Atheist Group Seeks to Block Star of David on Holocaust Memorial

There is no reason to be concerned about that, since the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution, which clearly reserves to the states the power to pass laws respecting establishments of religion.

 

The argument that created the Bill of Rights during the founding discussions was the perceived necessity to specifically enumerate these as rights of the people that needed to be specified and not left as implications. It isn't a random label after the fact.

 

The states are not free to pass any law that is specifically non-constitutional, and the establishment of a state religion would be considered so.

 

What is correct and what is "exactly" what you said?

 

That the job of the SCOTUS is to interpret law.
Was that really so hard for you to discern?

 

Was that really so hard for you to state in your former comment? So you agree that the SCOTUS only interprets law, and does not make law?

 

It doesn't matter, since obviously the establishment clause is no more a right than is the appropriations cluase of A1S9.

Not by anyone who understands and respects the Constitution, it wouldn't.

 

I have repeated that at least four times in this thread.
Do you have a point?

 

Several points, but they cannot be discussed on this thread or forum.

 

So you think the SCOTUS is not a valid interpreter of things constitutional?
They are all we have.

 

Everyone is, who understands and respects the Constitution. Such people are no more likely to be found in a courtroom than in a hardware store.

To exercise the constitutional authority vested in them, yes; but said authority is nothing like what you represent it to be.

 

While I agree it's wrong what they are doing, you should stop trying to blame all atheists for the actions and opinions of a few. Or stop complaining when atheists blame you for all things done by Christians.

 

How do I have it wrong?
Or are you just mad that it doesn't work the way you wish it would, with the guys at the hardware chatting over the feed barrel don't get to make legal policy for the country?

 

That's how.

And don't ask for clarification, because I've already given more than you can handle, and more than I should have to.

 

That would be none. Incorporeal quit this thread too.
The hardware store is open until 6. Go down there and fix our ills.

 

Yes, that is exactly how much clarification you can handle, and exactly how much I should have to provide ...

 

... but I have provided more than that regardless, as I am not averse to being somewhat charitable even to lovers of lies.

 

So those other 5 million don't count? They should just be swept under the rug and not recognized...or worse, recognized only under the banner of Judaism?

 

We will expect you to pick your attorney, then, from whoever happens to be sitting by the cracker barrel in the country store. Or why bother;
represent yourself.

It will be groovy! ( did i use the word correctly?)

 

No...groovy and attorney should never be used in the same post....

 

Attorneys, even constitutional attorneys, don't get hired for their understanding of the Constitution, but for their ability to present arguments that will sway Justices, who in some cases were clearly not appointed and confirmed by virtue of their understanding and respect for the Constitution.

 

You dont get to have this both ways.
Cracker barrel is good enough for the constitution, outta be good enough when the haul you in for something you never done.
Good luck with that.

 

A cowards response when he has no response.
Understood.

 

That would be a reasonable conclusion if members of the federal judiciary could, in the main, be counted on to respect their oath of office. Things being what they are...

 

You have provided nothing but your wish that you got to make the rules.
News alert.
You don't.