| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John 14 15-21
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 10:29 pm Post subject: Fourteeth Amendment: Ken Smith vs Roy Moore |
 |
|
Ken Smith wrote:
John 14 15-21 wrote:
| Quote: | This a partial portion of George Washington's farewell address. Can you
imagine
him thinking the Ten Commandments are unConstitutional?
In a word, yes.
|
You need to go back to law school.
The First Amendment did apply to George Washington when he wrote his
farewell address. The First Amendment did apply when he was President. No
where does the Fourteeth Amendment alter the First Amendment.
The actions of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore were completely consistent with
the actions of President George Washington in this regards. George Washington
was within the framework of the First Amendment, there was no Constitutional
crises
because of his actions.
There was no legal challenge that had any weight. Because he violated no law.
He could do things by Executive order, which the people as their elected
representative gave him the power to do. There was no legislative action that
forbade him. There is no legislative action to this day that would forbid him
to
display the Ten Commandments in his official capacity if he wanted to.
You're trying to claim that a President would be forbidden to display the
Ten Commandments in the White House today, yet you cannot cite a single law.
| Quote: | Our that 200 years
after his time that Federal Judge could declare it so with the original
First
Amendment and Constitution still in place?
Again, the Fourteenth Amendment changed the landscape. Radically.
|
Where did the Fourteeth Amendment alter the First Amendment? It altered it
nowhere! You cannot cite a single clause! Not even one.
Infact, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore was denied due process of the law as
defined
by the Fourteeth Amendment.
What law did Roy Moore violate? In order for a law to be violated, there has
to
be an actual law by legislative act. The Establishment Clause, says there has
to be a law! Read NO LAW:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
orprohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the government for a redress of grievances."
There is no violation of the First Amendment, Roy Moore displayed the
the Ten Commandments as an ELECTED represetative of the people.
In other words the people gave him the authority to do it, since he
violated no law, that authority is completely valid. If the people are unhappy
with this, they can remove him. But something like 70% of the American
population approve of his actions, and I suspect the approval is much higher in
Alabama.
Roy Moore was denied due process of law, as required by the Fourteeth
Admendment, because no law by legislative act could be cited.
| Quote: | That is how far we have drifted from our roots of freedoms.
|
Ken Smith wrote to Jon Beaver:
| Quote: | It's *not* like we disagree on that being the central question.
If the Examiners don't have the statutory authority to issue such an
order -- on account of the fact that a standardless standard violates
due process, that the Board waived its right to object to my admis-
sion on account of its violation of Rule 201.9(6), or one of the other
bases I enumerated -- it is a violation of my rights. If they do, then
I'm screwed. I can read the law as well as anyone.
|
I think you're a hypocrite Ken. You're now claiming that you were denied
due process of law because of a legislative omission. You're now claiming
that the Examiners had no right to pick the psychologist or psychiatrist
because the law did not give them the explicit right, you seem to be saying
that you had the right to pick the psychologist or psychiatrist. Since you
did submit to psychiatric examination by a person of your own choosing,
you are clearly not claiming the law was unconstitutional.
Your reasoning makes no sense, because if everybody could pick
whom they wanted to examine them, the state of Colorado would
have no way of actually determining the validity of the results.
The people of Colorado have a vested interest in making sure that lawyers
that practice law are infact fit to practice law. The rights of the people
clearly outweigh the right of individual in this case, because not everybody
is infact fit to practice law.
Also in regards to the Fourteeth amendment, you can't claim that you
were not given due process of law.
The Federal Courts have already denied you case. The due process clause of
Fourteeth Amendment does come under Federal Juisdiction, and you're now
claiming that was violated. But the Federal Courts have thrown you're legal
argument out the door.
Let's look at the facts here:
1) You're trying to have an inferior state court overrule state supreme court.
2) You're trying to have an inferior state court also over rule a FEDERAL
COURT, which has already ruled you don't have a due process case under the
Fourteeth Amendment.
Would a competent judge on an inferior state court rule against both the State
Supreme Court and two Federal Judges? I don't think so.
I think you have extremely little understanding of the law, or the way things
work.
I also think that you're a world class hypocrirte in the fact you desire
to do away with both due process and equal protection of the law
because you disagree with there positions.
You have made it clear---you are completely against the rule of law,
as well as the concept of liberty for anybody you disagree with.
The First Amendment has not been altered by the Fourteeth Amendment as Ken
is now claiming. President George Washington was not in violation of
First Amendment then and would not be in violation today as Ken has made the
explicit
claim. George Washington was the President of United States, and the full force
of the
First Amendment applied to him as head of the Federal Government.
Despite what Ken Smith claims.
Partial text of George Washinton's farewell address:
| Quote: | --------------
http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/washspeech.html
...Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man
claim
the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars
of
human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens. The
mere
Politican, equally with the pious man ought to respect & to cherish them. A
volume could not trace all their connections with private & public felicity.
Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation,
for
life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the Oaths, which are the
instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution
indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.
Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of
peculiar structure--reason & experience both forbid us to expect that
National
morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
'Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of
popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every
species of Free Government. Who that is a sincere friend to it, can look with
indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric.
Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions for the general
diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives
force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be
enlightened.
As a very important source of strength & security, cherish public credit. One
method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible: avoiding
occasions of expence by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely
disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater
disbursements to repel it--avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not
only
by shunning occasions of expence, but by vigorous exertions in time of Peace
to
discharge the Debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not
ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen which we ourselves ought to
bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your Representatives, but it
is
necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the
performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear
in
mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue--that to have
Revenue there must be taxes--that no taxes can be devised which are not more
or
less inconvenient & unpleasant--that the intrinsic embarrassment inseperable
from the Selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of
difficulties) ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the
Conduct of the Government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in
the
measures for obtaining Revenue which the public exigencies may at any time
dictate.
Observe good faith & justice towds all Nations. Cultivate peace & harmony
with
all--Religion & morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy
does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at
no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too
novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice & benevolence.
Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan
would richly repay any temporary advantages wch might be lost by a steady
adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent
felicity of a Nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is
recommended
by every sentiment which ennobles human Nature. Alas! is it rendered
impossible
by its vices?....
|
---------
Remember: Jesus is Lord!
Romans 10:9-10, John 14:15-21, Acts 2:38, Eph 2:7-10, Matthew 5:3-16, 1Cor 15,
John Chapter Three, Romans Chapter Eight, The Book of First John. :)
http://www.unshackled.org/ Old Time Radio Drama / Lives Changed by Christ
"The Gospel is about what God has done for us and what we
can become in Christ; it's about a relationship with Christ being
the answer to our deepest needs. The Good News offers lost people
what they are frantically searching for: forgiveness, freedom, security,
purpose, love, acceptance, and strength. It settles our past, assures
our future, and gives meaning to today. It is the best news in the WORLD."
-----Pastor Rick Warren
Page 224, The Purpose Driven Church, Copyright 1995, ISBN 0-310-20106-3
K-Love : Christian Music, News and Information.
http://klove.com/
Outstanding Bible Teaching online: Thru the Bible Radio.
http://www.ttb.org/
Multi-Bible Translations including non English.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible
--------
Civil Rights and Christian Activism. "Letter From a Birmingham Jail"
http://hometown.aol.com/thename888/myhomepage/index.html
__________________________________
"Most High, glorious God, enlighten the darkness of my heart, and give me a
right faith, a sure hope, a perfect charity."
----St Francis of Assisi
-
Mathematics do not lie. For an outstanding Statistical Analysis of why
Evolution is false and that the prophecies of God's Holy Prophets are true.
See the following book:
Title : A Skeptic's search for God.
Subtitle: Convincing evidence for his existence.
By Ralph O. Muncaster
ISBN 0-7369-0452-2
Copyright 2002.
Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, Oregon 97402.
---------------
"Reasons last step is the recognition that there is an infinite number of
things that go beyond it"---Blaise Pascal.
http://www.ankerberg.com/The-Gospel-of-Jesus-Christ.html
http://www2.gasou.edu/facstaff/etmcmull/FUCHIDA.htm |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Ken Smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2003 1:09 am Post subject: Re: Fourteeth Amendment: Ken Smith vs Roy Moore |
|
|
John 14 15-21 wrote:
| Quote: | Ken Smith wrote:
John 14 15-21 wrote:
This a partial portion of George Washington's farewell address. Can you
imagine
him thinking the Ten Commandments are unConstitutional?
In a word, yes.
You need to go back to law school.
The First Amendment did apply to George Washington when he wrote his
farewell address. The First Amendment did apply when he was President. No
where does the Fourteeth Amendment alter the First Amendment.
|
You ask a hypothetical question, and I gave you an answer based on
the law as it now stands. If GW were here today, he would probably
agree with the federal court's holding. As to what they might do back
then, it is impossible to speculate. Surely he knew that the Constitution
was designed to be adapted.
| Quote: | The actions of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore were completely consistent with
the actions of President George Washington in this regards. George Washington
was within the framework of the First Amendment, there was no Constitutional
crises because of his actions.
There was no legal challenge that had any weight. Because he violated no law.
He could do things by Executive order, which the people as their elected
representative gave him the power to do.
|
....which has the full force and effect of law, right?
| Quote: | There was no legislative action that
forbade him. There is no legislative action to this day that would forbid him
to display the Ten Commandments in his official capacity if he wanted to.
You're trying to claim that a President would be forbidden to display the
Ten Commandments in the White House today,
|
No, I am not. What I am saying is that there are limits to any government
official's religious expression -- and if you are going to *create* a forum for
yourself in your official capacity, the Constitution stands in your way.
It's a matter of common sense. Just as you would bitch if a judge unveiled
a three-ton statue of ElRon, you shouldn't do what you would detest if you
were on the receiving end. What part of that do you not understand, Bob?
| Quote: | yet you cannot cite a single law.
Our that 200 years
after his time that Federal Judge could declare it so with the original First
Amendment and Constitution still in place?
Again, the Fourteenth Amendment changed the landscape. Radically.
Where did the Fourteeth Amendment alter the First Amendment? It altered it
nowhere! You cannot cite a single clause! Not even one.
|
If Justice Moore can express his personal religious views in the Rotunda,
while I cannot under force of law, I have been denied the equal protection
of the laws. As such, I will have been made a second-class citizen.
It's really too late in the day to challenge this interpretation of the incor-
poration doctrine, which has been with us for decades.
| Quote: | Infact, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore was denied due process of the law as
defined by the Fourteeth Amendment.
What law did Roy Moore violate? In order for a law to be violated, there has
to be an actual law by legislative act. The Establishment Clause, says there has
to be a law! Read NO LAW:
|
The courts have viewed "no law" as meaning far more than mere legislative
enactments. Again, it is way too late in the day to change that, except through
constitutional amendment.
| Quote: | "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
orprohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the government for a redress of grievances."
There is no violation of the First Amendment, Roy Moore displayed the
the Ten Commandments as an ELECTED represetative of the people.
In other words the people gave him the authority to do it,
|
Did they give him the authority to do it? All they gave him the authority
to do is adjudicate disputes arising under law -- and those administrative
tasks incident to that charge. They didn't give him a license to proselytize
in the Rotunda.
| Quote: | since he violated no law, that authority is completely valid. If the people are
unhappy
with this, they can remove him. But something like 70% of the American
population approve of his actions, and I suspect the approval is much higher in
Alabama.
|
In Alabamastan, where the Aliban hold sway? No doubt. :)
| Quote: | Roy Moore was denied due process of law, as required by the Fourteeth
Admendment, because no law by legislative act could be cited.
That is how far we have drifted from our roots of freedoms.
Ken Smith wrote to Jon Beaver:
It's *not* like we disagree on that being the central question.
If the Examiners don't have the statutory authority to issue such an
order -- on account of the fact that a standardless standard violates
due process, that the Board waived its right to object to my admis-
sion on account of its violation of Rule 201.9(6), or one of the other
bases I enumerated -- it is a violation of my rights. If they do, then
I'm screwed. I can read the law as well as anyone.
I think you're a hypocrite Ken. You're now claiming that you were denied
due process of law because of a legislative omission. You're now claiming
that the Examiners had no right to pick the psychologist or psychiatrist
because the law did not give them the explicit right,
|
That is what you are arguing with respect to Moore: Because it wasn't
literally a "law," federal courts have no power to stop him from shoving
his religious views down everyone else's throats. Well, if you are going
to read all laws that literally, then you are forced to concede that I have
the same protections as Moore. But you won't, because you're a hypo-
crite.
| Quote: | you seem to be saying
that you had the right to pick the psychologist or psychiatrist.
|
I'm saying that they had no right to pick the psychologist, even if the
statute is otherwise constitutional.
| Quote: | Since you
did submit to psychiatric examination by a person of your own choosing,
you are clearly not claiming the law was unconstitutional.
|
Not at all. What I say to a health care professional is private, and
for the most part, cannot be forcibly disclosed. See, HIPPA.
| Quote: | Your reasoning makes no sense, because if everybody could pick
whom they wanted to examine them, the state of Colorado would
have no way of actually determining the validity of the results.
|
Why is that? Any licensed psychiatrist is presumed to be qualified to
perform a mental fitness examination, and believe it or not, they actually
have a code of ethics. If the Board wanted to create a board of mental
health professionals uniquely qualified to determine whether an applicant
was mentally fit to practice law, they could do so via competitive exam.
What they cannot do is simply give lucrative business to their pallies in
exchange of favors or kickbacks, which is what the Colorado scheme,
if constitutional, would necessarily permit.
| Quote: | The people of Colorado have a vested interest in making sure that lawyers
that practice law are infact fit to practice law. The rights of the people
clearly outweigh the right of individual in this case, because not everybody
is infact fit to practice law.
|
Fine. Define "mentally fit to practice law" to constitutional tolerance, in
light of the fact that one could be indirectly punished for his religious and
political views if the definition is too broad.
| Quote: | Also in regards to the Fourteeth amendment, you can't claim that you
were not given due process of law.
|
Due process also requires that the statute being enforced be reasonably
specific. If you leave such matters to the caprice of the government, then
any process is due process.
| Quote: | The Federal Courts have already denied you case. The due process clause of
Fourteeth Amendment does come under Federal Juisdiction, and you're now
claiming that was violated. But the Federal Courts have thrown you're legal
argument out the door.
Let's look at the facts here:
1) You're trying to have an inferior state court overrule state supreme court.
|
No, what I am asking a court of general jurisdiction to do is rule on whether
my federal and/or state rights were violated by state officials acting in what is
an essentially administrative capacity. To hold that they can't be accountable
for their tortious actions is to say that they are above the law.
| Quote: | 2) You're trying to have an inferior state court also over rule a FEDERAL
COURT, which has already ruled you don't have a due process case under the
Fourteeth Amendment.
|
No, it hasn't. What it has ruled is that it doesn't have jurisdiction over the
matter -- which means that whatever they say about the merits of the case
isn't even fit for wrapping fish. :)
| Quote: | Would a competent judge on an inferior state court rule against both the State
Supreme Court and two Federal Judges? I don't think so.
|
You presuppose that the federal judges stated their opinion on the merits,
which is necessarily incorrect as a matter of law.
| Quote: | I think you have extremely little understanding of the law, or the way things
work.
|
Are you suggesting that corruption is a given in the courts? Ask
Thomas Jefferson -- he would agree with you. :)
| Quote: | I also think that you're a world class hypocrirte in the fact you desire
to do away with both due process and equal protection of the law
because you disagree with there positions.
|
What on earth are you saying?
| Quote: | You have made it clear---you are completely against the rule of law,
as well as the concept of liberty for anybody you disagree with.
|
Huh? The sinsemilla must have gotten to you -- you simply have to
stop walking the streets in Huntington. :)
I'm saying that everyone should have the same rights. If John Hattan
gets to erect his statue of Charles Darwin right next to Moore's statue,
and the $cienos get to erect one depicting ElRon, he can have the damn
thing in the rotunda. Content-based restrictions on speech are generally
unconstitutional.
| Quote: | The First Amendment has not been altered by the Fourteeth Amendment as Ken
is now claiming.
|
SCOTUS said that it has been altered -- or to be more specific, it has
been applied to the states as strictly as it was to the federal government.
There have been a few stray dissents to that view (e.g., Harlan's, in Roth
v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)), and if the slate were truly clean,
you could make a coherent argument for your position, but relevant law
has been determined, and it is a fait accompli.
| Quote: | President George Washington was not in violation of
First Amendment then and would not be in violation today as Ken has made the
explicit claim. George Washington was the President of United States, and the
full force
of the First Amendment applied to him as head of the Federal Government.
|
No one is saying that Moore couldn't cite Bible verses from the court-
room. What is being said is that Moore had no right to make the state's
Supreme Court rotunda his into exclusive little private forum, excluding
all opposing views. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John 14 15-21
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2003 7:51 am Post subject: Re: Fourteeth Amendment: Ken Smith vs Roy Moore |
|
|
| Quote: | Ken Smith Ranger57@concentric.net wrote:
You ask a hypothetical question, and I gave you an answer based on
the law as it now stands. If GW were here today, he would probably
agree with the federal court's holding. As to what they might do back
then, it is impossible to speculate. Surely he knew that the Constitution
was designed to be adapted.
|
LOL. Ken, there is no mechanism for any one person or branch of government to
change the Contitution.
The Constitution can be changed by the will of the people. No branch of
government has the power to change the Constitution.
| Quote: | The actions of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore were completely consistent
with
the actions of President George Washington in this regards. George
Washington
was within the framework of the First Amendment, there was no
Constitutional
crises because of his actions.
There was no legal challenge that had any weight. Because he violated no
law.
He could do things by Executive order, which the people as their elected
representative gave him the power to do.
....which has the full force and effect of law, right?
There was no legislative action that
forbade him. There is no legislative action to this day that would forbid
him
to display the Ten Commandments in his official capacity if he wanted to.
You're trying to claim that a President would be forbidden to display the
Ten Commandments in the White House today,
No, I am not. What I am saying is that there are limits to any government
official's religious expression -- and if you are going to *create* a forum
for
yourself in your official capacity, the Constitution stands in your way.
It's a matter of common sense. Just as you would bitch if a judge unveiled
a three-ton statue of ElRon, you shouldn't do what you would detest if you
were on the receiving end. What part of that do you not understand, Bob?
yet you cannot cite a single law.
Our that 200 years
after his time that Federal Judge could declare it so with the original
First
If Justice Moore can express his personal religious views in the Rotunda,
while I cannot under force of law, I have been denied the equal protection
of the laws. As such, I will have been made a second-class citizen.
|
Not at all. All you have to do his get yourself elected. If the people don't
like the way he does things,they remove him.
Thats how it's supposed to work. No person or government has neutral values.
You clearly don't.
The Ten Commandments are not just his personal values. They represent history
and the heritage of America.
That is how representative democracy works when there is no law or legislative
act to interfere with it. That is the case here.
In representative democracy the people are free to reject or accept the values
they choose. It's just a fact. The Constitution under the Tenth and Ninth
amendmend guarantees this.
If the people are unhappy then they either make a law or they get rid of the
offending person.
A judge can only rule on an exiting law. The Federal Judge in this made up his
own law in complete opposition to the Constitution of the United States.
| Quote: |
It's really too late in the day to challenge this interpretation of the
incor-
poration doctrine, which has been with us for decades.
|
Incorrect. Everything can be challenged at anytime.
Judges are forbidden to legislate from the bench.>
| Quote: | The courts have viewed "no law" as meaning far more than mere legislative
enactments. Again, it is way too late in the day to change that, except
through
constitutional amendment.
|
The "courts" nowhere is that power given to the courts. There is a "Wall of
Separation" between the branches of governments, and courts need to be reigned
in. They are forbidden by the Constitution to legislate from the bench.
No person or branch can legislate, judge and then force their will on the
people with the permission of the people
No where has pewrmission been granted for a judge to legislate from the bench.>
| Quote: | Did they give him the authority to do it? All they gave him the authority
to do is adjudicate disputes arising under law -- and those administrative
tasks incident to that charge. They didn't give him a license to proselytize
in the Rotunda.
|
What law says he cannot put up a display of the Ten Commandments?
There is no law. The rule of law depends on a law before you can enforce
something.
His values are Constitutionally protected, as are the Ten Commandment display.
In a representative democracy the people decide what values they want. In this
case they want the Ten Commandments.
If there was a law about this, then fine, then the people have spoken, but
there is no law or anything that forbids this.
| Quote: | since he violated no law, that authority is completely valid. If the people
are
unhappy
with this, they can remove him. But something like 70% of the American
population approve of his actions, and I suspect the approval is much
higher in
Alabama.
In Alabamastan, where the Aliban hold sway? No doubt. :)
|
Why are you against both representative democracy and Constitutional
protections?
| Quote: | Roy Moore was denied due process of law, as required by the Fourteeth
Admendment, because no law by legislative act could be cited.
That is how far we have drifted from our roots of freedoms.
Ken Smith wrote to Jon Beaver:
It's *not* like we disagree on that being the central question.
If the Examiners don't have the statutory authority to issue such an
order -- on account of the fact that a standardless standard violates
due process, that the Board waived its right to object to my admis-
sion on account of its violation of Rule 201.9(6), or one of the other
bases I enumerated -- it is a violation of my rights. If they do, then
I'm screwed. I can read the law as well as anyone.
I think you're a hypocrite Ken. You're now claiming that you were denied
due process of law because of a legislative omission. You're now claiming
that the Examiners had no right to pick the psychologist or psychiatrist
because the law did not give them the explicit right,
That is what you are arguing with respect to Moore: Because it wasn't
literally a "law," federal courts have no power to stop him from shoving
his religious views down everyone else's throats.
|
I don't see a Ten Commandments display as shoving anything down anybodies
throat.
It represents the heritage and values of this country. It's just a fact and you
cannot change. The people who elected Roy Moore by a majority vote want the Ten
Commandments there because it represents their values. That is the way a
representative democracy works.>Well, if you are going
| Quote: | to read all laws that literally, then you are forced to concede that I have
the same protections as Moore. But you won't, because you're a hypo-
crite.
|
When you get elected by the will of the people, then yes, as long as there is
no law that forbids you from doing something.
The hypocrite is you, your the one who wants to force things down people's
throats without either law or the will of the people through representative
democracy.
America is just about you; it's about everybody.
-------------------
Remember: Jesus is Lord!
Romans 10:9-10, John 14:15-21, Acts 2:38, Eph 2:7-10, Matthew 5:3-16, 1Cor 15,
John Chapter Three, Romans Chapter Eight, The Book of First John. :)
http://www.unshackled.org/ Old Time Radio Drama / Lives Changed by Christ
"The Gospel is about what God has done for us and what we
can become in Christ; it's about a relationship with Christ being
the answer to our deepest needs. The Good News offers lost people
what they are frantically searching for: forgiveness, freedom, security,
purpose, love, acceptance, and strength. It settles our past, assures
our future, and gives meaning to today. It is the best news in the WORLD."
-----Pastor Rick Warren
Page 224, The Purpose Driven Church, Copyright 1995, ISBN 0-310-20106-3
K-Love : Christian Music, News and Information.
http://klove.com/
Outstanding Bible Teaching online: Thru the Bible Radio.
http://www.ttb.org/
Multi-Bible Translations including non English.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible
--------
Civil Rights and Christian Activism. "Letter From a Birmingham Jail"
http://hometown.aol.com/thename888/myhomepage/index.html
__________________________________
"Most High, glorious God, enlighten the darkness of my heart, and give me a
right faith, a sure hope, a perfect charity."
----St Francis of Assisi
-
Mathematics do not lie. For an outstanding Statistical Analysis of why
Evolution is false and that the prophecies of God's Holy Prophets are true.
See the following book:
Title : A Skeptic's search for God.
Subtitle: Convincing evidence for his existence.
By Ralph O. Muncaster
ISBN 0-7369-0452-2
Copyright 2002.
Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, Oregon 97402.
---------------
"Reasons last step is the recognition that there is an infinite number of
things that go beyond it"---Blaise Pascal.
http://www.ankerberg.com/The-Gospel-of-Jesus-Christ.html
http://www2.gasou.edu/facstaff/etmcmull/FUCHIDA.htm |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ken Smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2003 5:43 pm Post subject: Re: Fourteeth Amendment: Ken Smith vs Roy Moore |
|
|
Bob Vorie a.k.a. John 14 15-21 wrote:
| Quote: | Ken Smith Ranger57@concentric.net wrote:
You ask a hypothetical question, and I gave you an answer based on
the law as it now stands. If GW were here today, he would probably
agree with the federal court's holding. As to what they might do back
then, it is impossible to speculate. Surely he knew that the Constitution
was designed to be adapted.
LOL. Ken, there is no mechanism for any one person or branch of government to
change the Contitution.
The Constitution can be changed by the will of the people. No branch of
government has the power to change the Constitution.
|
[?!] Uh, I thought I *said* that, more or less.
| Quote: | The actions of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore were completely consistent with
the actions of President George Washington in this regards. George Washington
was within the framework of the First Amendment, there was no Constitutional
crises because of his actions.
There was no legal challenge that had any weight. Because he violated no law.
He could do things by Executive order, which the people as their elected
representative gave him the power to do.
....which has the full force and effect of law, right?
There was no legislative action that
forbade him. There is no legislative action to this day that would forbid him
to display the Ten Commandments in his official capacity if he wanted to.
You're trying to claim that a President would be forbidden to display the
Ten Commandments in the White House today,
No, I am not. What I am saying is that there are limits to any government
official's religious expression -- and if you are going to *create* a forum for
yourself in your official capacity, the Constitution stands in your way.
It's a matter of common sense. Just as you would bitch if a judge unveiled
a three-ton statue of ElRon, you shouldn't do what you would detest if you
were on the receiving end. What part of that do you not understand, Bob?
yet you cannot cite a single law.
Our that 200 years
after his time that Federal Judge could declare it so with the original
First
If Justice Moore can express his personal religious views in the Rotunda,
while I cannot under force of law, I have been denied the equal protection
of the laws. As such, I will have been made a second-class citizen.
Not at all. All you have to do his get yourself elected. If the people don't
like the way he does things,they remove him.
|
IOW, you argue for the religious tyranny of the majority over the
minority. Well, if we felt that way, we could turn things over to the
Shi'ites in Iraq and be done with it, right? They'd take care of the
Sunni Ba'athists proper, and with relative dispatch....
| Quote: | Thats how it's supposed to work. No person or government has neutral values.
You clearly don't.
|
It's curious -- I'm a deist, but my values seem to be more Christian
than yours. In matters of religion, I don't believe that one sect should
be allowed to oppress others.
| Quote: | The Ten Commandments are not just his personal values. They represent history
and the heritage of America.
|
How? I freely concede that it is impossible to understand Western
civilization without a working knowledge of the Bible but yet, the Ten
Commandments are as a practical matter insignificant.
| Quote: | That is how representative democracy works when there is no law or legislative
act to interfere with it. That is the case here.
|
You've forgotten the Bill of Rights -- which is designed to protect
minorities. Remember that we are all a minority of one.
| Quote: | In representative democracy the people are free to reject or accept the values
they choose. It's just a fact. The Constitution under the Tenth and Ninth
amendmend guarantees this.
|
So, you would concur that the "right to privacy" referred to in Roe v.
Wade can be found in the Ninth Amendment? After all, the rights we
speak of are inherently individual rights, and "the people" only give up
those rights which must be ceded in order to live in a civilized society.
The federal government doesn't need control over reproductive rights
to do its job, and the states certainly don't. Seems to me that, even if
you don't like the outcome of Roe, you have to agree that it is constitu-
tionally proper.... :)
| Quote: | If the people are unhappy then they either make a law or they get rid of the
offending person.
A judge can only rule on an exiting law. The Federal Judge in this made up his
own law in complete opposition to the Constitution of the United States.
|
Not in Moore's case. It is the trial court's job to ascertain the facts
and apply existing law to that set of facts, and the appellate court's job
to ensure that he did precisely that. Judges do 'go walkabout', as the
Aussies say, but they rarely do it in higher-profile cases. The federal
judges here did precisely what they were supposed to, respecting the
constraints of stare decisis. Your proper beef is not with the judges,
but applicable SCOTUS precedent.
| Quote: | It's really too late in the day to challenge this interpretation of the incor-
poration doctrine, which has been with us for decades.
Incorrect. Everything can be challenged at anytime.
|
It's simply not the way law works. Professor Gilmore refers to the
"obscure and complex process" by which the law becomes its own
opposite, but remains a body of rational discourse. The law moves
in increments, as opposed to manic-depressive mood swings.
| Quote: | Judges are forbidden to legislate from the bench.
|
Uh, Bob, they do it all the time. When a judge ignores established
precedent, he *is* legislating.
| Quote: | The courts have viewed "no law" as meaning far more than mere legislative
enactments. Again, it is way too late in the day to change that, except
through constitutional amendment.
The "courts" nowhere is that power given to the courts.
|
Jefferson would tend to agree. Marbury v. Madison was a deft
power-grab, and Jefferson foresaw this as the Achilles heel of the
Constitution.
| Quote: | There is a "Wall of
Separation" between the branches of governments, and courts need to be reigned
in. They are forbidden by the Constitution to legislate from the bench.
|
Again, that's simply not true, Bob. What we call the common law
is judge-made law.
| Quote: | No person or branch can legislate, judge and then force their will on the
people with the permission of the people
No where has pewrmission been granted for a judge to legislate from the bench.
Did they give him the authority to do it? All they gave him the authority
to do is adjudicate disputes arising under law -- and those administrative
tasks incident to that charge. They didn't give him a license to proselytize
in the Rotunda.
What law says he cannot put up a display of the Ten Commandments?
There is no law. The rule of law depends on a law before you can enforce
something.
|
And the law we are talking about is, in a sense, OUR Ten Commandments.
The First Amendment says in effect, "Thou shalt not...." :)
| Quote: | His values are Constitutionally protected, as are the Ten Commandment display.
In a representative democracy the people decide what values they want.
|
And the "rights" of the individual are non-existent. In Bob's World,
might makes right and the ends justify the means.
| Quote: | In this case they want the Ten Commandments.
If there was a law about this, then fine,
|
Well, there is a law. It's called the First Amendment, as applied to
the states by virtue of the Fourteenth.
| Quote: | then the people have spoken, but there is no law or anything that forbids this.
|
In your view. The courts have consistently disagreed.
| Quote: | since he violated no law, that authority is completely valid. If the people
are
unhappy with this, they can remove him. But something like 70% of the American
population approve of his actions, and I suspect the approval is much
higher in Alabama.
In Alabamastan, where the Aliban hold sway? No doubt. :)
Why are you against both representative democracy and Constitutional
protections?
|
[?!] What I am for is limited government -- it's part and parcel
of being a Republican -- and for government officials to go about
the business of doing those few things we need them to do to go
about the legitimate business of government. The promotion of a
particular religious superstition is extracurricular activity, and has
no place in a legitimate government.
| Quote: | Roy Moore was denied due process of law, as required by the Fourteeth
Admendment, because no law by legislative act could be cited.
That is how far we have drifted from our roots of freedoms.
Ken Smith wrote to Jon Beaver:
It's *not* like we disagree on that being the central question.
If the Examiners don't have the statutory authority to issue such an
order -- on account of the fact that a standardless standard violates
due process, that the Board waived its right to object to my admis-
sion on account of its violation of Rule 201.9(6), or one of the other
bases I enumerated -- it is a violation of my rights. If they do, then
I'm screwed. I can read the law as well as anyone.
I think you're a hypocrite Ken. You're now claiming that you were denied
due process of law because of a legislative omission. You're now claiming
that the Examiners had no right to pick the psychologist or psychiatrist
because the law did not give them the explicit right,
That is what you are arguing with respect to Moore: Because it wasn't
literally a "law," federal courts have no power to stop him from shoving
his religious views down everyone else's throats.
I don't see a Ten Commandments display as shoving anything down anybodies
throat.
|
But others do. Personally, I think it's really pretty close to the line of
what is acceptable -- but then again, I'm hardly the kind of fanatic who
crosses the word "God" off of five-dollar bills.
What you need to understand is that a stable society requires a stable
rule of law -- one which is reasonably predictable. I need to be able to
rely on what statutes, duly explained and interpreted by the courts, tell
me what the law is. If the law is subject to overly violent mood-swings,
the value of predictability is lost.
| Quote: | It represents the heritage and values of this country. It's just a fact and you
cannot change.
|
It doesn't represent anything -- at least not with any clarity.
| Quote: | The people who elected Roy Moore by a majority vote want the Ten
Commandments there because it represents their values. That is the way a
representative democracy works.
|
Well, that's not how our democratic republic works. Democracy
is the tyranny of the majority. Perceiving this, the Framers created
certain "legislation-free zones" where government cannot go. That
is, in essence, the Bill of Rights.
| Quote: | Well, if you are going
to read all laws that literally, then you are forced to concede that I have
the same protections as Moore. But you won't, because you're a hypo-
crite.
When you get elected by the will of the people, then yes, as long as there is
no law that forbids you from doing something.
|
But the First Amendment -- interpreted by the courts as it must be,
on account of its inherent vagueness -- *is* that law. For good or ill,
the courts have read "no law" to also contemplate executive actions
which carry the full force and effect of law.
| Quote: | The hypocrite is you, your the one who wants to force things down people's
throats without either law or the will of the people through representative
democracy.
|
How so? The only concept I am arguing for here is to protect the
individual from "the tyranny of the majority" with respect to speech,
religious practice, and conscience.
| Quote: | America is just about you; it's about everybody.
|
And at the end of the day, everybody is a minority of one. If the
rights of the individual are not protected by the courts, who will do
so? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
