Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Why I Voted For Trump...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Right.

    It couldn't be that you not being an American genuinely thought the US judiciary had the power to change laws (since, you know, that's what you actually said) and then tried to cover for your ignorance by playing little semantic games.

    It would be so much easier if you just said, "Huh, I didn't know that. My mistake."
    No, it's not that. As usual you're assuming others' ignorance when the fault is your own failure to recognise subtle distinctions.

    The subtle distinction here being between "change laws", which is what you think I said, vs "change the laws", which is what I actually said.
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

    Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
    Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      Yeah, that was very problematic - glad they got that worked out.



      The reality is that you're wrong - Congress has all kinds of "religion" woven into the very fabric of our nation. Government can't make laws establishing religion OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
      Right, and the government doesn't do that.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Nope, just pointing out the fact that the intent of the Founders in principle as written in the Constitution did not necessarily reflect the realities of the time.
        What does that have to do with the separation of church and state?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
          Right, and the government doesn't do that.
          The only thing they were against was a state-run church, like The Church of England. They had no problems with already established religion and churches in government. In fact there was a church in the US Capitol until well after the Civil War.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Roy View Post
            No, it's not that. As usual you're assuming others' ignorance when the fault is your own failure to recognise subtle distinctions.

            The subtle distinction here being between "change laws", which is what you think I said, vs "change the laws", which is what I actually said.
            It's a distinction without a difference. If a body can't "change laws", it can't "change the laws" either. Sheesh. Don't you have anything better to do than carry on ridiculously petty feuds on the internet?
            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
            sigpic
            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

            Comment


            • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              It's a distinction without a difference. If a body can't "change laws", it can't "change the laws" either. Sheesh. Don't you have anything better to do than carry on ridiculously petty feuds on the internet?
              What would Roy do if he couldn't nitpick something?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                Right, and the government doesn't do that.
                But they DO employ chaplains, print and stamp money with God's name on it, provide chaplains for our military.... There is nothing that keeps religion from influencing our government - it's government that cannot influence religion or churches.
                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  What does that have to do with the separation of church and state?
                  He's floundering - can't admit he was wrong.
                  "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    That is, in fact, a very literal and conservative interpretation of the First Amendment since the prohibition is against the government from enacting laws that would establish or restrict the practice of religion. There is nothing that says that the government can't recognize or even prefer one religion over the others, just as long as the citizens are not compelled by law to do the same.

                    So as an example of judicial activism, this is a fail.
                    I'm being called ignorant by some-one who doesn't know that preferring or recognizing one religion over others is the definition of establishment.
                    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                    Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                    Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                      I'm being called ignorant by some-one who doesn't know that preferring or recognizing one religion over others is the definition of establishment.

                      wrong. The first amendment is speaking specifically against establishing a government run religion like the Church of England.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Ignorant Roy View Post
                        The subtle distinction here being between "change laws", which is what you think I said, vs "change the laws", which is what I actually said.
                        Distinction without a difference. Sorry, kiddo, no matter how many ways you try to spin it, the simple fact is that in the United States, the courts do not have the Constitutional authority to "change laws" or "change the laws" or whatever other phrase you care to use that says the exact same thing. They can only uphold laws, or strike them down. That's it.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          wrong. The first amendment is speaking specifically against establishing a government run religion like the Church of England.


                          If we just look at the reason Jefferson even mentioned a "wall of separation", it was in response to the Baptists' concern that a state religion would keep them from exercising their own religion freely. The fact that this phrase has been serially abused is unfortunate, but doesn't change the intent.
                          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            That's simply not how it works, Roy. Congress can change laws. SCOTUS can challenge or invalidate them. If SCOTUS invalidates a law, it is up to the Congress to revise it, or recognize it no longer applies.
                            I admit I don't know the process by which laws get removed when US courts strike them down. But everyone seems to agree that the courts can strike down individual laws. Are you saying that a law can be remain in force even if the Supreme Court decides that law is unconstitutional?
                            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                            mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                            Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                            Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ingorant Roy View Post
                              'm being called ignorant by some-one who doesn't know that preferring or recognizing one religion over others is the definition of establishment.
                              So? As long as the government isn't making laws to that end then it's Constitutional per the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...") which is exactly what I said in the post you replied to.

                              Don't want me to call you ignorant? Then don't make ignorant statements.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                                I admit I don't know the process by which laws get removed when US courts strike them down. But everyone seems to agree that the courts can strike down individual laws. Are you saying that a law can be retained even if the Supreme Court decides that law is unconstitutional?
                                Yes sir, the court can declare the whole law unconstitutional, in which case the law is nul and void. That doesn't "change" the law - it negates it.

                                OR, it can send it back to the court that sent it to them --- sometimes SCOTUS will make some recommendations and send the case back to the court.

                                OR, SCOTUS can strike down a single provision (or more) of a law, leaving the rest of the law intact. It would be up to the legislature (or other governing body) to then amend the law to make it 'constitutional'.

                                But SCOTUS does not "change" laws - they leave that up to the legislature or other governmental entities - the legislative branch.
                                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, Today, 09:11 AM
                                0 responses
                                9 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, Today, 07:28 AM
                                1 response
                                23 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 06:44 AM
                                13 responses
                                37 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by seer, Today, 06:17 AM
                                4 responses
                                24 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post mossrose  
                                Started by Christian3, Yesterday, 02:14 PM
                                44 responses
                                203 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post thormas
                                by thormas
                                 
                                Working...
                                X