Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (53181)	7/18/2002 5:43:22 AM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"The fact that the mob is benevolent from time to time is simply irrelevant." These people were considered a mob by some... When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. barefootsworld.net

To: Solon who wrote (53181)	7/18/2002 1:52:25 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I do not believe it can be successfully argued that the lemon test is not a logical and compelling test of the separation between church and state; nor do I think it may reasonably be argued that "one nation UNDER God" could ever hope to pass this test of constitutionality. The Lemon test is not a principle contained in the constitution, it was an attempt by Warren Burger to create a rule of thumb to determine if a law, regulation, or government action violated his interpretation of the establishment clause. The rule is not the only one that has been used by courts, nor is the interpretation the rule was based the only possible interpretation. I'm not saying the Lemon test is illogical or wrong, merely that it, and any decisions based on it are not unassailable. The idea that anything that does not pass the Lemon test is automatically unconstitutional is no axiomatic. The idea may be cogent and beneficial, but that doesn't add up to axiomatic, or "intellectually unassailable". or a disavowal of the test in question. OK I see that you sort of have my point covered. Except I was not outright disavowing the test, just expressing less then 100% confidence in it. Examining the idea further I think I would disavow the test as a standard for constitutionality, because I don't think it reflects the real meaning of "establishment of religion". But I would support it or something close to it as a standard to use when considering possible laws or government actions. I would put a lot more potential laws or government actions in this area under the category or "bad ideas", or even "potentially dangerous to religious liberty", then I would describe as "a clearly unconstitutional establishment of religion". I think the actual words of the constitution does not provide as for as great of separation between church and state as I would provide for if I where making policy myself. If I agreed with the 9th circuit court that saying the recital of the pledge with the words "under God" amounted to coercion, then I would support the decision that it is unconstitutional. I can also say that if I was a member of congress, and the words "under God" where not yet in the pledge and the bill to add them was under consideration, I would not vote for it. But I am speaking of the logic of the current understanding...not the logic which may be relevant to any partisan interpretation which may be forthcoming. Different people have different "current understandings". When I try to interpret the constitution I look first to the words of the constitution itself. If the meaning still seems unclear I would look to what seems most likely to be the original intent of the writers of the constitution. Legal doctrines created by court decisions over 200 years later are not an important part of my interpretations of the constitution. If I agree with the ideas, and think they are important, I might seek to have the ideas implemented as a matter of policy or law, or even as a constitutional amendment, but I wouldn't seek to write them in to the constitution by judicial decision if they are not clearly there already. I don't view a court's decisions or legal doctrines created by the court as being any more automatically correct then I do your opinions or mine. I recognize that judges (esp. at the Supreme Court level) are likely to be intelligent people with a great deal of understanding of the law, and I understand that the court's decisions will have a lot more practical effect on the nation's then the opinion of someone posting on SI, but I don't think they are infallible, or that their interpretations of the constitution are part of the constitutions essence, they are just opinions. Tim