DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**attanilifardy** · 10-22-2005, 12:00 AM

Don't like Meirs? How about me?

Okay ... who are you the bait-and-switch for?

If I were appointed to the US Supreme Court (which is bloody unlikely me being Canadian and all), here's a brief outline of my Constitutional views on a few of the 'hot button' topics of the day.

Fun!

1. Roe v. Wade is toast. I personally have no issues with abortion, but the constitutional grounds of this decision is abominable and ought to be struck down.

Though I despise legislating from the bench

... I see nothing unconstitutional about Roe.

Okay ... maybe that's contradictory ... ...

What I mean is, as long as the newly conceived is not recognized by the SCOTUS as a "legal" person, even though the newly conceived is most definitely a human being, then there's nothing Constitutionally wrong with including abortion is Roe's list of privacy behaviors.

2. Gun Laws? Although you certainly can convince me that a citizen ought to have the right to bear arms, I'm not convinced that the 2nd Amendment supports this interpretation in its entirety.

That being said, I don't see any prohibition against State statutory perogative here.

You're right, it doesn't.

The Consitution is a stand-alone document, explicitly written to be that way.

The 2nd Amendment, when interpreted correctly, using only the rules of English grammar, syntax and vocabulary, without any always-specious reference to intent or other "off-line" documents, clearly says that it's all about Congressionally sanctioned militias: what is exclusively today the state and national guard.

The 2nd Amendment in no way grants individual citizens the right to carry and use a gun.

The priviledge of carrying and using a gun can be legislated at any level, state or federal, without violating the Constitution.

Keep in mind, that gun-toting is not a right.

3. Same-sex marriage? I believe it is within the jurisdiction of any given State to permit or deny such application by statute.

The Constitution cares not one way or the other. Legislation can be at either level.

However ... religions have no authority under federal separation laws to present "we own the word marriage" to the fed and Constitutionally expect to be given serious consideration.

4. Prayer in school? In the interest of preserving both, I'm a strict separationist. Without a doubt, formal or organised prayer sessions in a public school is a violation of the spirit of the 'establishment' clause.

Nope -- wrong.

The 1st Amendment makes it clear that the fed can't make religion relevant.

But religion is rightly defined as a philosophy that reflects the two tenets of 1) souls and, 2) before/after life.

There is nothing about "God" or "A Higher Power" or the like that makes a philosophy a religion, as hard as this simple fact is for most to comprehend.

Thus it is okay to simply pray to God in school ... providing Jesus or Mohammed or the like, as with specific other religion's other specific identifying reference isn't made ... even if it pisses-off atheists.

This is because God is not owned by religion.

"Jesus" and "Mohammed" are specific religious terms, etc. that are owned by religion, but God is not.

That's why "In God We Trust" is okay on money ... but why it is not okay to swear the President in on the Bible.

****

Ooops, gotta go -- my girlfriend says it's Oktoberfest party time!

I'll finish with you later.

10-22-2005, 12:00 AM	#20
attanilifardy Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 505 Senior Member	Don't like Meirs? How about me? Okay ... who are you the bait-and-switch for? If I were appointed to the US Supreme Court (which is bloody unlikely me being Canadian and all), here's a brief outline of my Constitutional views on a few of the 'hot button' topics of the day. Fun! 1. Roe v. Wade is toast. I personally have no issues with abortion, but the constitutional grounds of this decision is abominable and ought to be struck down. Though I despise legislating from the bench ... I see nothing unconstitutional about Roe. Okay ... maybe that's contradictory ... ... What I mean is, as long as the newly conceived is not recognized by the SCOTUS as a "legal" person, even though the newly conceived is most definitely a human being, then there's nothing Constitutionally wrong with including abortion is Roe's list of privacy behaviors. 2. Gun Laws? Although you certainly can convince me that a citizen ought to have the right to bear arms, I'm not convinced that the 2nd Amendment supports this interpretation in its entirety. That being said, I don't see any prohibition against State statutory perogative here. You're right, it doesn't. The Consitution is a stand-alone document, explicitly written to be that way. The 2nd Amendment, when interpreted correctly, using only the rules of English grammar, syntax and vocabulary, without any always-specious reference to intent or other "off-line" documents, clearly says that it's all about Congressionally sanctioned militias: what is exclusively today the state and national guard. The 2nd Amendment in no way grants individual citizens the right to carry and use a gun. The priviledge of carrying and using a gun can be legislated at any level, state or federal, without violating the Constitution. Keep in mind, that gun-toting is not a right. 3. Same-sex marriage? I believe it is within the jurisdiction of any given State to permit or deny such application by statute. The Constitution cares not one way or the other. Legislation can be at either level. However ... religions have no authority under federal separation laws to present "we own the word marriage" to the fed and Constitutionally expect to be given serious consideration. 4. Prayer in school? In the interest of preserving both, I'm a strict separationist. Without a doubt, formal or organised prayer sessions in a public school is a violation of the spirit of the 'establishment' clause. Nope -- wrong. The 1st Amendment makes it clear that the fed can't make religion relevant. But religion is rightly defined as a philosophy that reflects the two tenets of 1) souls and, 2) before/after life. There is nothing about "God" or "A Higher Power" or the like that makes a philosophy a religion, as hard as this simple fact is for most to comprehend. Thus it is okay to simply pray to God in school ... providing Jesus or Mohammed or the like, as with specific other religion's other specific identifying reference isn't made ... even if it pisses-off atheists. This is because God is not owned by religion. "Jesus" and "Mohammed" are specific religious terms, etc. that are owned by religion, but God is not. That's why "In God We Trust" is okay on money ... but why it is not okay to swear the President in on the Bible. **** Ooops, gotta go -- my girlfriend says it's Oktoberfest party time! I'll finish with you later.
	Quote