the A.C.L.U.---protecting our CONSTITUTIONAL values

[ROMAGOLDSBACKBITCHES]

Why don't you go back to playing with that Easy Bake Oven and leave intelligent conversation to the grown-ups.

I see you making a slur like that again, I will make it my mission in life to make your existence on Elite a nightmare.

Are we clear??

 

[str8manwithadickinhisass]

Regardless, public funds ( more commonly known as taXes) were used to pay someone to put these signs up. Nobody of any religion should be forced to pay for cutesy "What Would Jesus Do" signs. If you want to eXpress your religous beliefs then pay for your own fucking signs (including labor costs) and put them in your own damned yard. Religous freaks piss me off.

 

[Warik]

I love reading Wariks responses to RyanH

Thanks - I think.

-Warik

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

For example, the states are not completely sovereign since the government restricts states rights where necessary.

Circular logic again Ryan, your favorite fallacy.

what you are saying is: "States are not completely sovereign, because the [federal] government restricts them. "

OR

They are not sovereign because they are not allowed to be sovereign. Interesting logic.



Explain where that can be found in the Constitution. Further, where is the ACLU in defense of the 10th Amendment, the one most egregiously violated by the federal government?

I like the ACLU. I support the effort you discuss. I also like their efforts in defending the skinheads in Skokie, Illionois.

In other news...There are no necessary restrictions to the first amendment,as you claimed. Speech and expression by itself is harmless. Restriction of any speech is the first step toward tyranny.

 

[dimitrios]

*yawn*

I'm with you on this one

 

[p0ink]

ryan?

 

[manny78]

euhh whats wrong with that ? Jesus is Lord of all, I thought it was a fact ?

 

[RyanH]

what you are saying is: "States are not completely sovereign, because the [federal] government restricts them.

that's precisely right, and Matt, perhaps you ought to consider a course in logic. The definition of sovereign according to the American Heritage Dictionary is: one that exercises supreme power, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit. Now, this definition would naturally allow an entity to NOT be sovereign in several ways. For example, an entity might not be sovereign because it is restricted by a ruler, restricted by a theocracy, restricted by a monarchy, or restricted by the powers of a broad representative body/Congress. Thus, there are a mulitude of ways in which an entity is not sovereign. Being restricted by the broader powers of a Democratic form of government is just one of them, and it is this definition that applies to our present discussion.
States are not completely sovereign because the federal government restricts them in a multitude of ways---through the Commerce Clause, through the taxing power, etc. My earlier statement would only be circular if there was only one way that an entity could not be sovereign---which just isn't the case. Nevertheless onto more important issues.

Explain where that can be found in the Constitution. Further, where is the ACLU in defense of the 10th Amendment, the one most egregiously violated by the federal government?

The 10th Amendment only states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States. Therefore, states basically get what the United States Supreme Court and Congress deem do not belong to the federal government. Of course, there are traditional areas that have always been left to the states such as matters of divorce, the family, safety/crime, and healthcare issues. But, the Federal government through the Commerce Clause has managed to intrude into those areas as well. Example: The Supreme Court has invalidated many state safety laws (an area traditionally afforded to the states but not longer because of its impact on intestate commerce). In short, it's not very difficult for Congress to encroach on states rights so long as it can find a sufficient nexus between the interest at play and its effect on interstate commerce----which is very easy to do. So to say that states are sovereign in theory is correct, but in actuality it is just simply not the case.

In other news...There are no necessary restrictions to the first amendment,as you claimed. Speech and expression by itself is harmless. Restriction of any speech is the first step toward tyranny.

Of course, there are many restrictions on the First Amendment. For instance, schools have every right to limit a student's first amendment speech if that speech creates a "material disruption", and local communities have the constitutional right to limit obscenity from being sold (sexually oriented speech) if a community finds that it is not in accordance with its standards. The list goes on; I could cite many other examples, but time limits me.

 

[RyanH]

Ryan,
As you may well know I am in agreement with you. I only wish I could have joined this conversation earlier. However, as I look upon this one dollar bill I see "In God We Trust" printed on the back. I know this has been challenged or at least questioned before. This is a one dollar bill printed by the only legal source of currency in these United States--the federal government.
Let's examine this a little more closely, and I will give you your chance to attack these statements. (I am playing devil's advocate.) As you have already stated public property may not be used to endorse a religion thereby lending to the notion that the government is endorsing religion. AM I DOING OK SO FAR??
Now, as I stare at this dollar bill I am reminded that it is mine. I earned it. It's in my pockt. It is my personal and private property. AM I STILL DOING OK??? So, if I want "In God We Trust" on my dollar, then it's "cool", right?
Remember, I am not authorized to print money. The federal government may only produce legal tender.
So, whose money is it? Is it private or public? Was it the government's (public) to begin with? If so, then why are they printing "In God We Trust" on this "public property"?
I hope I made this as clear as possible. I am very curious as to what the ACLU would say about our cold hard cash!!! Ok, maybe you can't speak for the ACLU, but could comment in your individual capacity? Thanks, man.

You've brought up a very interesting issue, but right now, I have other work to do. I'll think about what you said, and post tomorrow.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

that's precisely right, and Matt, perhaps you ought to consider a course in logic. For example, an entity might not be sovereign because it is restricted by a ruler, restricted by a theocracy, restricted by a monarchy, or restricted by the powers of a broad representative body/Congress. Thus, there are a mulitude of ways in which an entity is not sovereign. Being restricted by the broader powers of a Democratic form of government is just one of them, and it is this definition that applies to our present discussion.

My earlier statement would only be circular if there was only one way that an entity could not be sovereign---which just isn't the case. Nevertheless onto more important issues.

All of those arguments are circular. The means of restriction doesn't matter froma logical standpoint. You are saying states are not sovereign for any number of reasons theocracy. monarch, Congress, etc. But your conclusion is arrived at by circular logic: they are not sovereign becuae they are not sovereign. You're right, but it's a clear 360.

The 10th Amendment only states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States. Therefore, states basically get what the United States Supreme Court and Congress deem do not belong to the federal government. Of course, there are traditional areas that have always been left to the states such as matters of divorce, the family, safety/crime, and healthcare issues. But, the Federal government through the Commerce Clause has managed to intrude into those areas as well. Example: The Supreme Court has invalidated many state safety laws (an area traditionally afforded to the states but not longer because of its impact on intestate commerce). In short, it's not very difficult for Congress to encroach on states rights so long as it can find a sufficient nexus between the interest at play and its effect on interstate commerce----which is very easy to do. So to say that states are sovereign in theory is correct, but in actuality it is just simply not the case.

Interesting word choice. The 10th Amendment says "powers granted by teh Consitituion". That is crystal clear. It does not say, "powers granted by Congress and the Supremes". Both entities overstep their bounds when they act in this fashion.

You acknowldege this by your use of the word "intrude". Congress has intruded into state sovereignty, to teh great detriment of our conutry.

Of course, there are many restrictions on the First Amendment. For instance, schools have every right to limit a student's first amendment speech if that speech creates a "material disruption", and local communities have the constitutional right to limit obscenity from being sold (sexually oriented speech) if a community finds that it is not in accordance with its standards. The list goes on; I could cite many other examples, but time limits me.

I understand that there are many limits on teh first amendment. (Please read more carefully ryan) I just say that none of them are justified. The schools one is kinda touchy. The obscenity stuff ios ridiculous; I should not be restricted from viewing whatever I want by some Puritan.