During a debate Tuesday morning with Democrat Chris Coons, Delaware's Republican Senate nominee questioned whether the Constitution truly mandates the separation of church and state.

According to The Associated Press, Christine O'Donnell asked specifically where the Constitution prevents the establishment of religion.

After Coons brought up the First Amendment, which reads in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion," O'Donnell shot back: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

I think she was referring--badly--to the old argument that "separation of church and state" isn't actually explicitly stated in the Constitution, simply the establishment of a religion by the state is banned, like a "Church of America."

Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think she was referring--badly--to the old
> argument that "separation of church and state"
> isn't actually explicitly stated in the
> Constitution, simply the establishment of a
> religion by the state is banned, like a "Church of
> America."


She did a piss poor job of it. Besides, there's letters from Thomas Jefferson explaining the Separation of Church and State in the Constitution. This isn't guesswork from some legal scholar 200 years later.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

By this dumb bitch's logic, the Second Amendment refers to the forelimbs of mammals in the Ursidae family.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

lol - i thought she went to oxford?

Are you telling me it does not????


MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By this dumb bitch's logic, the Second Amendment
> refers to the forelimbs of mammals in the Ursidae
> family.
Attachments:

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She did a piss poor job of it. Besides, there's
> letters from Thomas Jefferson explaining the
> Separation of Church and State in the
> Constitution. This isn't guesswork from some legal
> scholar 200 years later.


You are correct, but it's not my argument, it's just the one that is frequently made by Christians who want prayer and creationism in schools and the Ten Commandments in courthouses and this is all very important because somethingsomething.

Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> You are correct, but it's not my argument, it's
> just the one that is frequently made by Christians
> who want prayer and creationism in schools and the
> Ten Commandments in courthouses and this is all
> very important because somethingsomething.


No, I know.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Next thing you know, she'll be spouting some nonsense about English already being the official language of the United States.

"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."

Says nothing about the "seperation of church and state"

This was something written by Thomas Jefferson, not a ruling or any part of a law. O'Donnell expected people to know that and that was her fault, as the phrase has been repeated so often, people refer to the First Amendment as if that phrase exists in there.

Letter of the law or spirit of the law should be the argument. It's not good enough for Jefferson to say what the intent was years later, especially with no input from the other framers.


I have zero religion, but I interpret it to mean the federal government won't adopt a formal religion, show preference to a certain religion. To me it doesn't mean some hillbilly school can't have a moment of silence for prayer or that the ACLU should sue states for allowing roadside memorial crosses.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "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."
>

> I have zero religion, but I interpret it to mean
> the federal government won't adopt a formal
> religion, show preference to a certain religion.
> To me it doesn't mean some hillbilly school can't
> have a moment of silence for prayer or that the
> ACLU should sue states for allowing roadside
> memorial crosses.

+1

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2010 07:37PM by Registered Voter.

I thought this might be another Liz Bradsher rant by those Clifton 'conservatives only when it is not in my backyard'.

-------------------------------------------------
“We don’t have any rude, unpleasant people here. We’re different!”

If a bunch of muslim kids in that hillbilly school wanted to use part of the school day to praise Mohammed, the average conservative would have a complete shit-fit, just like the one they're having over the NY mosque stuff. Then we'd see a bunch of lawsuits where local and state governments would have to decide on what religions were allowed to practice inside public schools, on the taxpayer's dime. At some point, the govt. would have to make a choice on what religion is proper. That's why it's separate.

It's fucking mind-boggling this stuff is even an issue in the 21st century.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If a bunch of muslim kids in that hillbilly school
> wanted to use part of the school day to praise
> Mohammed, the average conservative would have a
> complete shit-fit, just like the one they're
> having over the NY mosque stuff. Then we'd see a
> bunch of lawsuits where local and state
> governments would have to decide on what religions
> were allowed to practice inside public schools, on
> the taxpayer's dime. At some point, the govt.
> would have to make a choice on what religion is
> proper. That's why it's separate.
>
> It's fucking mind-boggling this stuff is even an
> issue in the 21st century.

First, this chick is a dipshit, but is she really any more stupid than the former Senator from DE? I don't think so. The man took retard to a whole new level.

Second, who cares? Why are you all worried about a candidate that stands no chance whatsoever? You seem a bit obsessed about a candidate that simply cannot win. So far, O'Donnell has gotten 30,000 people to vote for her. Meanwhile, the most outrageous nutjob candidate on the ballot anywhere in two weeks is Alvin Greene. He got over 100,000 dipshit Democrats to vote for him and isn't even noticed anymore. What gives?

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

west ox Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lol - i thought she went to oxford?


Well, seeing how our current President went to Columbia and Harvard, I wouldn't make a whole lot out of that.

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

Alvin Green is a plant.

It's shameful to take advantage of a disabled veteran, Green is being used.

TeaParty4Congress Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alvin Green is a plant.
>
> It's shameful to take advantage of a disabled
> veteran, Green is being used.

And all 100,000+ of those that voted for him? They are plants too? This is a pretty big conspiracy you got going on in your mind. What is shameful is all the bullshit excuses you come up with.

WTF is going on?
This idiot Alvin Green, Christine O'Donnell, the dude who thought Guam was going to tip over and Aqua Buddha are all in or running for the United States Senate!!!

There's not a single brain cell among these numbskulls. WTF is happening?

'The Meeper' wrote :

> "If a bunch of muslim kids in that hillbilly school wanted
> to use part of the school day to praise Mohammed, the average
> conservative would have a complete shit-fit, just like the one
> they're having over the NY mosque stuff.

MAYBE THAT IS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SAY
"IN MOHAMMED WE TRUST ON OUR CURRENCY, YOU ASSHOLE.

BESIDES WHAT ARE GAY CAMEL-JOCKEY MUSLIMS DOING ATTENDING A
"HILLBILLY" SCHOOL FOR ANYWAYS? WHY DON'T THEY TAKE THEIR ASSES
BACK TO THE SAND DUNES OF THEIR BELOVED HOMELAND AND FUCK DONKEYS IN
THE MULTITUDE OF MOSQUES OVER THERE.

> "Then we'd see a bunch of lawsuits where local and state
> governments would have to decide on what religions were allowed
> to practice inside public schools, on the taxpayer's dime."

YEAH BECAUSE WORTHLESS MUSLIMS WOULD BE THE ONLY ONES COMPLAINING
AND COSTING THE TAXPAYERS MONEY. AGAIN, TAKE YOUR SHIT SUCKING MUSLIM
ASS BACK TO ARABIA IF YOU WANT THAT GARBAGE IN SCHOOLS.

> "At some point, the govt. would have to make a choice
> on what religion is proper. That's why it's separate.

BULLSHIT. THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED ANY PARTICULAR "RELGION".
AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF GOD IS ALL IT DOES. THIS IS WHAT THE
FIRST AMENDMENT IS TALKING ABOUT; *THE FACT THAT NO NATIONAL RELIGION
SHALL BE CHOSEN*
THIS JUST MAKES SENSE AND GOES ALONG WITH FREEDOM OF RELIGION CONCEPT.


> "It's fucking mind-boggling this stuff
> is even an issue in the 21st century."

WHAT'S MIND-BOGGLING IS THE FACT THAT YOU DRAW AIR.
.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "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."
>
> Says nothing about the "seperation of church and
> state"
>
> This was something written by Thomas Jefferson,
> not a ruling or any part of a law. O'Donnell
> expected people to know that and that was her
> fault, as the phrase has been repeated so often,
> people refer to the First Amendment as if that
> phrase exists in there.
>
> Letter of the law or spirit of the law should be
> the argument. It's not good enough for Jefferson
> to say what the intent was years later, especially
> with no input from the other framers.
>
>
> I have zero religion, but I interpret it to mean
> the federal government won't adopt a formal
> religion, show preference to a certain religion.
> To me it doesn't mean some hillbilly school can't
> have a moment of silence for prayer or that the
> ACLU should sue states for allowing roadside
> memorial crosses.

Correct!

Wanna go out for an ice cream cone, WingNut?

The problems our country faces are squarely on the economy and jobs. Why is freedom of religion even an issue in this midterm election? Every day the Democrats blog on and on about some silly thing Christine O'Donnell says (she's too far behind in polling to have a prayer of winning) is a day wasted talking about why the American people should vote to keep them in power to attack the economic situation.

This other stuff is pure fluff. Who gives a shit about what her religious beliefs are? Those won't affect a single bill they'll vote on during that seat's Senate term. Democrats are filling the airwaves with this distracting bullshit when they should be fighting the approaching angry Republican-voting mob. Painting Tea Partiers as wackos is a waste of effort and breath. The general electorate KNOWS many of them are wackos, the fact that they'll be voted in shows how pissed the country is over, religion? no... abortion? no... 10% unemployment? YES.

----------------------------------------

"She looks pretty good for 12, admit it." - WingNut, 04/24/2012

"I'm racist too. So what?" - Ellipsis 9/16/2011

"If you only knew who I was, and what I was working to do you would...have the decency to tell me I hated my nation and the way of life. I may not agree with...the government...I hate the "government"......" - Firrat 9/1/10

"there seems to be a queer...why? To try and further demean a defeated... dumb Tea party... I think we need more... far left folks on a regular basis - Louis Farakhan, Jesse Jackson...Al Sharpton" - Registered Voter, 8/19/2011

"If your computer is running slow, or you have any other problems, email me at with the problem and i am willing to fix it, for a price of course" - Taylor, spamming FFU on 04/12/2006. "N****rs as slaves again? I think so..." - Taylor, 09/20/2009




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2010 11:37PM by justsayin.

didn't o'donnell lie and said she had a college degree for years when she didn't even complete her degree until this summer? and she had the nerve to say she went to oxford too. what a stupid witch.

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problems our country faces are squarely on the
> economy and jobs. Why is freedom of religion even
> an issue in this midterm election? Every day the
> Democrats blog on and on about some silly thing
> Christine O'Donnell says (she's too far behind in
> polling to have a prayer of winning) is a day
> wasted talking about why the American people
> should vote to keep them in power to attack the
> economic situation.
>
> This other stuff is pure fluff. Who gives a shit
> about what her religious beliefs are? Those won't
> affect a single bill they'll vote on during that
> seat's Senate term. Democrats are filling the
> airwaves with this distracting bullshit when they
> should be fighting the approaching angry
> Republican-voting mob. Painting Tea Partiers as
> wackos is a waste of effort and breath. The
> general electorate KNOWS many of them are wackos,
> the fact that they'll be voted in shows how pissed
> the country is over, religion? no... abortion?
> no... 10% unemployment? YES.

Why are these issues being brought up? Because instead of addressing the economy, Republicans like to do things like this when controlling the Senate...



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

But who in either party was addressing the economy then? It was nothing but talk about Iraq.



WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> justsayin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The problems our country faces are squarely on
> the
> > economy and jobs. Why is freedom of religion
> even
> > an issue in this midterm election? Every day
> the
> > Democrats blog on and on about some silly thing
> > Christine O'Donnell says (she's too far behind
> in
> > polling to have a prayer of winning) is a day
> > wasted talking about why the American people
> > should vote to keep them in power to attack the
> > economic situation.
> >
> > This other stuff is pure fluff. Who gives a
> shit
> > about what her religious beliefs are? Those
> won't
> > affect a single bill they'll vote on during
> that
> > seat's Senate term. Democrats are filling the
> > airwaves with this distracting bullshit when
> they
> > should be fighting the approaching angry
> > Republican-voting mob. Painting Tea Partiers
> as
> > wackos is a waste of effort and breath. The
> > general electorate KNOWS many of them are
> wackos,
> > the fact that they'll be voted in shows how
> pissed
> > the country is over, religion? no... abortion?
>
> > no... 10% unemployment? YES.
>
> Why are these issues being brought up? Because
> instead of addressing the economy, Republicans
> like to do things like this when controlling the
> Senate...
>
>

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why are these issues being brought up? Because
> instead of addressing the economy, Republicans
> like to do things like this when controlling the
> Senate...

First, this was 2005, Democrats hadn't yet won Congress and started effing up the economy.

Second, I like all those economic recovery bills the Dems are touting: Hate Crimes, Fair Pay, DADT, Health Care.

Finally, you will vote for this guy?

"I don’t believe in the separation of public life from our values, especially our religious values."

"After some time, and much prayer, I came to the conclusion that my calling would be fulfilled outside the Church. I left the seminary, but I didn’t leave its values and spirit behind as I started a career."

"There is a pastoral aspect to my current job in Congress."

"So, I ask each of you today, as Christians, how we can stand idly by and do nothing in the face of this crisis. Jesus tells us nations will be judged by how they treat “the least of these.†(Matthew 25:31-45). How will our nation be judged if we do nothing? How will we be judged?"

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WTF is going on?
> This idiot Alvin Green, Christine O'Donnell, the
> dude who thought Guam was going to tip over and
> Aqua Buddha are all in or running for the United
> States Senate!!!
>
> There's not a single brain cell among these
> numbskulls. WTF is happening?




==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why are these issues being brought up? Because
> instead of addressing the economy, Republicans
> like to do things like this when controlling the
> Senate...

Plenty of Democrats, to include personal travel by Jessie Jackson, were on the "Republican" side of that issue.

As with the NYC mosque issue where opinions for and against the building do not fall along party lines but for some reason are characterized in the media that way (Obama said same things as Republicans, NYC residents overwhelmingly disapprove and they are mostly Democrats), the Terri Schiavo case was not a purely party-line issue either.

For some reason these days no one can believe any issue at all has (or ever had) the possibility of being a non-partisan issue. Probably because heavily-partisan people will knee-jerk disagree if the other side has an opinion, even if they actually agree on the issue. Silly.

Here's a 2005 note of a Democrat using the Schiavo case to argue against Republican proposed cuts in Medicaid. That doesn't sound like all Republicans wanted her saved and all Democrats wanted her unplugged, it just wasn't that partisan. My how five or six years blurs history.

http://www.democrats.com/node/3900

She really is witch, but didn't know she's not suppose to tell people. I also find her ad some what funny in that she is dressed in all black.

Lopter578 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She really is witch, but didn't know she's not
> suppose to tell people. I also find her ad some
> what funny in that she is dressed in all black.

She completely lost the valuable Pagan vote for denying her beliefs.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lopter578 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > She really is witch, but didn't know she's not
> > suppose to tell people. I also find her ad
> some
> > what funny in that she is dressed in all black.
>
> She completely lost the valuable Pagan vote for
> denying her beliefs.

Bah, she never would have gotten the pagan vote - Pelosi had them locked up years ago. That would be like saying Palin was going to get all of Hillary's voters.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "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."
>
>>
>
>
> I have zero religion, but I interpret it to mean
> the federal government won't adopt a formal
> religion, show preference to a certain religion.

Preferences - meaning what? I have always assumed that meant give them taxpayer money or taxpayer subsidies.

> To me it doesn't mean some hillbilly school can't
> have a moment of silence for prayer or that the
> ACLU should sue states for allowing roadside
> memorial crosses.

What about roadside pagan symbols? While many agree that a roadside mosque should not be down the road from ground zero, you would let crosses be on public roads? What about a roadside plaque with the writings of Richard Dawkins? would that be inappropriate?

What about a hillbilly school who bought in snake worshippers? Or let the Westboro Baptist Church (they are Christians, by the way) erect their own roadside memorials?

IF it is public land - that means owned by the federal state or local government, if you want to put a cross on it, fine. Then open it up to the devil worshipers, pagans, satanists, agnostics, and worst of all the Lutherans to put up their religious symbols as well. A real pain in the ass I know. So it far easier to just not put up roadside crosses on public land.

I understand the thought process that goes into that.I think it comes out to be a game of numbers- most one is pretty tolerant and accepting of some bland protestant denomination having a little memorial or some words before a gradutation or event, but feels very differently if it's Islam or some pagan thing.My position is always to let Alabama be Alabama and let San Francicsco be San Francisco.Keep the feds out of it and let the states hash it out.

If there is a large enough demand for pagan symbols as roadside memorials, you might get a serious debate on that. To a man, every pagan or satanist I ever met wasn't so much pro that religion, but anti-christianity and just another type of attention whore.

It goes back to the bullshit motion that because every type of speech is legal, it's equally valid or should be treated with equal respect by every citizen.You'll never make everyone happy.I just don't understand that someone (and I'm an agnostic) finds a roadside cross so offensive and I seriously question the integrity of the satanists/pagans who would feel a need to make such a statement themselves.



Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "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."
> >
> >>
> >
> >
> > I have zero religion, but I interpret it to
> mean
> > the federal government won't adopt a formal
> > religion, show preference to a certain
> religion.
>
> Preferences - meaning what? I have always assumed
> that meant give them taxpayer money or taxpayer
> subsidies.
>
> > To me it doesn't mean some hillbilly school
> can't
> > have a moment of silence for prayer or that the
> > ACLU should sue states for allowing roadside
> > memorial crosses.
>
> What about roadside pagan symbols? While many
> agree that a roadside mosque should not be down
> the road from ground zero, you would let crosses
> be on public roads? What about a roadside plaque
> with the writings of Richard Dawkins? would that
> be inappropriate?
>
> What about a hillbilly school who bought in snake
> worshippers? Or let the Westboro Baptist Church
> (they are Christians, by the way) erect their own
> roadside memorials?
>
> IF it is public land - that means owned by the
> federal state or local government, if you want to
> put a cross on it, fine. Then open it up to the
> devil worshipers, pagans, satanists, agnostics,
> and worst of all the Lutherans to put up their
> religious symbols as well. A real pain in the ass
> I know. So it far easier to just not put up
> roadside crosses on public land.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

HERP DERP DER DERP

HERP DERP! HURR DURR! HERP DERP DERPITY HERP DERP. DERP DERP HERP DERPY DERP. DERPITY HERP DERP. HURR DURR.

^ ^ ^ That was about as funny as the mindless GAY video above.

The video is a perfect example of Democrats floundering around trying
to make a desperate and pathetic attempt at gaining popularity through humor.

Sorry assholes, you have spent ALL of your 'CHANGE'.
Now get a life.
.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

I didn't realize the Gregory Brothers were "the Democrats." I thought they were musicians trying to make a buck.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

"the Democrats" are the only ones eating this garbage up
and talking about it like it is sooooooooooo funny.

And leave it to YOU WashingTone-DEAF-Locain, to call those
faggots "musicians".

HA!
.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "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."
>
> Says nothing about the "seperation of church and
> state"
>

> This was something written by Thomas Jefferson,
> not a ruling or any part of a law. O'Donnell
> expected people to know that and that was her
> fault, as the phrase has been repeated so often,
> people refer to the First Amendment as if that
> phrase exists in there.
>
> Letter of the law or spirit of the law should be
> the argument. It's not good enough for Jefferson
> to say what the intent was years later, especially
> with no input from the other framers.
>

>
> I have zero religion, but I interpret it to mean
> the federal government won't adopt a formal
> religion, show preference to a certain religion.
> To me it doesn't mean some hillbilly school can't
> have a moment of silence for prayer or that the
> ACLU should sue states for allowing roadside
> memorial crosses.


You are exactly right. What should be disturbing is the room full of law students at one of the most prestigious institutions of learning in the country guffawing at her point demonstrating their lack of knowledge pertaining to the 1st Amendment and highlighting their liberal bias.

O,Donnell went on to demonstrate how Coons couldn't even name the 5 main freedoms guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. She asked him the question, he stammered a bit before saying that he was only going to answer questions from the moderators. But he sure as hell had the church/state thing down.

Of course the liberal press had what they came for at that point and ran with it.
They're like spoiled little brats just waiting for anything they can use to twist and distort information to fit their predetermined agenda. That is the depth of their intellect and so be it.


Liberalism's main goal towards our Constitution is to destroy it. They believe it is a "living,breathing" document that has to morph itself to fit popular culture over time. This has actually been used by some in arguments against the 2nd Amendment. Conservatives believe it is a sacred document that is chiseled in stone. So did the framers. That is why they made it virtually impossible to change and why liberal activists look to the courts to turn it on its head on any given issue rather than the two thirds ratification route the framers set out.

The very idea the our Constitution is sacred pisses liberals off. It doesn't matter that they have benefited their entire life from the protection it provides them.They seeth with hate at the very precept. Liberals are self destructive in this respect almost seemingly on a spiritual level and it is set in their hearts to destroy her.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2010 10:16AM by mcsmack.

Of course it's a "living breathing document". What the hell do you think the amendments are for??

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course it's a "living breathing document".
> What the hell do you think the amendments are
> for??

HA. You don't even understand what you are writing or what your side means by "living breathing document." The amendments once written, mean what they mean. Meaning doesn't change over time. The ability to amend the document has nothing to do with the "living breathing document" concept of constitutional interpretation.

You are in over your head. Get back to the shallow end.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course it's a "living breathing document".
> What the hell do you think the amendments are
> for??

Exhibit "A"

Haha!

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

So, conservatives believe it's "chiseled in stone" even though it's been amended 27 times, including 10 times by the founding fathers themselves.

I guess if it were up to conservatives, slavery would never have been abolished, woman wouldn't have voting rights, etc. Silly amendments!

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, conservatives believe it's "chiseled in stone"
> even though it's been amended 27 times, including
> 10 times by the founding fathers themselves.
>
> I guess if it were up to conservatives, slavery
> would never have been abolished, woman wouldn't
> have voting rights, etc. Silly amendments!

Again, you are in over your head. The term "living breathing document" has nothing to do, repeat NOTHING to do with the fact that it is amendable. The fact that it is amendable is in the original document.

You should really have a concept of what the term "living breathing document" actually means before you wade into those waters. Your understanding is completely and utterly wrong.

No consevative would argue the constitution is unamendable, it appears only a dumb partisan on the left, who has no understanding of what he is attempting to argue, would assume as much.

The Constitution is a de facto "living document" because the Supreme Court is authorized to interpret how laws may or may not fit into it. As much as these "strict constructionists" want to believe something to the contrary, the fact is it is and always will be open to interpretation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Constitution is a de facto "living document"
> because the Supreme Court is authorized to
> interpret how laws may or may not fit into it. As
> much as these "strict constructionists" want to
> believe something to the contrary, the fact is it
> is and always will be open to interpretation.


Open to interpretation is not the same thing as saying it is a "living document." At least you aren't going down the "it's amendable, so it is living" losing argument road. That one actually made me laugh.

Lifeguard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Again, you are in over your head. The term
> "living breathing document" has nothing to do,
> repeat NOTHING to do with the fact that it is
> amendable. The fact that it is amendable is in
> the original document.
>
> You should really have a concept of what the term
> "living breathing document" actually means before
> you wade into those waters. Your understanding is
> completely and utterly wrong.
>
> No consevative would argue the constitution is
> unamendable, it appears only a dumb partisan on
> the left, who has no understanding of what he is
> attempting to argue, would assume as much.

Amendment
a·mend·ment 
[uh-mend-muhnt]

–noun
1. the act of amending or the state of being amended.
2. an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill, constitution, etc.
3. a change made by correction, addition, or deletion:

Considering that the Constitution has been amended (see above) 27 times in 234 years (an average of 1 amendment or "change" to the Constitution every 8 and a half years), I'd say it's a fairly fluid document. Nobody's proposing that it be edited on a monthly basis like a Word document.

I'm sure an intellectual juggernaut such as yourself can explain the concept of a "living, breathing document" to us ignorant fools. Actually, I'm really hoping you can since it's such a subjective term that can be used by anyone to further their own side in an argument.

Smart guy like you surely wouldn't go calling other people stupid over something you can't explain yourself. So please, tell me what a "living, breathing document" is, and why the Constitution doesn't qualify despite its 27 changes.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Lifeguard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> Open to interpretation is not the same thing as
> saying it is a "living document." At least you
> aren't going down the "it's amendable, so it is
> living" losing argument road. That one actually
> made me laugh.


"Open to interpretation" is exactly what is meant by "a living document."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

I agree with Lifeguard that the conservative beef against the Constitution as "a living document" is not related to Amendments. It is related to interpreting rights within the existing Constitution that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. For instance, the word "Privacy" doesn't appear in the Constitution, so strict constructionists believe that the Right to Privacy in Roe V. Wade doesn't exist. Interestingly enough, Scalia believes that the Constitution only protects "persons" and that the unborn are not "persons" under the intent of the Framers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, conservatives believe it's "chiseled in stone"
> even though it's been amended 27 times, including
> 10 times by the founding fathers themselves.
>
> I guess if it were up to conservatives, slavery
> would never have been abolished, woman wouldn't
> have voting rights, etc. Silly amendments!


I knew you were going to post that almost verbatim. I highlight the 2/3rds ratification rule, you blow right by it citing the 13th Amm. abolishing slavery in AD 1865 and womens voting rights in 1920. Ninety years ago.....That's not rare is it? Nothing really that earth shaking since then unless your a big drinker.

I marvel at the document I believe was inspired by God and written by man.I don't think it was a fluke it corrected a morally corrupt rule such as slavery. But the process that preceded the 13th Amm. WAS chiseled in stone and you should thank God for that but you won't.

The very reason you are sitting at your computer this morning, a free man, (whether white or black) escapes you. You should be thankful for our Constitution and our God whom inspired it but you aren't. The vengeful attitude you have toward the sacred precepts in this document that give you the right to be free and pursue happiness is self destructive as I said before. Unfortunately if you had your way future generations wouldn't be able to enjoy the luxuries of freedom and self determination that you have taken for granted and despise.If your ideology was designed only to effect the folk of your same mindset it would be one thing. However tyranny for all is the ultimate result (whether intended or not) of liberalism, socialism, Marxism, state-ism and the progressives nature in general and for that reason it they must be destroyed.

Well imagine that! A conservative invoking some kind of Jesus-induced dementia in order to instruct others on what a real American should be.


What's next, a John Wayne quote?

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well imagine that! A conservative invoking some
> kind of Jesus-induced dementia in order to
> instruct others on what a real American should
> be.
>
>
> What's next, a John Wayne quote?

Someone should compare the God inspired Constitution to the God inspired 10 Commandments. Not much correlation there.

Oh, and in terms of strict constructionist, the Constitution does not mention Jesus or Christianity. So you would have to believe in the Constitution as "a living document" if you think the Framers wanted America to be a Christian nation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lifeguard Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Again, you are in over your head. The term
> > "living breathing document" has nothing to do,
> > repeat NOTHING to do with the fact that it is
> > amendable. The fact that it is amendable is in
> > the original document.
> >
> > You should really have a concept of what the
> term
> > "living breathing document" actually means
> before
> > you wade into those waters. Your understanding
> is
> > completely and utterly wrong.
> >
> > No consevative would argue the constitution is
> > unamendable, it appears only a dumb partisan on
> > the left, who has no understanding of what he
> is
> > attempting to argue, would assume as much.
>
> Amendment
> a·mend·ment 
>
>
> –noun
> 1. the act of amending or the state of being
> amended.
> 2. an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill,
> constitution, etc.
> 3. a change made by correction, addition, or
> deletion:
>
> Considering that the Constitution has been amended
> (see above) 27 times in 234 years (an average of 1
> amendment or "change" to the Constitution every 8
> and a half years), I'd say it's a fairly fluid
> document. Nobody's proposing that it be edited on
> a monthly basis like a Word document.
>
> I'm sure an intellectual juggernaut such as
> yourself can explain the concept of a "living,
> breathing document" to us ignorant fools.
> Actually, I'm really hoping you can since it's
> such a subjective term that can be used by anyone
> to further their own side in an argument.
>
> Smart guy like you surely wouldn't go calling
> other people stupid over something you can't
> explain yourself. So please, tell me what a
> "living, breathing document" is, and why the
> Constitution doesn't qualify despite its 27
> changes.

You are confusing the fact that the constitution is amendable with the notion of a living constitution which is a concept of constitutional interpretation. In simplistic terms, living document proponents contend that the constitution is malleable based upon current situations and that evolving interpretations are necessary. Those that don't agree with this view argue that if you want to Constitution to say something different, use the mechanism built in to do so - the amendment process.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lifeguard Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > Open to interpretation is not the same thing as
> > saying it is a "living document." At least you
> > aren't going down the "it's amendable, so it is
> > living" losing argument road. That one
> actually
> > made me laugh.
>
>
> "Open to interpretation" is exactly what is meant
> by "a living document."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

"Open to interpreptation" is much broader than "living document." Two strict constructionalists can interpret a clause differntly, and have.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, conservatives believe it's "chiseled in stone"
> even though it's been amended 27 times, including
> 10 times by the founding fathers themselves.
>
> I guess if it were up to conservatives, slavery
> would never have been abolished, woman wouldn't
> have voting rights, etc. Silly amendments!

Amendments are fine - as they were intended. Where the problem comes in is that the Courts then seem to feel inclined to negate the Constitution or the Amendments as written to satisfy some particular point - or do ADD something that is clearly NOT written. SCOTUS should be held to the standard of determining the Constitutionality of certain actions taken by the Government, or of certain LAWS that Congress and the President pass. It is not up to the Courts or SCOTUS to re-write the Constitution - that is Congress and the will of the people.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2010 12:13PM by Registered Voter.

Oh I get it, the living breathing document means a one-hit-wonder
*voting* document that can be manipulated and lied to by politicians
into thinking it will get free gas and a house for helping Democrats
-living breathing document.
.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Amendments are fine - as they were intended. Where
> the problem comes in is that the Courts then seem
> to feel inclined to negate the amendments as
> written to satisfy some particular point. SCOTUS
> should be held to the standard of determining the
> Constitutionality of certain actions taken by the
> Government, or of certain LAWS that Congress and
> the President pass. It is not up to the Courts or
> SCOTUS to re-write the Constitution - that is
> Congress and the will of the people.

What Amendments have been negated by SCOTUS?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Lifeguard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> "Open to interpreptation" is much broader than
> "living document." Two strict constructionalists
> can interpret a clause differntly, and have.


The way strict constructionists see the Constitution, there are certain things covered by the Constitution and everything else is determined by the States. With that said, there are probably many decisions that have occurred under the auspices of "a living document" that would not violate the strict constructionists views.

The fact is, the strict constructionists want to ignore anything that isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution. At the same time, many rights are implicit by the nature of the way the Constitution is written. For instance, the government doesn't have the right to recognize any one religion. Does that mean the government has to recognize all religions or no religion at all?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> not up to the Courts or SCOTUS to re-write the
> Constitution

Nor is it up to conservatives to re-write the Constitution into a christian-inspired holy book that deems godlike supremacy unto the Republican Party.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Amendments are fine - as they were intended.
> Where
> > the problem comes in is that the Courts then
> seem
> > to feel inclined to negate the amendments as
> > written to satisfy some particular point.
> SCOTUS
> > should be held to the standard of determining
> the
> > Constitutionality of certain actions taken by
> the
> > Government, or of certain LAWS that Congress
> and
> > the President pass. It is not up to the Courts
> or
> > SCOTUS to re-write the Constitution - that is
> > Congress and the will of the people.
>
> What Amendments have been negated by SCOTUS?

I didn't say the amendment was negated - I said 'negate ... as written' - ie they applied a new interpretation to what is an obvious set of words. Like, the 1st Amendment for instance, where '...Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion...' How that has anything to do with separation of church and state (other than the obvious - Congress cannot establish a State religion like England did) is an amazing expansion - in particular when applied to State or locality seals, etc. I suppose I should have said 'change to suit their purpose from what was written'.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > not up to the Courts or SCOTUS to re-write the
> > Constitution
>
> Nor is it up to conservatives to re-write the
> Constitution into a christian-inspired holy book
> that deems godlike supremacy unto the Republican
> Party.

Uh, yeah - that would negate the 1st Amendment now wouldn't it. But hey, ignore the fact that laws like sodomy, polygamy, adultery, etc (just go through the 10 Commandments for a primer) were primarily mainstays of Christianity. How did they get on most of the law books again? Generally the LAWS of a nation reflect the basic composition of that nation. It doesn't mean you write things like blasphemy and such into law - unless of course you happen to like Sharia law.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

The problem goes back to FAGGOTS trying to bend the Constitution in
a failed attempt at warping it's meaning to serve their convoluted agenda.
.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > not up to the Courts or SCOTUS to re-write the
> > Constitution
>
> Nor is it up to conservatives to re-write the
> Constitution into a christian-inspired holy book
> that deems godlike supremacy unto the Republican
> Party.

Looks like more nonsense.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I didn't say the amendment was negated - I said
> 'negate ... as written' - ie they applied a new
> interpretation to what is an obvious set of words.
> Like, the 1st Amendment for instance, where
> '...Congress shall make no law regarding the
> establishment of religion...' How that has
> anything to do with separation of church and state
> (other than the obvious - Congress cannot
> establish a State religion like England did) is an
> amazing expansion - in particular when applied to
> State or locality seals, etc. I suppose I should
> have said 'change to suit their purpose from what
> was written'.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In other words, the State needs to stay out of religion entirely. Separation of Church and State. It was later interpreted to mean that people also have freedom from religion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Amendments are fine - as they were intended.
> Where
> > the problem comes in is that the Courts then
> seem
> > to feel inclined to negate the amendments as
> > written to satisfy some particular point.
> SCOTUS
> > should be held to the standard of determining
> the
> > Constitutionality of certain actions taken by
> the
> > Government, or of certain LAWS that Congress
> and
> > the President pass. It is not up to the Courts
> or
> > SCOTUS to re-write the Constitution - that is
> > Congress and the will of the people.
>
> What Amendments have been negated by SCOTUS?

Negated? none. Limited? Plenty. The court cannot negate any part of the Constitution. But, over the decades many amendments have been limited. There are certainly limitations on free speech.

"Congress shall make no law abriding the freedom of speech."

Pretty straight forward, right? Why all the limitations then?

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > I didn't say the amendment was negated - I said
> > 'negate ... as written' - ie they applied a new
> > interpretation to what is an obvious set of
> words.
> > Like, the 1st Amendment for instance, where
> > '...Congress shall make no law regarding the
> > establishment of religion...' How that has
> > anything to do with separation of church and
> state
> > (other than the obvious - Congress cannot
> > establish a State religion like England did) is
> an
> > amazing expansion - in particular when applied
> to
> > State or locality seals, etc. I suppose I
> should
> > have said 'change to suit their purpose from
> what
> > was written'.
>
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an
> establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
> exercise thereof."
>
> In other words, the State needs to stay out of
> religion entirely. Separation of Church and State.
> It was later interpreted to mean that people also
> have freedom from religion.

Try that again - CONGRESS. Hmm... the 'State'? I don't see anything there that didn't allow for a State to adopt whatever the fuck religion they wanted. Now, most States put a similar clause in the their Constitutions as well - but Congress and SCOTUS have little to do with the States, and however they want to express their religious feelings. Seems VERY clear on that point. Also, by putting a cross or something similar on a County Seal, how is that:

A - establishing a religion
B - prohibiting free exercise of religion

?

BZZZT. SCOTUS is a bunch of over-reaching buzzards. It was way over the line on liberal causes for years, now it is getting some of that 'corrected' with the slightly conservative bias. For instance - any of those 'judges' that deemed it was ok for a municipality to take private property and then give it to a developer for a commercial development needs to have their heads examined - on BOTH sides.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

I just think she likes to fuck, don't let that tinfoil wrapped around her head fool you.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Try that again - CONGRESS. Hmm... the 'State'? I
> don't see anything there that didn't allow for a
> State to adopt whatever the fuck religion they
> wanted. Now, most States put a similar clause in
> the their Constitutions as well - but Congress and
> SCOTUS have little to do with the States, and
> however they want to express their religious
> feelings. Seems VERY clear on that point. Also, by
> putting a cross or something similar on a County
> Seal, how is that:
>
> A - establishing a religion
> B - prohibiting free exercise of religion
>
> ?
>

The State versus the states.

And the 14th Amendment was meant to clarify its application to the states and not just the State.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WTL wrote :

> "In other words, the State needs to stay out of religion entirely."


In other words, NO IT DOES NOT.

It says NOTHING about the STATE staying out of RELIGION ENTIRELY.

NOTHING of the sort.

You're PARAPHRASING skills SUCK, WashingTone-DEAF-Locian.
.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WTL wrote :
>
> > "In other words, the State needs to stay out of
> religion entirely."
>
>
> In other words, NO IT DOES NOT.
>
> It says NOTHING about the STATE staying out of
> RELIGION ENTIRELY.
>
> NOTHING of the sort.
>
> You're PARAPHRASING skills SUCK,
> WashingTone-DEAF-Locian.
> .

The Congress can't establish a religion and it can't pass laws restricting it (in other words, the Congress can't tell Muslims they can't pray to Allah). The State is pretty much neutered then.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

That's because Congress doesn't have to pass laws restricting it.
When your rights impede on others rights, that is the point at which
your right are limited.

WTL wrote :
> "The Congress can't establish a religion and it can't pass laws restricting it (in other words, the Congress can't tell Muslims they can't pray to Allah)."

***AGAIN PISS POOR PARAPHRASING.***

Restricting religion, means NOT allowing it.

It does NOT mean Muslims can pray on my front lawn because it is
their right to pray!
.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's because Congress doesn't have to pass laws
> restricting it.
> When your rights impede on others rights, that is
> the point at which
> your right are limited.


A group of Southern Baptists setting up a Nativity on the grounds of a publicly financed courthouse is an infringement of the rights of those who don't believe in the Nativity but who have helped finance that courthouse through their taxes. Nobody is stopping from setting up that Nativity in their church or on private property of those who have the same beliefs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Indoctrinating religion isn't in the constitution. Duh. But who's saying the states can? I'm a little confused, I just thought they couldn't impede in their rights to practice any religion, and by this meaning the states and not being able to.

And Liberals like yoirself want to cry about meaningless bullshit like that?

Well well well, believing in and TRUSTING in God, inherently goes along with Christianity. Therefore if the courts trust in God, then they should be free to display whatever ARTWORK they please.

To take down the display would be promoting ATHEISM!
.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Restricting religion, means NOT allowing it.
>
> It does NOT mean Muslims can pray on my front lawn
> because it is
> their right to pray!
> .


You are an idiot. Where is that happening?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

That was a hypothetical example, Dumbass.

But it can be applied to current events like the 9-11 mosque for example.
.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That was a hypothetical example, Dumbass.
>
> But can be applied to current events.
> .


No it can't. Here's a hypothetical...Troll@AOL grows a fucking brain that works.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Hey, isn't it an oxymoron to put "In got we trust" on our money, and then indoctrinate religion. I can see it now they'll make a movie about it "Planet of the Apes". "Get your stinking paws off me, you god damn dirty ape".

Now we have a fine example of a monkey-brained Retardocrat trying to
divert attention from his losing argument with TANGENTS and INSULTS.

BRILLIANT WashingTone-DEAF-Locian, ......absolutely brilliant!
.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Lifeguard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are confusing the fact that the constitution
> is amendable with the notion of a living
> constitution which is a concept of constitutional
> interpretation. In simplistic terms, living
> document proponents contend that the constitution
> is malleable based upon current situations and
> that evolving interpretations are necessary.
> Those that don't agree with this view argue that
> if you want to Constitution to say something
> different, use the mechanism built in to do so -
> the amendment process.

I'm not "confusing" anything. There's a reason one of the three branches of the Government is responsible for interpreting the laws and Constitution; it's called the "Judicial Branch." Maybe you've heard of it.

The First Amendment reads: "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."

With absolutely zero interpretion, the First Amendment clearly states:

1. The government cannot pass any law about religion, but they can't prohibit the exercise of of any religion. This means that sacrificing virgins to my dark lord Satan is now back on the table; it's in my religious doctrine, and the laws criminalizing murder directly prohibit my right to "freely exercise" my religion.

2. Newspapers (the only form of news media around when the Constitution was ratified) and actual spoken words directly from people are the only forms of communication protected. Books, movies, the internet, magazines, TV shows, etc. do not have first amendment rights; I'm not hearing a person speak, I'm listening to a RECORDING of a person speak, which is something else completely.

3. Me and about 700 other people can stand (or "peaceably assemble") in the Oval Office at the White House, because the First Amendment totally says our right to "peaceably assemble" will not be "abridged." Our right to stand wherever we want cannot be infringed upon, because it plainly says so in the First Amendment.

Of course, nowhere in the Second amendment does it say anything about weapons of any kind, including devices meant to propel a small, hard projectile at high velocities through the use of combustible materials and chemical reactions. All it says are "arms." If the Government wanted that to apply to weapons and such, it would be clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

Then there's also the Ninth amendment, which says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That means I have rights that may not be denied, even though they're not explicitely stated in the Constitution. I'll be sure to inform the police that they are violating my Constitutional rights when they arrest me for getting drunk and taking a piss on their car, because that's TOTALLY my right according to the Constitution.

Hell, "We the People" applies only to the persons who signed the Declaration of Independence, meaning we're all still under British rule. If things weren't supposed to be interpreted a certain way, they would have specified "We the People, and by People we mean everyone in America, even though they couldn't be here and sign this document as well."

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

actually i think it's registered voters fault

This thread is respectfully interrupted to bring you this important message:

Mr MeFistaFag,

your paraphrasing expertise sucks even worse than WashingTone-DEAF-Locian.

And you couldn't be more wrong about EVERYTHING you said.
.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lifeguard Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You are confusing the fact that the
> constitution
> > is amendable with the notion of a living
> > constitution which is a concept of
> constitutional
> > interpretation. In simplistic terms, living
> > document proponents contend that the
> constitution
> > is malleable based upon current situations and
> > that evolving interpretations are necessary.
> > Those that don't agree with this view argue
> that
> > if you want to Constitution to say something
> > different, use the mechanism built in to do so
> -
> > the amendment process.
>
> I'm not "confusing" anything. There's a reason
> one of the three branches of the Government is
> responsible for interpreting the laws and
> Constitution; it's called the "Judicial Branch."
> Maybe you've heard of it.
>
> The First Amendment reads: "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."
>
> With absolutely zero interpretion, the First
> Amendment clearly states:
>
> 1. The government cannot pass any law about
> religion, but they can't prohibit the exercise of
> of any religion. This means that sacrificing
> virgins to my dark lord Satan is now back on the
> table; it's in my religious doctrine, and the laws
> criminalizing murder directly prohibit my right to
> "freely exercise" my religion.
>
> 2. Newspapers (the only form of news media around
> when the Constitution was ratified) and actual
> spoken words directly from people are the only
> forms of communication protected. Books, movies,
> the internet, magazines, TV shows, etc. do not
> have first amendment rights; I'm not hearing a
> person speak, I'm listening to a RECORDING of a
> person speak, which is something else completely.
>
> 3. Me and about 700 other people can stand (or
> "peaceably assemble") in the Oval Office at the
> White House, because the First Amendment totally
> says our right to "peaceably assemble" will not be
> "abridged." Our right to stand wherever we want
> cannot be infringed upon, because it plainly says
> so in the First Amendment.
>
> Of course, nowhere in the Second amendment does it
> say anything about weapons of any kind, including
> devices meant to propel a small, hard projectile
> at high velocities through the use of combustible
> materials and chemical reactions. All it says are
> "arms." If the Government wanted that to apply to
> weapons and such, it would be clearly spelled out
> in the Constitution.
>
> Then there's also the Ninth amendment, which says,
> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
> rights, shall not be construed to deny or
> disparage others retained by the people." That
> means I have rights that may not be denied, even
> though they're not explicitely stated in the
> Constitution. I'll be sure to inform the police
> that they are violating my Constitutional rights
> when they arrest me for getting drunk and taking a
> piss on their car, because that's TOTALLY my right
> according to the Constitution.
>
> Hell, "We the People" applies only to the persons
> who signed the Declaration of Independence,
> meaning we're all still under British rule. If
> things weren't supposed to be interpreted a
> certain way, they would have specified "We the
> People, and by People we mean everyone in America,
> even though they couldn't be here and sign this
> document as well."


All of which has noting to do with the concept of a "living breating document." You're long ass post has nothing to do with your original question/contntion and it demonstrates that you are indeed "confused." Are you still contending that simply because the Constitution is amendable, it is a "living breathing document." Take a look at Washingtonelocian's post above with the wiki link. Hell, even he agrees with me on this point.

Public Service Announcement Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This thread is respectfully interrupted to bring
> you this important message:
>
>


Pedophilia was never so funny! On a very special "Different Strokes."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Yeah, let's start granting "marraiges" to GAY men and letting them adopt little boys!

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Lifeguard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All of which has noting to do with the concept of
> a "living breating document." You're long ass
> post has nothing to do with your original
> question/contntion and it demonstrates that you
> are indeed "confused." Are you still contending
> that simply because the Constitution is amendable,
> it is a "living breathing document." Take a look
> at Washingtonelocian's post above with the wiki
> link. Hell, even he agrees with me on this point.

I'm not confused, you're just barely making sense. You're saying that "constant interpretation" constitutes "a living, breathing document." What the fuck do you think the Supreme Court does?

We're talking about something written 234 years ago and counting. What are we supposed to do? Call up the guys that wrote it and ask them what they meant?

You cannot read anything without interpreting it somehow. The point in my "long-ass" post was that the letter of the law means nothing without the spirit. Considering how often the definitions of the very words comprising it can change, thank the gods it's open to interpretation.

The funniest part of this is you're saying the Constitution should be taken as-is at face value, without realizing that's called a "literal interpretation." It's the same reason why some people in the church think the Book of Revelation is all a big metaphor, while others think that a beast with seven heads and ten horns is going to physically crawl out of the ocean.

You've probably gone for a towel to clean up the drool at this point, but allow me to further illustrate how fucking retarded you are. Marbury v. Madison established the precedent of the Supreme Court deciding what is and is not unconstitutional.

"This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered."

You might recognize the name John Adams as one of the Founding Fathers.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Mr. MeFistaFag wrote :

> "The point in my "long-ass" post was that the letter of
> the law means nothing without the spirit."

YOUR LONG-ASS POST HAD A POINT? THAT'S NEWS TO ME!
AND OH YEAH, I THOUGHT YOU DIDN'T BELIEVE IN A HOLY SPIRIT?

> "Considering how often the definitions of the very words
> comprising it can change, thank the gods it's open to interpretation."

THANK THE GODS YOU ARE NOT COLLECTING SSI.
BECAUSE MOST RETARDS OF YOUR CALIBRE DO.
.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

If you had anything to contribute, Troll, you would have done so already.

Let the adults talk while you play with your SWEATY BALLS.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not confused, you're just barely making sense.

If I am barely making sense, you are making none whatsoever.

> You're saying that "constant interpretation"
> constitutes "a living, breathing document." What
> the fuck do you think the Supreme Court does?

I don't even know what "constant interpretation" means in the context of constitutional interpretation. Please enlighten me.

> We're talking about something written 234 years
> ago and counting. What are we supposed to do?
> Call up the guys that wrote it and ask them what
> they meant?

You clearly haven't read anything I have written. Or, if you have, it is over your head. You have yet to logically defend your original assertion. One that has been refuted resoundingly by me and WashingTone-Locian.


> You cannot read anything without interpreting it
> somehow.

Thanks for reiterating something I have already said. Glad to see you can comprehend some things.

> The point in my "long-ass" post was that
> the letter of the law means nothing without the
> spirit. Considering how often the definitions of
> the very words comprising it can change, thank the
> gods it's open to interpretation.

And, where did I disagree with this statement? I never contended that the document was NOT open to interpretation.

> The funniest part of this is you're saying the
> Constitution should be taken as-is at face value,

Where did I say that? Point to the post. I have never contended that. As I pointed out, there is a vast difference to believing the document is "open to interpretation" and it is a "living breathing document." I have long believed the document is open to interpretation.

> without realizing that's called a "literal
> interpretation." It's the same reason why some
> people in the church think the Book of Revelation
> is all a big metaphor, while others think that a
> beast with seven heads and ten horns is going to
> physically crawl out of the ocean.

Yeah, ok.

> You've probably gone for a towel to clean up the
> drool at this point, but allow me to further
> illustrate how fucking retarded you are. Marbury
> v. Madison established the precedent of the
> Supreme Court deciding what is and is not
> unconstitutional.

It is called judicial review. Thanks.

> "This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme
> Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed
> by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in
> the District of Columbia but whose commission was
> not subsequently delivered."

The facts are meaningles, what is important was the decision and the method to get to the decision.

> You might recognize the name John Adams as one of
> the Founding Fathers.

Sure. Now back to why you are still "confused."

All you chest puffery and insults aside, you are really just looking pretty dumb right now.

Did you write this statement?

"So please, tell me what a "living, breathing document" is, and why the Constitution doesn't qualify despite its 27 changes."

Seriously, yes or no?

Do you still contend that because the document is "amendable" that is what qualifies it as a "living breathing document?"

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Marbury
> v. Madison established the precedent of the
> Supreme Court deciding what is and is not
> unconstitutional.

Double-edged sword there Meph...

...This conflict raised the important question of what happens when an Act of Congress conflicts with the Constitution. Marshall answered that Acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution are not law and the Courts are bound instead to follow the Constitution, affirming the principle of judicial review. In support of this position Marshall looked to the nature of the written Constitution—there would be no point of having a written Constitution if the courts could just ignore it. "To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"[18] Marshall also argued that the very nature of the judicial function requires courts to make this determination. Since it is a court's duty to decide cases, courts have to be able to decide what law applies to each case. Therefore, if two laws conflict with each other, a court must decide which law applies.[19] Finally, Marshall pointed to the judge's oath requiring them to uphold the Constitution, and to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which lists the "Constitution" before the "laws of the United States." ...

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

It would be a shame to waste all the rope you gave me to hang you with. I'll admit to wrongly assuming you were talking about amendments, but that doesn't change anything.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So please, tell me what a
> "living, breathing document" is, and why the
> Constitution doesn't qualify despite its 27
> changes.

Lifeguard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
1. HA. You don't even understand what you are writing or what your side means by "living breathing document." The amendments once written, mean what they mean. Meaning doesn't change over time.

2. In simplistic terms, living document proponents contend that the constitution is malleable based upon current situations and that evolving interpretations are necessary.

3. As I pointed out, there is a vast difference to believing the document is "open to interpretation" and it is a "living breathing document."

4. The facts are meaningles [sic]...

Your first contribution to this thread was to ridicule someone else on the premise that you believe the intentions of the Constitution do not change over time. I and others are point out that, not only do they change over time, but they must to have any application to the current state of the nation.

You keep pretending that WTL is agreeing with you 100%. How do his statements compare to yours?

WashingTone-Locian wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
1. The Constitution is a de facto "living document" because the Supreme Court is authorized to interpret how laws may or may not fit into it. As much as these "strict constructionists" want to believe something to the contrary, the fact is it is and always will be open to interpretation.

So, if a living document is (by your definition) "malleable based upon current situations and that evolving interpretations are necessary," and you're agreeing with your buddy WTL that "the Supreme Court is authorized to interpret how laws may or may not fit into it," then clearly, the Constitution changes to fit in to modern needs.

You can split your little hairs and argue that amendments aren't a part of what you're talking about, but that's just you being douchey. You know damn well any amendments added to the Constitution need to be interpreted.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2010 03:15PM by MrMephisto.

so, lifeguard is ken doll, wtl fail and also capt. obvious.

his statement below is hilarious too. say it out loud and see if you can spot the irony.

"All you chest puffery and insults aside, you are really just looking pretty dumb right now."

lol!

For clarification, I agree that the "living document" refers to the interpretation of the existing Constitution and not to the ability to Amend the Constitution. That's probably the extent of where Lifeguard and I see eye to eye on anything.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It would be a shame to waste all the rope you gave
> me to hang you with.

Please don't let me stop you, I find your posts amusing.

> I'll admit to wrongly
> assuming you were talking about amendments, but
> that doesn't change anything.

No, it actually changes everything. It took you how long to get to the right conculsion.

> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So please, tell me what a
> > "living, breathing document" is, and why the
> > Constitution doesn't qualify despite its 27
> > changes.
>
> Lifeguard Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> 1. HA. You don't even understand what you are
> writing or what your side means by "living
> breathing document." The amendments once written,
> mean what they mean. Meaning doesn't change over
> time.
>
> 2. In simplistic terms, living document
> proponents contend that the constitution is
> malleable based upon current situations and that
> evolving interpretations are necessary.
>
> 3. As I pointed out, there is a vast difference
> to believing the document is "open to
> interpretation" and it is a "living breathing
> document."
>
> 4. The facts are meaningles ...
>
> Your first contribution to this thread was to
> ridicule someone else on the premise that you
> believe the intentions of the Constitution do not
> change over time. I and others are point out
> that, not only do they change over time, but they
> must to have any application to the current state
> of the nation.


No, you did not read it correctly. My first post was to point out that if you are going to attack others for not understanding a term like "living breathing document," at least understand it yourself. TheMeeper clearly did not understand the term and only until this post did you demonstrate a basic understanding of it. Meanwhile, your first post was all about the ability to amend the constitution and how many times it has been done which has NOTHING to do with the "living breathing document" concept of interpretation.


> You keep pretending that WTL is agreeing with you
> 100%. How do his statements compare to yours?

He agreed that the ability to amend has nothing to do with a "living breathing document." A simple concept that took you way to far to accept.

> WashingTone-Locian wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> 1. The Constitution is a de facto "living
> document" because the Supreme Court is authorized
> to interpret how laws may or may not fit into it.
> As much as these "strict constructionists" want to
> believe something to the contrary, the fact is it
> is and always will be open to interpretation.

As I said, "open to interpretation" is NOT the same as a "living breathing document." They are distinctly different.

> So, if a living document is (by your definition)
> "malleable based upon current situations and that
> evolving interpretations are necessary," and
> you're agreeing with your buddy WTL that "the
> Supreme Court is authorized to interpret how laws
> may or may not fit into it," then clearly, the
> Constitution changes to fit in to modern needs.

Always?

> You can split your little hairs and argue that
> amendments aren't a part of what you're talking
> about, but that's just you being douchey. You
> know damn well any amendments added to the
> Constitution need to be interpreted.

Yes, but the fact that the Constitution can be and has been amended has nothing to do with the notion that it is a "living breathing document." As I mentioned, it is a concept of constitutional interpretation that applies equally to the original document and its amendments.

You entered this discussion with the definition of what an amendment is. That is netither here nor there as it has been stated over and over again (not just by me) that just because it can be amended doesn't mean it is a "living breathing document."

anon-moron named 'michael' wrote :

> "his statement below is hilarious too.
> say it out loud and see if you can spot the irony."

SAID IT OUT LOUD, HAVEN'T SPOTTED THE IRONY.

UNLESS THAT IS, IF YOU THINK HIM STATING THE FACT THAT
YOU LOOK PRETTY DUMB RIGHT NOW IS SOMEHOW AN INSULT, YOU DUMMY.

> "lol"

INDEED !
.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Lifeguard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> blah blah blah

I was doing you a favor by even discussing past your original statement about "your side." Petty, partisan bullshit. You've already decided your position based on the facts that you choose to support your claims.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Keep telling yourself that MeFistaFag, and one day your gonna be a REAL BOY!
.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lifeguard Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > blah blah blah
>
> I was doing you a favor by even discussing past
> your original statement about "your side." Petty,
> partisan bullshit. You've already decided your
> position based on the facts that you choose to
> support your claims.

Actually, if you knew my take on constitutional interpretation, I think you'd be pretty surprised.

I choose my position based upon the premise that if you want to insult people about something, at least have a basic understanding of what you are trying to convey. Equating the ability to amend the constitution with the living breathing document demonstrates a clear lack of understanding on the matter. TheMeeper clearly stepped in it with his BS response. His response is about as reflexive and retarded as the Beck/Rush/Hannity parrots. All I am saying is at least know what the hell you are talking about if you want to call others stupid. I think that applies to you as well. Your first post out of the gate was enough to cement your status in this discussion.