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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (22107)	11/3/2004 12:40:03 PM
From: bull_derrick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

The concept of separation of church and state is not a constitutional right. In fact, it's not to be found in the Constitution anywhere. An activist court resorted to a letter written by Jefferson to a Baptist church in Danbury Ct to contrive a constitutional basis. In that letter, Jefferson assured the Baptists that there would be no state appointed denomination, like the Lutheran church is in Germany or the Anglican church in England. This contrived "right" has been used to remove ten commandments from courthouses and modify government seals to deny basic heritage from our country, as if it never existed in the first place. Atheism through litigation was never the basis of the letter to the Danbury Baptists and it shows the danger of activism from the judiciary. I'm quite happy to see a court that goes back to interpreting law, rather than making it. My hope is that we get more judges that do just that. If people have problems with their "rights" under that scenario, they can contact their elected officials to change the laws to embrace those rights that they'd want protected. Because the legislature and the executive branch are accountable to the people through elections, this is where rights should properly be established

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (22107)	11/3/2004 12:44:11 PM
From: kodiak_bull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Ed, "In the meantime, hold onto your rights for the next 25 years because the Supreme Court may become radical in interpreting the constitution. Rights of the accused, limits on the power of the executive branch, separation of church and state; remember when those were jealously guarded by the courts?" The Supreme Court became radical in interpreting (inventing) rights that never existed in the constitution and never were voted into existence by a single legislative body. Now you are worried about a strict constructionist court (if we get one) becoming "radical"? This is truly twisting the language. However, after 40 years of the Dems being perfectly happy with their federal judges, their Supreme Court justices inventing law, finding it in "penumbra", you now suddenly don't like the idea of judges "interpreting" things according to their politics? Tell it to the Tribe (the Larry Tribe, that is). If it does happen, the scene was set on the Dems/liberals watch. (Wait, is it using a label to call those justices liberal? Are they liberal on some stuff and conservative on others? I seem to remember this bogus labelling idea a while back.) Kb