The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[MachZer0]

From atheists to the religious to heck, Rush Limbaugh, that is in fact their charter.

So when the ACLU fights to have the Ten Commandments removed from a public building, which law did Congress pass respecting an establishment of religion that allowed the display, which would be a "strict" interpretation of the Constitution?

 

[Doctrine1st]

So when the ACLU fights to have the Ten Commandments removed from a public building, which law did Congress pass respecting an establishment of religion that allowed the display, which would be a "strict" interpretation of the Constitution?

Kind of hard to follow your question. Congress passed an amendment. Congress passed no law allowing the display, that's why it was removed. In fact, that's why it was placed there in the middle of the night.

 

[notto]

So when the ACLU fights to have the Ten Commandments removed from a public building, which law did Congress pass respecting an establishment of religion that allowed the display, which would be a "strict" interpretation of the Constitution?

The law that put the judge there to make the personal decision to push his religious views in a public courthouse.

 

[MachZer0]

Kind of hard to follow your question. Congress passed an amendment.

What amendment?

Congress passed no law allowing the display, that's why it was removed.

So, by a strict interpretation of the Constitution, there was no violation, since Congress passed no law

In fact, that's why it was placed there in the middle of the night.

I did not refer to any specific case

 

[MachZer0]

The law that put the judge there to make the personal decision to push his religious views in a public courthouse.

Which law is that. specifically, since in may cases these are state judges, put in office by state laws and state elections?

 

[Doctrine1st]

What amendment?

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting 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.

So, by a strict interpretation of the Constitution, there was no violation, since Congress passed no law

See above.

I did not refer to any specific case

You didn't have to.

 

[MachZer0]

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting 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.

See above.

So which law did Congress pass that respected an establishment of religion and allowed a judge to display the Ten commandments?

 

[TeddyKGB]

The ACLU does not uphold rights based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution. that is clear

Yeah, they got the silly idea at some point that case law must also be considered.

 

[MachZer0]

Yeah, they got the silly idea at some point that case law must also be considered.

By that, are you agreeing with me that the ACLU does not follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution?

 

[Doctrine1st]

So which law did Congress pass that respected an establishment of religion and allowed a judge to display the Ten commandments?

The same admendment, except, he needs to display the commandments other than within Government buildings. Churches are usually good places.

 

[MachZer0]

The same admendment, except, he needs to display the commandments other than within Government buildings. Churches are usually good places.

I don't know to which amendment you refer. Can you be specific, rather than vague?

 

[Doctrine1st]

I don't know to which amendment you refer. Can you be specific, rather than vague?

The same one I provided and you quoted in post #110.

 

[MachZer0]

The same one I provided and you quoted in post #110.

Then I'll ask again, which law did Congress pass that respects the establishment of religion thus allowing judges to display the Ten Commandments, and that the ACLU claims to be unconstitutional, using, of course, a strict interpretation of the Constitution

 

[Doctrine1st]

Then I'll ask again, which law did Congress pass that respects the establishment of religion thus allowing judges to display the Ten Commandments, and that the ACLU claims to be unconstitutional, using, of course, a strict interpretation of the Constitution

It's part of the rattified constitution by the early states, no congressional law needs to be passed only approval.

 

[MachZer0]

It's part of the rattified constitution by the early states, no congressional law needs to be passed only approval.

Your argument is very confusing. Are you saying that the 1st Amendment allows judges to display the Ten Commandments. If not, then what law has Congress passed violating the 1st Amendment which does allow them to do so giving the ACLU, using a strict interpretation of the 1st Amendment, ammunition for its lawsuits?

 

[Doctrine1st]

Your argument is very confusing. Are you saying that the 1st Amendment allows judges to display the Ten Commandments.

One last time.

Yes it does allow them to display the 10Cs. In fact it allows everyone to freely pratice their religion. However, not to the extent where as a representative of Government, placement can be construed as endorsement by the institution the official respresents: the Government.

If not, then what law has Congress passed violating the 1st Amendment which does allow them to do so giving the ACLU, using a strict interpretation of the 1st Amendment, ammunition for its lawsuits?

You seem to be stuck on something that never transpired. Congress hasn't passed anything, it's the first amendment and the issue is Government officials endorsing religon as a Goverment official on Government property.

They can display the 10Cs in their personal front yards, the hoods of their cars, or have it embroidered on their thermo underwear.

 

[kermit]

So which law did Congress pass that respected an establishment of religion and allowed a judge to display the Ten commandments?

Does the 1st Amendment exist is a vacuum?

It has been made abundantly clear to you on multiple occastions the 14th amendment applies the entire frederal constitution and all federal laws to state and local governments. So when a state justice uses state money to place a religious icon on state land he is indeed violating the 1st Amendment when the 14th is applied.

Why do "strict constructions" ignore entire parts the constitution when it suits their needs?

 

[nvxplorer]

The ACLU does not uphold rights based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution. that is clear

Oh, it's clear alright. The courts uphold rights, not the ACLU.

 

[TeddyKGB]

By that, are you agreeing with me that the ACLU does not follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution?

Man, I really hate these legalistic word games.

You mean do they interpret like Scalia does? Probably not. But then "strict interpretation" (nee strict construction) has come to mean little more than "how Scalia interprets" anyway.

 

[Brimshack]

So when the ACLU fights to have the Ten Commandments removed from a public building, which law did Congress pass respecting an establishment of religion that allowed the display, which would be a "strict" interpretation of the Constitution?

Ignoring for the moment the probably attempt here to ignore the 14th Amendment, the answer to your question would be the enabling legislation which keeps those buildings operating. If they are run in such a manner, then each and every expenditure of public funds (a process carried out by law) is in fact a LAW which violates the 1st Amendment.