Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next > Jump to:  Bottom  Last Post
 NotTHATbored
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
 1103 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 8:43:19 PM
Here's a link : Cornell Law on First & 14th Ammendments |
|
NotTHATbored
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
1103 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 8:42:13 PM
From Cornell University's Law School.
first amendment: an overview
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
|
|
NotTHATbored
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
1103 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 8:36:01 PM
Look it up. |
|
NotTHATbored
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
1103 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 8:35:44 PM
Because I am right  |
|
 OldOllie
Male, 50-59, Midwest US
8767 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 8:29:16 PM
You're hopeless. I give up. |
|
NotTHATbored
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
1103 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 7:52:05 PM
So the state does not have the right to bypass the federal protection against the establishment of a government religion! |
|
NotTHATbored
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
1103 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 7:48:56 PM
ALSO the 14th Ammendment forbids states to, "abridge the privileges or immunities" and in the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court held that this later provision incorporates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as applying to the States, and thereby prohibits state and local religious establishments! FOR THE WIN! HA! |
|
NotTHATbored
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
1103 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 7:34:36 PM
Then why did you initially say, "The conservatives would strike it down because it violates the constitution"? Either it is or it isn't covered by the consitiution but you should make up your mind.
Also you are wrong. The ninth amendment reads:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
This grants unnamed rights to the people, not to Congress. It says that Congress cannot limit the rights of people by using the bill of rights against them. It does not give Congress itself rights, like establishing a religion in the public school system. If people want to establish a religion congress cannot stop them, but congress does not have the power to establish a religion in the school system.
So it is covered. Thank you. |
|
OldOllie
Male, 50-59, Midwest US
8767 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 6:37:21 PM
This thread contains much drama!
This thread contains much ignorance! |
|
OldOllie
Male, 50-59, Midwest US
8767 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 6:36:10 PM
"Is keeping creation theory out of the public school system covered by the constitution or not? First you said that it wasn't and then you said, 'It would never get past the Supreme Court.'"
This illustrates perfectly your total lack of understanding of the Constitution.
To answer your question, no, keeping creation theory out of the public school system is NOT covered by the constitution; THEREFORE the fed. govt. does NOT have the authority to legislate in this area. That power is reserved for the states (10th Amendment).
Liberals believe wrongly that the fed. govt. can do anything not specifically prohibited by the constitution. In fact, the federal government can ONLY do that which is permitted under its specifically enumerated powers (9th Amendment).
Many opposed the Bill of Rights because it prohibited the govt. from doing things it had no power to do in the first place, and it would confuse people like you. They were right. |
|
 TIMESWORDSMN
Male, 13-17, Western US
304 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 5:03:03 PM
This thread contains much drama! |
|
NotTHATbored
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
1103 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 3:23:00 PM
@OldOllie you are all assertian and arguement without support or evidence. Have a great life. |
|
NotTHATbored
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
1103 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 3:06:24 PM
@OldOllie You're seriously too stupid and pig headed to even have an intelligent debate with. Which is sad at your age.
You didn't even answer my question. Is keeping creation theory out of the public school system covered by the constitution or not? First you said that it wasn't and then you said, "It would never get past the Supreme Court. The conservatives would strike it down because it violates the constitution." So which is it? You saying that I don't understand the constitution is a laugh.
If you want to make broad biased statements about liberals, here's mine about conservatives. You preach limited government but have expanded it every chance you got, you spend just as badly as democrats, and your are so ashamed of human sexuality that you can't even let gays marry or touch yourself. Your freedom oppressors. I may not agree with everything liberals do but they're sure better than your side.
|
|
 Volsunga
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1548 Posts
|
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 9:40:17 AM
@CrackrJak
Wow, uhh... you clearly failed in your list of questions science "can't answer".
Every single one of those can be proven through empirical observation and testing except "What is the objective purpose of human life" which is a leading question and all current scientific knowledge points to the fact that there is none.
Science doesn't cause evil. Lack of science does. The genocides you are referring to were caused by people committing naturalistic fallacies with half-understood principles. They were as unscientific as it gets
You clearly do not understand the concept present in the link you gave for m-theory (understandable, since Michio Kaku is always misleading anyways). This is a better explanation of n-dimensional space as it applies to string theory.
For your consideration: Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18, Deu |
|
OldOllie
Male, 50-59, Midwest US
8767 Posts
|
Monday, September 27, 2010 8:14:35 PM
@NotTHATbored, you obviously DON'T understand the Constitution; that's why you are incapable of understanding an argument based on constitutional principles. What you are doing is PROJECTING your own perverse liberal philosophy of government onto conservatives.
Whenever you liberals get what you think is a good idea, the first thing you want to do is pass a federal law and shove it down everybody's throats. (And if that doesn't work, get the courts to do it for you.)
Conservatives, on the other hand, believe the federal government should be limited to specifically enumerated powers. The coercive power of government should NOT be used by one group of people to force their ideas on everyone else, EVEN IF YOU THINK THEY ARE GOOD IDEAS!!!
That's why O'Donnell's positions on evolution or masturbation are completely irrelevant.
Her opponent, on the other hand, has described himself as a "bearded Marxist," and that is EXTREMELY relevant. |
|
 CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
14374 Posts
|
Monday, September 27, 2010 4:16:01 PM
Angilion: When you falsely accuse the bible of advocating 'Slavery, Rape, And Torture', I have my doubts as to your sagacity. Either you are being specious or sophist, But certainly not truthful. |
|
NotTHATbored
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
1103 Posts
|
Monday, September 27, 2010 4:02:39 PM
@OldOllie you keep changing your arguement. First you say that keeping religion out of the school system is not covered in the constitution, then you say that it is but it would never happen. Which is it?
That said, I do believe your right it will never happen, but only because half of us are sensible enough not to vote in right wing nuts like O'Donnell who can't even masturbate without feeling guiltiy.
Also what about the other reasons I gave for not wanting her in office? You're so stuck on Keynesian Economics, but you ignore the issure of same sex marriage.
|
|
OldOllie
Male, 50-59, Midwest US
8767 Posts
|
Monday, September 27, 2010 10:54:26 AM
If Christine O'Donnell comes in to office and demands a law requiring public schools to teach creation theory or "intelligent design" that would be the government making an establishment of religion.
1. She has never demanded such a law.
2. If she did, it would never get a majority in the Senate, let alone survive a filibuster.
3. If it did, it would never pass in the House.
4. If it did, it would never be signed by the president.
5. If it were, it would never get past the Supreme Court. (The conservatives would strike it down because it violates the constitution, and liberals would strike it down because it violates their policy preferences.)
Yet because of your totally irrational fear of a completely impossible occurrence, you would vote for a candidate who supports a pernicious and destructive policy like Keynesian economics that has failed every time it's been tried and is failing again right before our eyes. |
|
 Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9559 Posts
|
Monday, September 27, 2010 10:18:55 AM
I don't know what scared you into believing Christianity is the 'Boogey Man', But it had to be something bad.
I read the Christian bible.
I learned about history.
That didn't give a good impression.
But that's irrelevant to the fact that my posts are nothing to do with Christianity being the bogeyman, which is something you've made up and falsely claimed is my position because you have no counter-argument and therefore must try to portray me as an irrational bigot instead. |
|
BoredFrank
Male, 40-49, Southern US
1318 Posts
|
Monday, September 27, 2010 8:52:38 AM
The woman is an idiot. Sadly, that hardly disqualifies her from Congress. |
|
 Raberboom
Male, 18-29, Western US
833 Posts
|
Monday, September 27, 2010 3:14:47 AM
"I don't know what scared you into believing Christianity is the 'Boogey Man', But it had to be something bad."
Yeah it was probably one of your priests trying to have his way with him as a child. |
|
CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
14374 Posts
|
Monday, September 27, 2010 1:45:35 AM
Angilion: Obviously your hopeless, You attribute to me what you are doing yourself. You've been on an Anti-Christian bent since your first comment here.
I don't know what scared you into believing Christianity is the 'Boogey Man', But it had to be something bad. |
|
NotTHATbored
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
1103 Posts
|
Monday, September 27, 2010 12:33:11 AM
Also, you can say states right all you want but she is running for Congress. Also seperation of church and state is a long standing legal precident. SO HA. |
|
NotTHATbored
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
1103 Posts
|
Monday, September 27, 2010 12:14:02 AM
sad because we all know you're in no way involved in academia. |
|
NotTHATbored
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
1103 Posts
|
Monday, September 27, 2010 12:12:33 AM
@Old Ollie Seperation of church and state may not be in the constitution word for word but the first amendment does say this, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". If Christine O'Donnell comes in to office and demands a law requiring public schools to teach creation theory or "intelligent design" that would be the government making an establishment of religion. That said I never said anything about the constitution, what I said was that I don't want that crap taught to my children in the future.
Also thank you I do have a general knowledge of what Keynesian economics are. I just don't care to discuss your own personal theories about the economy with you, since no one can say with 100% certainty the outcome of any government fiscal policy. Suffice it to say that I believe that a healthy, insured, working population will bring more to the economy then it will cost.
Also patronizing people with "homework" is |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next >
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}