Satan, 'Monkey God' Statues to join Ten Comm. in OK Capitol?

[Frigidus]

How can a private group decide to erect or build something on public grounds? It's not like I can go there with a bunch of fellow cc'ers and decide to construct a set of dice.

That was the loophole they used so they could build the Ten Commandments statue.

[Anarkistsdream]

All of this talk is inconsequential. It will never make it... Because Fallin is a huge cunt.

[2dimes]

Picts!


Wait, is or has...?

[thegreekdog]

Picts!


Wait, is or has...?

And is it Palin or Fallin?

[AndyDufresne]

Jimmy. Fallon.


--Andy

[2dimes]

Hot!

[notyou2]

Jimmy. Fallon, angel


--Andy

[Night Strike]

I'm fine with this. Establishment clause doesn't say "no religion" it says "no one religion."

It also says "Congress", not "every single government office from President all the way down to a city council".

Okay!

And yet there is Supreme Court precedent holding that it applies to state legislatures as well.

That doesn't make it correct.

[Anarkistsdream]

I'm fine with this. Establishment clause doesn't say "no religion" it says "no one religion."

It also says "Congress", not "every single government office from President all the way down to a city council".

Okay!

And yet there is Supreme Court precedent holding that it applies to state legislatures as well.

That doesn't make it correct.

Actually, that is exactly what makes it correct. It is their job to interpret the law... so... yeah, it is correct... maybe it shouldn't be, but that is what the founding fathers totally intended.

[thegreekdog]

I'm fairly certain the founders didn't intend for that particular portion of the Constitution to apply to non-federal government units. Still doesn't matter because the law's the law.

[tzor]

Actually, that is exactly what makes it correct. It is their job to interpret the law... so... yeah, it is correct... maybe it shouldn't be, but that is what the founding fathers totally intended.

Actually, and that's the best joke of all, it's not. There is nothing in the constitution that gives the court the power to interpret the law (or establish law out of thin air as they did with the "right to privacy").

Ironically, the framers of the Constitution wasn't even expecting a Supreme Court to even be necessary. It was put in there just in case. It then became a self defining and self justifying institution.

It is a very dangerous doctrine indeed to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, and one that would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

[BigBallinStalin]

According to Mets, the judges are the only means for determining if the state is acting fraudulently.

[tzor]

I'm fairly certain the founders didn't intend for that particular portion of the Constitution to apply to non-federal government units. Still doesn't matter because the law's the law.

They didn't. The Federal Constitution applied to the Federal Government only. A good example of this is the first amendment. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, several states had established state religions. These states were basically shamed into dropping them after they ratified the constitution, but only because of the example of the constitution, not because of the wording of the constitution.

The idea that the constitution in general applied to the states, is a badly derived view known as the incorporation doctrine.

The doctrine of incorporation has been traced back to either Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago (1897) in which the Supreme Court appeared to require some form of just compensation for property appropriated by state or local authorities (although there was a state statute on the books that provided the same guarantee) or, more commonly, to Gitlow v. New York (1925), in which the Court expressly held that States were bound to protect freedom of speech. Since that time, the Court has steadily incorporated most of the significant provisions of the Bill of Rights.

The notion of the incorporation of the establishment of religion on the states wasn't technically done until 1947 (Everson v. Board of Education)

[tzor]

According to Mets, the judges are the only means for determining if the state is acting fraudulently.

Well, since I happen to be a Yankee fan, I don't really care what Mr. Met says.

[AndyDufresne]

May you all have a blessed holiday season:




--Andy