To my understanding, there is no 'right to privacy' enumerated in the constitution.

I should very much like to see a 'right to privacy' enshrined in the US Constitution, but I don't see one there now. That's why the decision is an abomination of law (or legislating from the bench).

Not necessarily. If powers not explicitly deliminated to the Federal branch are reserved to the States, then the Federal government has no authority in such an 'unmentioned' policy area.

No, it specifically denies establishment.

No, religion has a wider definition than the one you permit - philosophically or otherwise. Your inclusion of "rightly" betrays your subjective bias.

No that is technically true, but only one specific religion prays in this specific way to these specific conceptions (Christianity) and thus, for the State or organise or mandate a 'prayer session' through the Public School system, it is organising and mandating a specific and identifiable religion, and this is a violation of the principle of separation.

Indeed, I shall also draw upon the right of free association (which is listed as a right in the Constitution) to assert that any citizen ought to have the right to associate with all public organs and institutions of the State without being required to submit to 'forced prayer' (or 'citing a pledge' for that matter).

I emphatically disagree.

This argument is spurious.

Not quite. It can be on the coinage because coinage originates and technically operates as a private enterprise in the USA. Thus there is no violation here on the strict legal terms that coinage is not explicitly a creation of the State.

No doubt. http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...s/rolleyes.gif

The US Government may be an 'experiment' as you put it, but the Constitition is an explicit legal document. It is not a 'guideline', it is the highest law of the land - nothing 'experimental' about that.

Indeed, what the "prominent authors intended" seems obvious and contradictory to a wide variety of people. That's why I'm inclined to concentrate on the text itself for the basis of law. Much more solid ground there.

I disagree. The US Constitution is not a novel with 'themes' or plots. It is an explicit legal document that may only be ammended in a specific manner and process.

I don't see this. The recent issue (or decisions in respect) of eminent domain betrays your assertion here.

Providing the Constitution allows it, tort reform at the federal level only ... but what if the reform conflicts with state law? http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/eek.gif ... http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...es/biggrin.gif

Selective liability -- doesn't sound Constitutional ... but I just don't know.


Not sure if the Constitution can be construed to deny the pledge on impingement of free association ... without also taking out the patriotic songs the kids have to sing each morning ... etc.

Perhaps that Roe thing allows silence in general as a part of privacy.

I despise the reason "under God" was added to the pledge ... but I can see no Constitutional violation thereby, as there is no First Amendment religion violation becauase God is simply not owned by religion. After all, "man" is mentioned in religions everywhere, but the Constitution is all about what "man" can and cannot do. That's hardly a First Amendment violation, and neither is the use of God in the pledge, as neither God or man is owned by any religion or all religions, as "man" was praying to "God" long before religions came along to comment on the relationship.


I suppose that's the case ... from an archaic libertarian perspective.

But the Articles of Confederation was replaced by the national Constitution over 200 years ago.

This isn't a loose confederation of states -- our democratic republic is a nation, a country.

And, as populations grow more dense and technology both continues to make us more united and make geopolitical land and resource management for the country as a whole centrally easy ... the states will soon be rendered county-like ... the electoral college will be abolished ... the US will become a state of the UN ... all which the Constitution will support via the amendment process, if necessary.

Thus, seeing how the Presidential election is a national matter that affects the federal national government about which the SCOTUS is the supreme judge, the SCOTUS was not in violation of the Constitution in becoming involved in this dispute to judge whether the state of Florida conducted itself properly in the process.

And remember, like it or not Mr. Libertarian, in matters of statute-based procedural conflict, the federal overrides the state ... and this is true because we are a country, not a loose confederation of states.

That being said, I didn't like the outcome of the 2000 election ... but that's irrelevant.


Is "partisan acrimony" a violation of the Constitution or supported by it?

If no or yes respectively, then you, as a SCOTUS judge would be technically Constitutionally out of bounds with your note to Congress.


Hmmm ... I can't tell whether you're better than Miers or not ... ... which I guess, thereby, is a sad statement on either the state of executive intelligence or how sickeningly extreme politicians will play everyone in a bait-switch scenario.

Absolutely incorrect ... and a neophyte's mistake.

Read the First Amendement's religion clause again -- this time with correct application of the rules of English grammar, syntax and vocabulary -- and you should easily see, I hope, that the word "establishment" is a noun, not a verb.

Thus this clause isn't about the act of "establishing" -- creating or designating -- a religion at all. This clause is simply not about taking "action".

"Establishment" is used here as in a business is an "establishment".

Thus the focus isn't on the act of establishing, but on the establishment -- the entity itself -- that is the religion or religious organization.

Thus, to satisfy both spirit and letter of the law, the fed cannot make religion or a religious organization relevant, whether or not the fed "established" the religion.

The many writers who eventually agreed on the Constitution's wording constituted a community of sheer genius.

Simply follow the rules of English grammar, syntax and vocabulary, and the Constitution reveals itself without any need to ideologically exit the Constitution for "reference" http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...s/rolleyes.gif ... and this was just how the writers as a community group intended.


The SCOTUS is the highest court in the land ... and so it should reflect the highest level of intelligence in its application of English vocabulary meanings.

An idiot can argue that a cat is a dog ... but how idiotic would that be for the SCOTUS to give that argument consideration on a ruling involving federally mandated collar and leash laws for cats.

We can't have the SCOTUS quibbling over its imagination of what is "common interpretation" ... as such is subject to preconceived ideological filtering.

And if Manny Moron says that having a group conversation with God is a "religious" practice just because he thinks so, that's no reason to override a recent unanimous decision by a recent modern council of duly authorized representatives of every religion in the world, a unanimous decision that reference to God is not indicative of a philosophy being a religion.

The SCOTUS, as does the Constitution, must allow for changing times and stay current in referential vocabulary translations, and not merely appeal to archaic errors of perception that are, thus, no longer applicable when revealed or that appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Thus the modern globally accepted encyclopedic of what constitutes a religion is what the SCOTUS must use in interpreting the meaning of "religion" in the Constitution, to keep the timeless document of the Constitution, written as it specifically was to be timeless, just that: timeless.

As for that bias you mentioned ... it looks like it's mirror time for you again.


Christianity does not own the word "prayer", and it never did.

Likewise, no religion owns prayer, and it never has.

And prayer looks like it does everywhere because of the way 'men are made and God is, whether the prayer is being performed within a religious ceremony or not, so a "prayer session", by descriptive nature, can only be "religious" if performed in association with religious articles.

Keep in mind that prayer is the function of "speaking" to God, just like meditation is the function of "listening" to God.

These functions existed and were executed by 'man long before religion was created and began to comment about these functions.

Religion did not create prayer and meditation, nor did it pop up at the same time -- religion showed up eons later.

That's why God and non-religious relationships with God -- such as prayer and meditation -- are conducted by so many outside of any religious influence and without reference to religious articles (religious articles like Jesus, Mohammed, Mary, Moses, etc.). That's because God transcends religion and any other ideological conceptualization, just like 'man transcends both. Both 'man and God existed long before religion and they will likely survive and remain in constant communication when religion disappears, as both 'man and God really have nothing to definitively do with religion.

And again, as that recent wise council reiterated, the existence of God does not imply a soul or before/after life for 'man, soul and before/after life being the two tenets a philsophy requires to qualify as a religion in the modern here-and-now encyclopedic definition of religion.

Thus there is no conflict of interest violation of the First Amendment with regard to prayer and meditation in federally funded schools providing there is no religious article reference in the process, as prayer and meditation is not "owned" by religion and can and does most definitely exist apart from it.


Your libertarian bias is obvious here in your implied blind worship of private enterprise that causes you to miss the clear text of the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to coin money.

Whether the fed farms out the process to a private company is absolutely irrelevant.

That private company does not have the right to "coin" money, nor does it have any say in what is inscribed on our money.

The Constitution authorizes the federal government to create statutes that describe what is to be on the face of each piece of money.

Thus the fed itself authorizes what is to be printed on the money, not some private company, and so the fed alone is responsible for our money's depiction.

So the appearance of God on our money is not because some private company made that decision, a private company being "separate" from the federal government -- that's simply preposterous http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...es/biggrin.gif http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...es/biggrin.gif http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...es/biggrin.gif .

God appears on our money because the federal government decreed the word would be there ... and it is Constitutionally acceptable for the fed to do that because God is not owned by religion in any way and is not part and parcel of religion, and thus there is no violation of the First Amendment's religion clause by placing God on the money.

It's really just that simple.


Was there ever any. http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

...and you would be incorrect.

It appears that I am growing on you. Like a zit.

1. No.
2. This view has been consistent for over 200 years.

Then why did you bother to comment? (this question is meant to be rhetorical).

Okie-dokie!

Neither, but it is something that seems to be harming the body politic.

That is why the statement was given as an aside. http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...s/rolleyes.gif

What's in an insult?
A slander by any other word,
Would still smell foul.
And Mad_Michael is many things called,
But still retains that dear condescention,
That annoys fools, jesters and trolls.

Bemused giggles.

The Constitution is a technical political-legal document. Try checking out the specific technical political-legal meaning of the word - specifically in its 18th century context when the word was in current usage.

(Hint: The Pilgrims on the Mayflower came to the New World in specfic objection to the establishment of the Church in England)

Perhaps the 'framers' under-estimated the nature of English language to 'transform' itself over the centuries?

Oh gosh! The thought of "preconceived ideological filtering" in the appointment of a judge to the Supreme Court? Never! http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...s/rolleyes.gif

God - in the singular and capitalised form - indicates only one of three (or one in the same) monotheist religions - known euphemistically as "of the book" (Judaism, Christianity and Islam).

Having prayer sessions that are not specifically at the right time of the day (and bums-up and facing Mecca), that rules out one of them, so you are specifically identifying the Judeo-Christian God and/or the Judeo-Christian religious 'faction' with any offical prayers. This moves specifically towards 'establishment'.

So the Constitution is only a 'guideline'??? http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/eek.gif


Do you pray 'bums-up' and facing Mecca?

Bemused giggles. I'll try to keep this in mind. http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/wink.gif


My "implied blind worship of private enterprise"... that one's rich. I'm sure there are a few here that might howl upon reading that one! http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...es/biggrin.gif

Oh the irony... the irony of it all.

They have no more 'right' to coin money than Coca-cola has a right to sell soft drinks.

Nowadays, yes.

You might want to review the history of the matter before you preposterate at such length. Things have not always been so nice and neat.

No, none at all... now that you mention it.

Does that mean you'll pop one of these days?

It's all a matter of interpretation, 'ent it? http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...s/rolleyes.gif

But I agree, I don't think thats what they meant necissarily.

It means that you will grow zits too.

[QUOTE=Donkey_Left]It's all a matter of interpretation, 'ent it? ....QUOTE]

There is a correct interpretation and an incorrect one.