Now We Have To Pay For Their Trans Madness?

[Roy]

P.S. For any jerks out there, I haven't missed the possibility that Wikipedia may be wrong.

[Meh Gerbil]

P.S. For any jerks out there, I haven't missed the possibility that Wikipedia may be wrong.

Wait, you quoted Wikipedia?

*whew*

I don't have to take any of your points seriously.

[Roy]

Nope.
That ruling was a power grab by the Federal government and the Supreme court that should have been met with armed resistance from the states.

Armed resistance? I'd have suggested legal challenges and peaceful secession, myself. I note that none of the judges disagreed with the extension of restriction from congressional to state law. I have no idea whether they were correctly or incorrectly interpreting the intent of the amendment.

If you doubt that, consider this: Applying that ruling I can carry a gun onto a school property because the local and state governments cannot impinge upon my second amendment rights to bear arms.

Are they impinging on your right to bear arms, or merely your freedom of movement while doing so? That's logically equivalent to defining protest zones at events. Not that I think it matters, since (i) local gun laws are being criticised as unconstitutional in the same way that local establishment laws are, and for similar reasons, and (ii) IMO that amendment is an anachronism that needs updating.

As you can see, the short sighted ruling of 1947 isn't consistently applied but you won't get a liberal stateside to be consistent with that sort of thing because they don't have respect for the rule of law.

That ruling is now the rule of law. Are you disrespectful of it?

[Meh Gerbil]

That ruling is now the rule of law. Are you disrespectful of it?

If a judge ruled in a court of law that evolution was 'of the devil' and 'mythology' would you respect the rule of law?

Respecting the rule of law isn't rubber stamp approval for everything that some fathead in a muumuu does while sitting at the bench.

Respecting the rule of law means that when confronted with the law one's actions are appropriately altered to comply with that law. To that end I do respect the rule of law, even those laws with which I disagree, and I comply with those laws which is exactly the opposite of what activist judges did when they unlawfully and from the bench enacted restrictions upon the states that the Founding Fathers went to great lengths to avoid. Judges can and do break the law from the bench.

Judges currently can break the law from the bench and do whatever the hell they please with impunity.
They've become part of the oligarchy.
They're lawless.

[Roy]

If a judge ruled in a court of law that evolution was 'of the devil' and 'mythology' would you respect the rule of law?

I'd note that 'law' and 'precedent' are two very different things . UK and US law both use precedent, largely to prevent the same point of law being argued over and over and over again, but in both cases precedents can be and are overturned, and frequently become irrelevant or obsolete when new laws are passed.

Respecting the rule of law isn't rubber stamp approval for everything that some fathead in a muumuu does while sitting at the bench.

At least yours don't wear powdered periwigs that went out of fashion in 1795.*

Respecting the rule of law means that when confronted with the law one's actions are appropriately altered to comply with that law. To that end I do respect the rule of law, even those laws with which I disagree, and I comply with those laws which is exactly the opposite of what activist judges did when they unlawfully and from the bench enacted restrictions upon the states that the Founding Fathers went to great lengths to avoid.

I wouldn't exactly say they went to great lengths - I have no idea how much the discussed whether it was their intention to apply the establishment clause only to federal law and not state law, and I doubt anyone else knows for certain either.

But I disagree that respect for law is as simple as complying with laws one disagrees with. Some laws are just too poorly conceived, or too destructive, or too malevolent.

*Insert usual caveat re wikipedia

[Meh Gerbil]

But I disagree that respect for law is as simple as complying with laws one disagrees with. Some laws are just too poorly conceived, or too destructive, or too malevolent.

The laws each of us find to be repugnant vary.
We cannot have a society where everyone simply disregards laws with which they disagree.

My main problem with the supreme court case you cited isn't that the meaning of the establishment clause was irrevocably altered but that it was done by a judge and not through legal means. The law should have been changed through Congress - I think that is a reasonable request given that it would have a wide impact on American society (hence its designation as a landmark case). I don't think there should ever be 'landmark' cases since interpreting and applying the law shouldn't allow for that sort of creativity.

The panic over every supreme court nomination in our country is a symptom of how far the judiciary has strayed.
You should be able to show any judge (liberal or conservative) a law and they both should interpret the same way.
Judges are to preside over the application of the law, not craft new law from the bench.

Oligarchy.

[Roy]

My main problem with the supreme court case you cited isn't that the meaning of the establishment clause was irrevocably altered but that it was done by a judge and not through legal means.

Um, nine judges, through legal means.

Was it really irrevocably altered? Since it's precedent, it could presumably be overturned by a later case covering a similar area that challenges that precedent. I agree it would have been better as a constitutional amendment, and probably should have been specifically debated in the opinions in that case rather than possibly snuck through (I'm assuming here - I may be wrong).

The panic over every supreme court nomination in our country is a symptom of how far the judiciary has strayed.

If your judiciary is effectively changing the law rather than determining how to apply it, then yes, that is a problem. But trying to manipulate the make-up of the supreme court - which is what your politicians appear to be doing - understandably since many of the judges have been demonstrably making rulings based on their personal preferences rather than the actual fact/laws - doesn't strike me as the correct solution.

You should be able to show any judge (liberal or conservative) a law and they both should interpret the same way.

In theory yes, but when judges are political appointees rather than judicial ones, that is highly unlikely to be the case.

[Meh Gerbil]

Um, nine judges, through legal means.

The ruling was illegal.
It happens frequently in a society where the rule of law is supplanted by an oligarchy.

You do realize that the entire phrase is:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The people in the case you cited were prohibited from exercising their religious beliefs on a local/civic level - something the federal government recused itself from in the Constitution. So yeah, the ruling was an illegal - illegal being that while the process may have not violated the law the process was acting on material it shouldn't have addressed. That is why when the revolution comes, legally speaking, there will be no grounds to resist it because the US Government has broken contract with the people. I don't advocate violence of any sort but that will be the end result.

[Tassman]

That is the fourth time you missed a correct reading of that clause.
Your application of the clause fails on at least three points.

The clause says CONGRESS shall make no LAW respecting the ESTABLISHMNENT of religion.

A nativity scene on a civil courthouse law:
1: Has absolutely nothing to do with CONGRESS as one is civil government and the other is federal government.

The final court of appeal is the SCOTUS, regardless of the level of government the offence occurs.

2: The display wasn't placed there via an act of LAW on any level.

The Establishment Clause prohibits the establishment of religion by Law AND, by implication the favouring of any one religion such as Christianity, as a defacto Established Religion.

3: In no way does a temporary public display having anything to do with the ESTABLISHMENT of religion.

Now I understand that you want the clause to say "No level of government shall in any way make a display that shows religion of any sort to be anything more than an absolute joke" but the clause doesn't say that. If you'd like to become a US citizen and lobby for those changes, well ostensibly we're still free to do that over here.

I know it is disappointing to you but I can read plain English and your mangling of that clause is entirely unsupported.
You cannot change the words of the Constitution to match your fantasy.

https://infidels.org/library/modern/...decisions.html

[Terraceth]

I don't think there should ever be 'landmark' cases since interpreting and applying the law shouldn't allow for that sort of creativity.

There are many times when the specific set of circumstances that led to a case were never handled before (or, in the case of an overturning, cases were believed to have been settled incorrectly the first time around).

You should be able to show any judge (liberal or conservative) a law and they both should interpret the same way.

Not really, because to cover every single possible circumstance, many laws would have to be something like 100 times as long, perhaps longer. And the Constitution in particular was one where they wanted to keep things short. The 8th Amendment in particular uses nothing but arbitrary terminology (e.g. "excessive") to describe the things it prohibits.

[Roy]

The ruling was illegal.

I could quibble about the means vs the result, but it'd be derailing so I won't since it's so rare to have a sensible conversation with an intelligent disagree here.

You do realize that the entire phrase is:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The people in the case you cited were prohibited from exercising their religious beliefs on a local/civic level - something the federal government recused itself from in the Constitution.

Are you looking at the same case?

Everson was about subsidising transport costs to and from school, and whether the parents of pupils attending private religious schools should benefit in the same way as parents of pupils at state schools. This is already not about prohibiting exercise of beliefs - only about not assisting in such exercise* - but AFAICT the case was aimed at stopping payments that were already being made, not about seeking payments that were being withheld. Since the case failed, parents of children attending religious schools had their transportation costs subsidised both before and after the case, so no-one was even discouraged financially from exercising any religious beliefs, let alone prohibited.

So yeah, the ruling was an illegal - illegal being that while the process may have not violated the law the process was acting on material it shouldn't have addressed.

I think the process was acting on material it should have addressed, since the question before the court was effectively 'does this law violate the US constitution'?

The judges found that it did not. That they found the law legal based on its non-discriminatory nature rather than based on its non-congressional nature** doesn't make the ruling wrong, but it might make the arguments behind the ruling wrong. I don't think the ruling was illegal either, since they were addressing a legitimate question and reached an appropriate answer, and while their answer may be binding in law, I don't think that a side-effect of their reasoning is. I do note that no-one involved in the case, whether plaintiff, defendant or judge, seems to have made any argument that the law is not covered by the constitutional amendment. This might have been a legitimate objection by the defendants, but they had another successful argument available so the question may never have arisen.

While I agree with your stance that the first amendment does not as written apply to local laws, I don't see anything illegal in the judges in this case interpreting it otherwise, particularly when that was not central to their ruling and wouldn't have changed the outcome of this specific case. Other subsequent cases where their incidental precedent would affect the outcome may have chosen to argue that point, but for whatever reasons have not. Unless there is a case where this is the central argument of the case, I don't see the supreme court making an explicit ruling on it.

P.S. I doubt there will be a violent revolution in the US, for the same reason I doubt there will be a revolution in any other western country - there is now too much benefit from reliance by everyone on technological infrastructure for anyone to do anything that would disrupt that infrastructure.

*As in 'we won't stop you from sending your child to a religious school but we won't help you either'

**I'm not sure whether the tax money being used to subsidise the school transport was from federal, state or local taxes; if the former,*** then the law could be considered a federal law.

***Based on my admittedly limited knowledge of US tax structure I think this is unlikely.

[Meh Gerbil]

Roy,
I honestly don't understand this sentence:

"While I agree with your stance that the first amendment does not as written apply to local laws, I don't see anything illegal in the judges in this case interpreting it otherwise, particularly when that was not central to their ruling and wouldn't have changed the outcome of this specific case."

My problem with what I *think* you're writing here is that you don't get to interpret things as you wish.
To put it in terms you might appreciate: How do you feel when a Creationist interprets clear evidence for an old earn as clear evidence for a young earth?

So no, I don't grant any judge the ability to take a clause and interpret it to mean exactly the opposite of what it written.
That is, the clause specifically limits Congress as a means of protecting the states so to turn it on it's ear and say the amendment includes the states is ridiculous.

Regardless, things have landed were they've landed and as we've noted in other threads the 2nd Amendment is being used to shove gun rights into state and local bailiwicks. A clear and consistent approach to the Constitution would have ended a great many of these conflicts but since we're allowing judges to redefine words and completely reverse the clear intention of the text we're only going to end up with a great many more ridiculous rulings.

Anyways, thanks for the discussion.

[Roy]

Roy,
I honestly don't understand this sentence:

"While I agree with your stance that the first amendment does not as written apply to local laws, I don't see anything illegal in the judges in this case interpreting it otherwise, particularly when that was not central to their ruling and wouldn't have changed the outcome of this specific case."

My problem with what I *think* you're writing here is that you don't get to interpret things as you wish.
To put it in terms you might appreciate: How do you feel when a Creationist interprets clear evidence for an old earn as clear evidence for a young earth?

That they are being some combination of stupid/dishonest/ignorant.

But they aren't doing anything illegal. I don't think the Everson judges were acting illegally when they interpreted the constitution the way they did.

So no, I don't grant any judge the ability to take a clause and interpret it to mean exactly the opposite of what it written.
That is, the clause specifically limits Congress as a means of protecting the states so to turn it on it's ear and say the amendment includes the states is ridiculous.

Yup, I agree. Having read the Everson ruling (and some of the Cantwell ruling that preceded it) I can't find any explicit ruling on the federal vs local application of the 1st amendment. I don't think it has been properly addressed, and I suspect most parties in subsequent cases have either wanted it to apply the want it is being applied, or not cared because it's irrelevant to their aims.

Since the supreme court does not get to choose which cases are brought to them, it's not the case that they could determine to resolve this issue.

Anyways, thanks for the discussion.

You're welcome. It make a pleasant change.

[Terraceth]

Yup, I agree. Having read the Everson ruling (and some of the Cantwell ruling that preceded it) I can't find any explicit ruling on the federal vs local application of the 1st amendment.

You didn't see it? It's stated pretty explicitly multiple times in both decisions that their rationale for applying the First Amendment to state laws is that the the First Amendment is applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws." (Cantwell)

"The First Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth, Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 , 63 S.Ct. 870, 872, 146 A.L.R. 81, commands that a state 'shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'" (Everson)

[Roy]

You didn't see it? It's stated pretty explicitly multiple times in both decisions that their rationale for applying the First Amendment to state laws is that the the First Amendment is applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Got it - thanks. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; " coupled with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ". So since US citizens are immune to having a religion established via federal law, per the 1st amendment, then states cannot pass laws which establish a religion because that would infringe on citizens' immunity.

I am enamoured of this:

The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws.

In hindsight it could have been worded less denigratorily.