June 28, 2005
I've Been Thinking, and That Is Bad!
Yep, I have been thinking . . . politics. Now, I got most of my readers from being personal (all 5 of you *wink*) But I got my troll from being political and he's gone and got himself a really great blog so he isn't my troll anymore.
So I am going to get all current events yet again this week, probably to the chagrin of my 5 readers.
I went home and thought about the Supreme Court again yesterday. See, I am utterly perplexed by their "interpretation" of our Constitution.
Let me just start by saying the Constitution is our founding document. It is our law and in it, the Supreme Court is charged with certain duties. They are not all powerful! They should note this for the day when G-d or one of our founding fathers decides enough is enough and strikes them down, but I digress.
I am angry, really genuinely angry. I make my profession in the law. No joke, when I was very young I told anyone that would listen that I wanted to sit on the Supreme Court someday, a pretty lofty goal for a 6 year old. Now, I want to dissolve the Supreme Court, as it is as asinine as the other politicians in Washington. (but if the Prez, wants me for the post, I am so there!)
Let's get back to yesterday, for those of you who are unaware, the First Amendment very clearly says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
This is key, no where, and I mean no where, I looked several times, does this clause say: the government must remain neutral with respect to religion. SCOTUS just yesterday said this was the overriding principal. Really? Where is it in the Constitution, I looked but couldn't find it!
Let's break it down for the ninnies on the bench. The first phrase: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The Founding Father's fleeing the government called the "Church of England" understood that a state controlled, sponsored, sanctioned, created . . . religion is not a good thing. It does not say the government can't respect religion, or allow its presence in public. Nor does it say if a religious article is on public grounds that equals the establishment of religion. It just doesn't say it.
The next phrase: or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Now, class, it doesn't say "except in courthouses, public schools, county municipal buildings, etc . . . but for works of art or historical nature. It isn't there, I checked again. It says, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That means the people of this great nation should be free to exercise their religion anywhere and in any means they feel inclined to without the interference of the government. (unless the exercise thereof breaks a different law like murder - for those of you following the death of the nun in Europe who was 'gettin the demon out')
Oh, yes, the Constitution also doesn't say, but we'll make an exception if you are a whiny be-yotch who feels offended by my exercise thereof.
The words are plain, there is no ambiguity here. No need for interpretation. Our Founding Father's were mindful of the oppression that One religion so intertwined with the government engendered.
We don't have that here. Sure we have phrases alluding to God, sure we have the occassional Ten Commandments plaque. But we don't have state sponsored religion. Saying "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge doesn't change that fact.
Perhaps when the Supremes said neutral they were referring to that second phrase in the First Amendment. If they were, they still got it wrong. Because they have acted to restrict someone's free exercise of religion.
I am all for the Ten Commandments, the Star of David, Menorah's, Buddah's, medicine wheels, little Hare Krishna's, the Goddess of Fertility, or even a picture of Satan himself being placed smack dab in the middle of the county lawn. That is free exercise of religion, anyone's religion and since it is a public place, owned by the public, the public should get to put anything they want out there and participate fully in that right. It may not be my religion, but it is someone's. And for those with no religion, big smiley faces all around.
This Country was founded on religious tolerance. While we have not always been tolerant, in today's world, it is clear that Christianity is no longer tolerated at all.
Get this straight, all you whiney bastards talking about "separation of church an state," and "I shouldn't have to say the pledge, it hurts my feelings. . ."
Symbols of religion, even statements of religious nature do not "create" or endorse that religion for the masses. They are just symbols and statements, nothing more to you, a whole lot more to some.
In less than one week, the Supreme Court has managed to eliminate property rights and religious rights for Americans. What is next? I will tell you, an avalanche of religious litigation to determine whose cross is historic and who has a pretty picture of an angel and whose plaque of the Ten Commandments is too religious. Disgusting. That we are even having these fights is disgusting.
We have babies dieing because they have no food. We have terrorists bent on killing us because we happen to be Americans or associated with Americans. We have better things to worry about, we really do. But no, we focus our attention on a plaque of the Ten Commandments. For all some people know it was just the title to some movie Charleton Heston made back when he was really nice looking . . . I digress again.
The Commandments are not a threat. They don't shoot flames, bombs, shed articles of clothing, hell they don't even sing! What's more, they can be avoided by a simple "look the other way." You know like libs. do when Dickhead Durbin slanders our military and then sorta apologizes.
I'm sick of all of this. And I am hungry! So that means I'm done ranting for now, but I warn you, any of you, I may be back with more politics soon! It is getting me set for the next election cycle after all!
Posted by Oddybobo at June 28, 2005 01:39 PM
Actually it's much simpler than you posit.
When the framers wrote the Constitution they said "Congress shall make no law". No law means just that, no law. Since the courts are instituted to ajudicate law, this means that the Federal Courts have no jurisdiction. None. How could they? No law means nothing to ajudicate. Period.
State and local governments should simply ignore these rulings. They have no basis in law.
Any Federal official trying to enforce such rulings should be arrested and charged with extortion, tresspassing or destruction of property. Judges engaged in meddling where they clearly have no jurisdiction, no law means no jurisdiction, should be arrested and charged with oppression under the color of governement or barratry except that I don't recall the exact spelling.
I never thought of it in that vein but I like it.
Wow, thanks for such nice comments about my blog, as well as the linkie-luv :-) I don't know that I'm worthy of either, but thanks again.
Hey, I'll *always* be your "troll" ;-)
Good rant! I'm looking forward to more future political views from a lawyer I truly admire :-) Blog ON, friend....
Oddybobo for Supreme Court Justice! Seriously girl, you make me proud! :-)
Hi,
I had never been here before but when my on-line friend/adversary "The Gun-Toting Liberal" suggested you for Chief Justice of the SCOTUS I thought I'd come over and take a look-see.
Enjoyed reading this rant about the Ten Commandments decision and thought I'd engage you with a bit of 'Devils Advocacy.'
You're right that nowhere in the Constitution does it say "the government must remain neutral with respect to religion." and it's questionable that that is an "overriding principal" but it seems to me to be a great idea.
If the government does not remain neutral, the opposite will logically have to be true, e.g., they will be free to play favorites. That seems like a real bad idea.
On the other hand, if all religious symbology was banished from all public venues what harm would be done. People are free to practice their religion in their churches, in their homes and within their families and circles of equally religious friends -- there is just no logical reason to plant a religious tableau (any religion) in a public place. Religion is not (IMO) and should not be a public thing -- it's everyone's personal relationship with their God or with life or with nature or with whatever, to them, is worthy of their worship, praise and respect.
Here's another benefit of not allowing public religious displays: there are lots and lots of religions -- if you allow one, you must allow them all. Imagine you go to your court house and, there on the lawn, beside the front door, is some really vile statue from the Church of Satan (Lucifer deflowering a virgin or something like that.) Happy now? You did say: "the people of this great nation should be free to exercise their religion anywhere and in any means they feel inclined to without the interference of the government."
Watch what you ask for!
Realistically, you're advocating the completely unregulated exercise of religion and while that sounds really nifty and American we simply must realize that religion is, literally, anything you want it to be. Either that or we could have the Congress 'define' religion.
No I don't really have any answers to these quandaries! You're the future SCOTUS justice -- you tell me.
BTW: All jousting aside, I like the way you think and if I was POTUS you'd certainly qualify to be nominated for SCOTUS.
Smile: You've been Blogrolled!
Christianity is not tolerated? Er, yeah... WHEN is a Christian FINALLY going to get elected President??
Keep your 10 Commandments in your church (the generic "you") and maybe take a look at them once in awhile. "Love thy neighbor" doesn't exclude homosexuals, Jews, blacks, women, Muslims, liberals, etc.
"Under God" is not part of the original Pledge. It was added by the Knights of Columbus in the '50s. It's intrusive. I don't protest it, I just tell my kids they don't need to say that part.
The only people who are trying to push their agenda on anyone are the Evangelical Christians. Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Want to pray? Knock yourself out. Don't want gay people to get married? Take a look at your own marriage and question why you are so threatened by what other people do.
I am sick and tired of my country being hijacked by religious zealots. I honestly wish the rest of us could secede.
Yay! Someone who doesn't read my post but rants nonetheless.
This country hasn't been hijacked by religious zealots, unless of course you mean the ones who killed 3000 people on 9-11 or the ones whiney fundies on the left are sympathetic towards.
By all means, secede. Please. I promise not to miss you. While you are gone, perhaps you should take a reading comprehension class. Because your comment had nothing to do with my post. But hey, free country and all . . .
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
First, the Constitution is law in the sense that it is a framework within which other laws are made. The laws are passed by Congress, and Congress can even ammend the Constitution. The Judicial is a check-and-balance that reviews cases, especially ones based on laws that seem to conflict with the Constitution.
So, you are not going to find many specific references to your daily piccadellos in the Constitution, like "Where does it say the government should be religious-neutral?"
If the Congress makes no laws respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, it IS neutral. That's what the words mean.
"It does not say the government can't respect religion, or allow its presence in public. Nor does it say if a religious article is on public grounds that equals the establishment of religion. It just doesn't say it."
"The next phrase: or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Now, class, it doesn't say "except in courthouses, public schools, county municipal buildings, etc . . . but for works of art or historical nature. It isn't there, I checked again. It says, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That means the people of this great nation should be free to exercise their religion anywhere and in any means they feel inclined to without the interference of the government. (unless the exercise thereof breaks a different law like murder - for those of you following the death of the nun in Europe who was 'gettin the demon out')"
Actually, as far as I know, what you say is true, with one catch. If your practice of displaying religious artifacts or holding religious ceremonies at public facilities is challenged by other citizens, it becomes a civil legal matter in which the local resolution could end up in the Courts where fairness to ALL citizens must be taken into account.
If I'm not mistaken, in such cases, most courts rule that religious artifacts can be displayed if everybody else has an opportunity to display their religious artifacts. In most cases, this is not practical and opens up a whole new can of worms.
That is why we got that kinda "iffy" read from the SCOTUS on the Ten Commandments thing. It kinda depends on how the artifact is displayed. AND it all starts with a Civil complaint, that is not necessarily a Constitutional crisis.
If one checks with the ACLU, one will find that they don't even enter into such issues unless there is a Civil challenge to the status quo.
Actually Ghost, "if one checks with the ACLU," one will find that the ACLU never enters a matter on the side of christian freedoms, so thanks, but I won't be checking with the ACLU.
The SCOTUS is charged with interpreting the Constitution (Since Marbury) not adding to it!
While all of you kids are looking at the trees, let me show you the forest.
Why is there such a stink about the stone tablets in a courthouse when each and every POTUS has sworn to support and defend the constitution with his hand on a Christian bible?
There it is right there...a forest.
When this country elects a non-christian president, I'll eat a friggin' football helmet.
If SCOTUS was hitherto unaware of a question of promoting a particular religion as being the "official religion of the US government" it is because every Chief Justice who has ever sworn in a President was as dumb as a bag of hammers.
