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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (91263)	12/19/2004 8:22:43 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793745

Well, I am NOT a constitutional scholar, but I do love history and believe that I am as well read in American History as any average American and probably more then most. It is patently obvious that our forefathers DID believe in a HIGHER BEING and that they had no problem with emblems or other paraphanelia (sp?) supporting that believe. What they were AGAINST was any GOVERNMENT TELLING A CITIZEN that HE/SHE had to have that same feeling, or adopt that same religion. But manger scenes do NOT specify a specific Christian religion and the Commandments are good rules to live by regardless of religion or even if one has NO religion. I think our liberal courts have attempted to make a MOUNTAIN out of a molehill, or as they say at this time of year, throw the baby out with the bathwater. jdn

To: Ilaine who wrote (91263)	12/19/2004 6:33:25 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793745

To begin with, it requires acknowledging that even strict constructionists must interpret the Constitution, if only to recognize that having an army implies that the army will have guns and bullets and uniforms, and all the rest of that. I think some interpretation is required but it doesn't have to be very involved in most cases. As to your specific example I wouldn't call that interpreting the constitution. No one is interpreting the constitution and saying "the constitution says we must have this weapon for the army but not this one". The exact equipment and structure of the army is not specified by the constitution. When you decide to have corps, divisions, brigades ect. and decide to use M-16s and wear BDUs you aren't reading anything in to the constitution. Tim