't believe in God.

This is all very moot considering we'll know soon enough, but it's clear to me that you're more interested in talking talking talking instead of considering the power that contractual agreements can really possess, especially this one.

But somehow I doubt you're interested in that.

"Bring it up in legislature!" - this is so absurd it's laughable. Got a problem with racial inequality? Bring it up in the legislature!

This God in school business is such a non-issue, but of course, Constitutionalists feel the need to cling to the idea that the ink on that paper is untainted gold, created by those powerful god-like men who could forsee everything and consider all possibilities beyond the limitations of experience.

But I understand, everyone likes to smell their own farts, and you seem like a connoisseur.[/QUOTE]

Everytime you post, you further reveal your total lack of understanding of the issue. At the risk of giving you unwanted advice, I recommend that you stop posting on a topic you simply do not understand.

First, the Constitution -- the document upon which our nation is founded and our government derives its authority -- does not and cannot say what every individual person, yourself included, wishes it said. It is what it is. It protects the rights and privileges that it protects; it provides authority to a democratically-elected government to pass laws. Guess what? You may not agree with some of those laws. Too bad. Your recourse? That's right -- in the Legislature. Sorry you don't like the way our system works, but you are free to leave.

Second, you set up a false claim -- that you are being forced to raise your child in a religious society. The Constitution DOES protect you against that and the Courts have so recognized. But, the Courts do not agree with your position that "in God we trust" runs afoul of the Constitutional protections. You may disagree, but you are not on the Supreme Court. (And, I note, that you have continued your failure to cite a single case suggesting otherwise.)

Third, your analogy to "racial inequality" is horribly misplaced. In fact, prior to the 14th Amendment, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO BRING THAT ISSUE UP IN THE LEGISLATURE. Now, though, we have the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. Do you get the distinction?

Fourth, I actually AGREE with you that "in God we trust" SHOULD be removed from the currency. I also support abortion rights. But guess what? I am smart enough to see that the Constitution gives the authority to the Legislature to decide those issues. The Constitution does not protect those "rights." Your fight is with the drafters of the Constitution, not with me.

Fifth, I disagree with you that these issues are inappropriate for public discourse. That is exactly how they should be handled so that we may arrive at a more enlightened answer. You, sir, have no faith in democracy, that much is clear. Maybe you would be more comfortable living in an autocracy?

That is all.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Everytime you post, you further reveal your total lack of understanding of the issue. At the risk of giving you unwanted advice, I recommend that you stop posting on a topic you simply do not understand.

First, the Constitution -- the document upon which our nation is founded and our government derives its authority -- does not and cannot say what every individual person, yourself included, wishes it said. It is what it is. It protects the rights and privileges that it protects; it provides authority to a democratically-elected government to pass laws. Guess what? You may not agree with some of those laws. Too bad. Your recourse? That's right -- in the Legislature. Sorry you don't like the way our system works, but you are free to leave.[/QUOTE]

WTF does that have to do with anything?

[quote name='sgs89']Second, you set up a false claim -- that you are being forced to raise your child in a religious society. The Constitution DOES protect you against that and the Courts have so recognized. But, the Courts do not agree with your position that "in God we trust" runs afoul of the Constitutional protections. You may disagree, but you are not on the Supreme Court. (And, I note, that you have continued your failure to cite a single case suggesting otherwise.)[/QUOTE]

The Supreme Court can be and has been wrong. Dred Scott, Hammer v. Dragenhart, Plessy, etc.

[quote name='sgs89']Third, your analogy to "racial inequality" is horribly misplaced. In fact, prior to the 14th Amendment, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO BRING THAT ISSUE UP IN THE LEGISLATURE. Now, though, we have the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. Do you get the distinction?[/QUOTE]

The Consitution right now has the 14th amendment in it, so you're point is pretty much moot.

[quote name='sgs89']Fourth, I actually AGREE with you that "in God we trust" SHOULD be removed from the currency. I also support abortion rights. But guess what? I am smart enough to see that the Constitution gives the authority to the Legislature to decide those issues. The Constitution does not protect those "rights." Your fight is with the drafters of the Constitution, not with me.[/QUOTE]

Interpretation. Interpretation. Interpretation. Interpretation.

[quote name='sgs89']Fifth, I disagree with you that these issues are inappropriate for public discourse. That is exactly how they should be handled so that we may arrive at a more enlightened answer. You, sir, have no faith in democracy, that much is clear. Maybe you would be more comfortable living in an autocracy?

That is all.[/QUOTE]

What he was saying is that abortion, God, etc., are such deeply personal issues that people fundamentally disagree on that they should be left to people, not politicians, to decide.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Everytime you post, you further reveal your total lack of understanding of the issue. At the risk of giving you unwanted advice, I recommend that you stop posting on a topic you simply do not understand.

First, the Constitution -- the document upon which our nation is founded and our government derives its authority -- does not and cannot say what every individual person, yourself included, wishes it said. It is what it is. It protects the rights and privileges that it protects; it provides authority to a democratically-elected government to pass laws. Guess what? You may not agree with some of those laws. Too bad. Your recourse? That's right -- in the Legislature. Sorry you don't like the way our system works, but you are free to leave.

Second, you set up a false claim -- that you are being forced to raise your child in a religious society. The Constitution DOES protect you against that and the Courts have so recognized. But, the Courts do not agree with your position that "in God we trust" runs afoul of the Constitutional protections. You may disagree, but you are not on the Supreme Court. (And, I note, that you have continued your failure to cite a single case suggesting otherwise.)

Third, your analogy to "racial inequality" is horribly misplaced. In fact, prior to the 14th Amendment, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO BRING THAT ISSUE UP IN THE LEGISLATURE. Now, though, we have the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. Do you get the distinction?

Fourth, I actually AGREE with you that "in God we trust" SHOULD be removed from the currency. I also support abortion rights. But guess what? I am smart enough to see that the Constitution gives the authority to the Legislature to decide those issues. The Constitution does not protect those "rights." Your fight is with the drafters of the Constitution, not with me.

Fifth, I disagree with you that these issues are inappropriate for public discourse. That is exactly how they should be handled so that we may arrive at a more enlightened answer. You, sir, have no faith in democracy, that much is clear. Maybe you would be more comfortable living in an autocracy?

That is all.[/QUOTE]

someday, you will make a fantastic accountant or lawyer.

Hells bells and heaven's no, good fellow.

Your farts are amazing.


I for one belive in Democracy as an open consensus - not the agree to disagree bullshit that constitutionalists cling to.

WE CAN AGREE - there is a part of discourse that we can agree on or come to an agreement on - RELIGION is not one of those.

You still keep throwing the constitution in there with our three brances of government and it is not.

No one HAS to vote, no one HAS to appeal, but everyone MUST adhere to the constitution...

why? BECAUSE IT IS A CONTRACT.

A contract for individuals who want to coexist in a society.

That is its only purpose. And when coexistence is fundamentally put into question - "Do you think everyone should, in a public place, be forced to listen to drones of people saying 'Under god' ?" Then the constitution is there for us to look at and say - "uh, no, it isn't appropriate."

But please, go ahead and make this way more fucking complicated than it needs to be. That seems to be the MO for this past century.
 
[quote name='Sleepkyng']someday, you will make a fantastic accountant or lawyer.

Hells bells and heaven's no, good fellow.

Your farts are amazing.


I for one belive in Democracy as an open consensus - not the agree to disagree bullshit that constitutionalists cling to.

WE CAN AGREE - there is a part of discourse that we can agree on or come to an agreement on - RELIGION is not one of those.

You still keep throwing the constitution in there with our three brances of government and it is not.

No one HAS to vote, no one HAS to appeal, but everyone MUST adhere to the constitution...

why? BECAUSE IT IS A CONTRACT.

A contract for individuals who want to coexist in a society.

That is its only purpose. And when coexistence is fundamentally put into question - "Do you think everyone should, in a public place, be forced to listen to drones of people saying 'Under god' ?" Then the constitution is there for us to look at and say - "uh, no, it isn't appropriate."

But please, go ahead and make this way more fucking complicated than it needs to be. That seems to be the MO for this past century.[/QUOTE]

OK, we've reached a dead end here. You don't make any sense and cannot sustain a reasoned, consistent argument. There is nothing left to say.
 
Fourth, I actually AGREE with you that "in God we trust" SHOULD be removed from the currency. I also support abortion rights. But guess what? I am smart enough to see that the Constitution gives the authority to the Legislature to decide those issues. The Constitution does not protect those "rights." Your fight is with the drafters of the Constitution, not with me.

Am I the only one who saw this? Abortion rights are up to the legislature? Better tell the supreme court that one.
 
[quote name='vietgurl']Make Christianity the official religion of the US and problem's solved.[/QUOTE]

Your sense of humor is not very becoming.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Am I the only one who saw this? Abortion rights are up to the legislature? Better tell the supreme court that one.[/QUOTE]

While you are quite correct that the the SCOTUS has recognized a right to privacy that encompasses a woman's right to an abortion, they have also recognized that the Legislature can place restrictions on that right within limits. It was that legislative power to which I was referring. I regret any confusion.

As for Sleepkyng, please stick to a topic on which you have some level of understanding.
 
[quote name='sgs89']
As for Sleepkyng, please stick to a topic on which you have some level of understanding.[/QUOTE]

have fun at prep school today, mommy wants you to grow up to be a big lawyer!

You're ready for the 21st century! Like most politicians and lawyers, you are still trying to complicate a matter that is very simple.

I don't know how else to get this through to you, and honestly, you reveal to me a large part of the intelligent people in this country who have lost sight of the contractarian philosophy. This disturbs me greatly.

It's like you forget (or perhaps your prep school never asked you to question) why the constitution was drafted in the first place, and also by whom.

It's not a long document, though longer than it should be. Why is it so short? because it is supposed to be simple, and because there are some basic things that are inalieable to all peoples - like the seperation of church and state.

Arguing Constitutional law is no longer about getting back to the constitution, it's about entrenchment and victory - that's very 18th century, don't you think?

You're right that I don't understand you, sorry, I don't get the stupid bullshit that is coming from you mouth, making things seem intangible to the average person. The constitution is for everyone, and thus everyone should and can understand it.

As soon as you get on your high horse and start talking about "What they were implying and historically who they were" it no longer becomes a contract, but a historial artifact.

I've got plenty of historical artifacts to look at in American history that tell me many things about America. None of them are my contract to being a citizen in the United States.

I'm sorry this is tough for you. I know, I go to college too, and it's much more fun to make things complicated and know tidbits (yes, I know about the Establishment Clause too! Cool, we can start a club someday) about politics, but if you lose sight of the basic underpinnings of our society it is totally useless.

Kinda like when politicians argue and bicker over stupid shit - kinda like what we're doing now.

Stupid politiking using terms and facts that have no real application to what's going on.
 
[quote name='Sleepkyng']have fun at prep school today, mommy wants you to grow up to be a big lawyer!

You're ready for the 21st century! Like most politicians and lawyers, you are still trying to complicate a matter that is very simple.

I don't know how else to get this through to you, and honestly, you reveal to me a large part of the intelligent people in this country who have lost sight of the contractarian philosophy. This disturbs me greatly.

It's like you forget (or perhaps your prep school never asked you to question) why the constitution was drafted in the first place, and also by whom.

It's not a long document, though longer than it should be. Why is it so short? because it is supposed to be simple, and because there are some basic things that are inalieable to all peoples - like the seperation of church and state.

Arguing Constitutional law is no longer about getting back to the constitution, it's about entrenchment and victory - that's very 18th century, don't you think?

You're right that I don't understand you, sorry, I don't get the stupid bullshit that is coming from you mouth, making things seem intangible to the average person. The constitution is for everyone, and thus everyone should and can understand it.

As soon as you get on your high horse and start talking about "What they were implying and historically who they were" it no longer becomes a contract, but a historial artifact.

I've got plenty of historical artifacts to look at in American history that tell me many things about America. None of them are my contract to being a citizen in the United States.

I'm sorry this is tough for you. I know, I go to college too, and it's much more fun to make things complicated and know tidbits (yes, I know about the Establishment Clause too! Cool, we can start a club someday) about politics, but if you lose sight of the basic underpinnings of our society it is totally useless.

Kinda like when politicians argue and bicker over stupid shit - kinda like what we're doing now.

Stupid politiking using terms and facts that have no real application to what's going on.[/QUOTE]

Ho-hum, more of the same boring and completely ill-informed drivel we have come to expect. You say, "I go to college too." That sounds about right -- you sound like a college student that just started attending a philosophy/social compact class. 101 at that. Please come back when you have some understanding of the Constitution, its place in American governance, and the legal theories (yes, it is a LEGAL document to be interpreted by the courts -- see Marbury v. Madison) underlying its drafting and subsequent interpretation.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Ho-hum, more of the same boring and completely ill-informed drivel we have come to expect. You say, "I go to college too." That sounds about right -- you sound like a college student that just started attending a philosophy/social compact class. 101 at that. Please come back when you have some understanding of the Constitution, its place in American governance, and the legal theories (yes, it is a LEGAL document to be interpreted by the courts -- see Marbury v. Madison) underlying its drafting and subsequent interpretation.[/QUOTE]

Haha, if only you knew, fella.

Who is this "we" you refer to?

Fight for that understanding! Let everyone (perhaps the "we?") know that you've got it.

And let's take a look at Marbury vs. Madison for a second (did you do that before you threw that out there? Or were you hoping that your hoity toity bull shit would be the end all be all of this conversation?)

What does Chief Justice Mashall have to say?

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right."

Now, what the fuck have I been saying for the past few posts?

Lesse, what else does he say?

"[/size][/font][font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]The conclusion from this reasoning is, that where the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the executive, merely to execute the will of the President, or rather to act in cases in which the executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable. But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured, has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy."

[/size][/font][font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]"The constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and consequently, in some form, may be exercised over the present case; because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States."[/size][/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]What were you saying about this not having a place in the Supreme Court?

And what does Chief Justice Marshall say about the constitution and to whom it serves and in what way?

"[/size][/font][font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis, on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.[/size][/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns, to different departments, their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments."
[/size][/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]Damn, it's like he took the words right out of my mouth! Uncanny!
[/size][/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]Here's something worth noting:
[/size][/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]"[/size][/font][font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty."
[/size][/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]And how does he finish his ruling? To what does he give power? The idea of the contract and how the contract serves the country:
[/size][/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]"[/size][/font][font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?[/size][/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.[/size][/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

Your inability to consider the big picture is boring, and unfortunately, quite on track with the times.

You're going to be a big success, I'm sure of it.
[/size][/font]
 
You are truly bizarre. Nothing you quoted by Chief Justice Marshall supports your meandering ruminations. Nothing. I think your biggest problem is that you just can't clearly articulate the various thoughts that are clanging around your "brain."

Your hint that you are a real intellectual giant ("Haha, if only you knew, fella") would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. I mean, no one reading your posts in this thread could believe anything but that you are a desperate man trying to sound intelligent but failing due to his inherent limitations and lack of a knowledge base. You'd best get back to your philosophy 101 at the local community college.
 
Um, I'm not hinting at anything.

Everything you've said has just been opinion - you cited sources and cases but made no real explanation. You try to intimidate through your "indeeds" and bandwagon approaches... that's sad.

Who is this group of people you keep refering to? I don't need to hide behind that at all.

My argument is simple - A person felt their rights were violated by having to be in a public space hearing "Under god" every day, they are not happy with it and it deserves to be in court. In court, the ruling should be simple, as not everyone believes in god. The court serves the contract which is the constitution. The constitution serves the people.

It's pretty fucking simple.
 
[quote name='Sleepkyng']Um, I'm not hinting at anything.

Everything you've said has just been opinion - you cited sources and cases but made no real explanation. You try to intimidate through your "indeeds" and bandwagon approaches... that's sad.

Who is this group of people you keep refering to? I don't need to hide behind that at all.

My argument is simple - A person felt their rights were violated by having to be in a public space hearing "Under god" every day, they are not happy with it and it deserves to be in court. In court, the ruling should be simple, as not everyone believes in god. The court serves the contract which is the constitution. The constitution serves the people.

It's pretty fucking simple.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for attempting to articulate clearly your position for the first time. Nevertheless, you are still wrong. The "contract" as you call it -- the Constitution -- just does not say what you are implying it says. It is really that simple. As interpreted by the courts (a bedrock principle since Marbury v. Madison), the Constitution's Establishment Clause does not prohibit such invocations of religion.

You seem to be saying that the "contract" is what anyone says it is. That is wrong. We live in a society governed, at its root, by the Constitution which permits the majority to pass laws within certain limitations, even laws that seem repugnant to some people. While the Constitution does, indeed, serve the people, it does not and cannot prohibit the enactment of any law that might be offensive to certain people.

One other thing to keep in mind: the Constitution nowhere uses the language "separation of church and state" nor does it proscribe all governmental invocation of religion. Your "contract" -- my Constitution -- simply does not say that nor, the evidence suggests, was it intended to act in precisely that way. We can change that, though, by lobbying for an amendment.
 
You are right, the constitution has no inclusion speaking of the seperation of church and state - because it is the separation of church and state. But more importantly, it is the separation of the private and the public. The amendments articulate this idea perfectly.

Your contract, my constitution is the agreement of what is public and what is private. It clearly defines what we can discuss as a collection of people in the public spectrum on the grounds of logical and rational discourse. The whole God issue is not an issue, it has no place in the discussion, and so, since it has become a public issue, needs to go to the supreme court where they need to say "this has no place in the public spectrum, end of story."
 
[quote name='sgs89']One other thing to keep in mind: the Constitution nowhere uses the language "separation of church and state" nor does it proscribe all governmental invocation of religion. Your "contract" -- my Constitution -- simply does not say that nor, the evidence suggests, was it intended to act in precisely that way. We can change that, though, by lobbying for an amendment.[/QUOTE]

A little bit OT, but I just wish the world could work like this:

As for science versus religion, I am issuing a restraining order. Science must remain 500 yards away from religion at all times.

- Judge Schneider, "The Simpsons"

:lol:
 
[quote name='Sleepkyng']You are right, the constitution has no inclusion speaking of the seperation of church and state - because it is the separation of church and state. But more importantly, it is the separation of the private and the public. The amendments articulate this idea perfectly.

Your contract, my constitution is the agreement of what is public and what is private. It clearly defines what we can discuss as a collection of people in the public spectrum on the grounds of logical and rational discourse. The whole God issue is not an issue, it has no place in the discussion, and so, since it has become a public issue, needs to go to the supreme court where they need to say "this has no place in the public spectrum, end of story."[/QUOTE]

I spelled separation correctly so I'm not sure what your first point is, although I've come to expect that.

"The amendments articulate this idea perfectly." Really? Where?

I'm sure the public eagerly waits for Sleepkyng's discourse on constitutional theory -- a theory only he adheres to and that only he can see support for.
 
Sorry, I wasn't intending to critique the spelling, but rather trying to point out that the idea of separation of church and state (again, more importantly Private and Public) is embodied in the whole of the constitution and is then articulated by the amendments.

The Bill of Rights is the the clear distinction of Public and Private - I don't know how to articulate it more than it is. I think they did a fairly decent job.

You still haven't remarked on my initial argument in any meaningful way. Please define the public and private sector in your all knowing eyes so that I may finally understand it. I thought it was clear, but after wading through your confusing argument I'm confused once again. I need your clarity, oh seer of seers.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Ho-hum, more of the same boring and completely ill-informed drivel we have come to expect. You say, "I go to college too." That sounds about right -- you sound like a college student that just started attending a philosophy/social compact class. 101 at that. Please come back when you have some understanding of the Constitution, its place in American governance, and the legal theories (yes, it is a LEGAL document to be interpreted by the courts -- see Marbury v. Madison) underlying its drafting and subsequent interpretation.[/QUOTE]

Dude, I haven't even been paying much attention to this thread, but every one of your posts makes you look like a 'high brow' ass that is just trying to make yourself look intelligent. You sound more like PAD with every post, and that is anything but good.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Dude, I haven't even been paying much attention to this thread, but every one of your posts makes you look like a 'high brow' ass that is just trying to make yourself look intelligent. You sound more like PAD with every post, and that is anything but good.[/QUOTE]

Your opinion means nothing to me, but thanks for sharing. If you aren't interested in reading posts about legal theory than stop reading my posts. I never asked you to read them.
 
[quote name='Sleepkyng']Sorry, I wasn't intending to critique the spelling, but rather trying to point out that the idea of separation of church and state (again, more importantly Private and Public) is embodied in the whole of the constitution and is then articulated by the amendments.

The Bill of Rights is the the clear distinction of Public and Private - I don't know how to articulate it more than it is. I think they did a fairly decent job.

You still haven't remarked on my initial argument in any meaningful way. Please define the public and private sector in your all knowing eyes so that I may finally understand it. I thought it was clear, but after wading through your confusing argument I'm confused once again. I need your clarity, oh seer of seers.[/QUOTE]

Well, I guess we are at an end point -- your view that the Bill of Rights prevents any legislation on what you deem to be "private" issues is unique and, I would say, not supported by the language of the amendments.

That being said, I think I now understand the point you are attempting to make. I, the Framers, the Courts, legal scholars, and the Congress simply disagree with you, that's all.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Your opinion means nothing to me, but thanks for sharing. If you aren't interested in reading posts about legal theory than stop reading my posts. I never asked you to read them.[/QUOTE]

:lol: Seeking your opinion on legal theory is akin to reading the bible to find answers about evolution.

This is the best example I can think of for ROe vs Wade! Ipso factum e plurabis unum!

(See, babling random shit doesn't make you sound smart.... indeed...)
 
[quote name='Kayden']:lol: Seeking your opinion on legal theory is akin to reading the bible to find answers about evolution.[/QUOTE]

That's a good one. I am still laughing. Very funny. No, really, it was funny.

You were born in 1984, so I don't expect you to be an expert on much of anything beyond lighting up your next "doobie." But, please, limit your comments to issues on which you have at least a vague semblance of understanding.
 
[quote name='sgs89']You are truly bizarre. Nothing you quoted by Chief Justice Marshall supports your meandering ruminations. Nothing. I think your biggest problem is that you just can't clearly articulate the various thoughts that are clanging around your "brain."

Your hint that you are a real intellectual giant ("Haha, if only you knew, fella") would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. I mean, no one reading your posts in this thread could believe anything but that you are a desperate man trying to sound intelligent but failing due to his inherent limitations and lack of a knowledge base. You'd best get back to your philosophy 101 at the local community college.[/QUOTE]

Just wondering, you're not "chunk" are you? You argue somewhat like him.
 
[quote name='sgs89']That's a good one. I am still laughing. Very funny. No, really, it was funny.

You were born in 1984, so I don't expect you to be an expert on much of anything beyond lighting up your next "doobie." But, please, limit your comments to issues on which you have at least a vague semblance of understanding.[/QUOTE]

I really don't see how you trying to bring my knowledge of anything into question makes you seem any more credible a source. You're a Republican, aren't you?
 
[quote name='sgs89']That's a good one. I am still laughing. Very funny. No, really, it was funny.

You were born in 1984, so I don't expect you to be an expert on much of anything beyond lighting up your next "doobie." But, please, limit your comments to issues on which you have at least a vague semblance of understanding.[/QUOTE]


I have a vague semblance of understanding you're an asshole. Good luck with that.
 
[quote name='Kayden']I really don't see how you trying to bring my knowledge of anything into question makes you seem any more credible a source. You're a Republican, aren't you?[/QUOTE]

No, actually I'm not.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Just wondering, you're not "chunk" are you? You argue somewhat like him.[/QUOTE]

Chunk? No, of that I can assure you.
 
bread's done
Back
Top