CAMP: Roy Moore Is Not A Constitutional Conservative

[INVAR]

My "bogus" view of the Establishment Clause is backed by Court decisions and evidence of the intent of the Founders.

"What the SCOTUS says IS the law" - Jazzhead 10-24-2017

That was NEVER the intent of the Founders.  You LIE, as you always do.

"The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”  - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804

"What the SCOTUS says IS the law" - Jazzhead 10-24-2017

"...according to this opinion to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. . . . The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Sept. 6, 1819

"What the SCOTUS says IS the law" - Jazzhead 10-24-2017

"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone." -  Thomas Jefferson Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Dec. 25, 1820

"What the SCOTUS says IS the law" - Jazzhead 10-24-2017

“The great object of my fear is the Federal Judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them.” - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, 1821

"What the SCOTUS says IS the law" - Jazzhead 10-24-2017

“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.” - Thomas Jefferson - Letter to A. Coray, October 31, 1823

"What the SCOTUS says IS the law" - Jazzhead 10-24-2017

"The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” - Abraham Lincoln, March 4 1861

"What the SCOTUS says IS the law" - Jazzhead 10-24-2017

[txradioguy]

You keep ignoring my point that these were "Roosevelt"  appointees that did this.   Prior to Roosevelt stacking the courts with Liberal Kook judges,  nobody ever found these ideas in the Constitution.   You actually have to ignore a lot of the historical truth to even attempt to sell this "separation of Church and State"   argument.   

The US Congress used to fund bibles and preachers back in the 1820s or so.   Presumably they knew the intent of the first amendment because many of the framers of it were still alive back then,  and none of them objected to Congress funding religious education among the Indians.   

I would like to point out again that one of those Roosevelt appointees that Jazzy is using for his defense of the mythical wall of separation is Klan Lawyer and noted anti Catholic Hugo Black.

[Jazzhead]

You are oversimplifying the motivation of others.   It is more complex than you make it out to be.   I'll take but one example for the time being.   


I am against slavery.   I consider it wrong,  and we should not tolerate it.    This does not mean that I agree with the manner in which this goal was achieved.   In fact I consider the manner in which it was achieved to be a complete bastardization of the legitimate process. 


So too do I view this religious argument.    Judges of the Federal government lied about the original intent of the first amendment,  and used the power at their command to force it on the populace. 

Now perhaps having religion separated from Government is a good thing,  as you claim,   but overturning the will of the people for their own good,  and through an illegitimate process,  is most definitely not a good thing.   


If the result was not accomplished through the correct process,  it is illegitimate.    Whether it's goal was worthy or not is immaterial to the fact that they did not gain the consent of the people to establish this new condition,   they imposed it on us without our consent.

But you're wrong, DL.   The process is perfectly legitimate, and consistent with the Constitution.   The Supreme Court construed the meaning of the Establishment Clause in accordance with its Constitutional authority, and the Congress - the elected representatives of the people - have had the means to overrule the SCOTUS's interpretation for many decades now.   They never have done so, which extends legitimacy to the Court's ruling. 

You may have an opinion regarding the Founders' intent that differs from the copiously researched view of the Supreme Court.   That's fine - but it does not give you the credibility to declare the process illegitimate.   

As for me, the discussion in Everson is wholly convincing -  a federal government forbidden to entangle itself with religion is perfectly consistent with the Founders' experience with the religious tyranny they experienced firsthand during their lifetimes.   And the propensity for folks to persecute and kill each other in the name of the Almighty continues to this day. 

Religions are organizations of man.  They are fallible, and jealous, and antithetical by their very nature to human liberty. 

[Jazzhead]

Funny thing, INVAR, that you don't quote Jefferson on the subject of religion.   

[txradioguy]

Funny thing, INVAR, that you don't quote Jefferson on the subject of religion.

In discussions of the 1st Amendment it doesn't matter. Jefferson wasn't there for it's writing nor was he a signatory.

You just want him doing into this because he was a Unitarian like yourself.

[INVAR]

Funny thing, INVAR, that you don't quote Jefferson on the subject of religion.

Neither do you when it comes to SCOTUS making law.

I find it the height of hilarity that you will reverence Jefferson in a private letter in 1801 that created your mythical 'wall of separation' you keep insisting was 'implied' in the First Amendment when none of those words are present in any capacity, and ignore all these private letters that Jefferson wrote that debunk your claim that the Founders intended the courts to do as you claim they have a divine right to do.

You were the one who insisted that your arguments are consistent with the view of the court to make law by the Founders.

Jeffersons' own words do not carry your narrative, so as is usual with you - you ignore them and continue to lecture from the same false pedestal you put yourself on.

[Jazzhead]

Neither do you when it comes to SCOTUS making law.

I find it the height of hilarity that you will reverence Jefferson in a private letter in 1801 that created your mythical 'wall of separation' you keep insisting was 'implied' in the First Amendment when none of those words are present in any capacity, and ignore all these private letters that Jefferson wrote that debunk your claim that the Founders intended the courts to do as you claim they have a divine right to do.

You were the one who insisted that your arguments are consistent with the view of the court to make law by the Founders.

Jeffersons' own words do not carry your narrative, so as is usual with you - you ignore them and continue to lecture from the same false pedestal you put yourself on.

I never quoted Jefferson's letter (it was probably DL that did so).   I cited the Everson opinion, which doesn't utilize Jefferson's letter either (it mainly focuses on Madison).   

The SCOTUS's role wasn't fully pinned down until Marbury v. Madison,  although Article III of the Constitution describes its jurisdiction.

Bottom line is exactly what I said at the top of this thread - the separation of church and state is Constitutionally provided for, in the Establishment Clause as interpreted by the Supreme Court and left un-contradicted by the peoples' elected representatives ever since.   

The law's on my side, pal.   To secure religious freedom, religious tyranny must be prohibited.   

[roamer_1]

Again, what boggles me is why this isn't universally hailed as a good thing.  Why the hell do conservatives want the state entangled with religion?   And, just as crucial, why the hell do religious conservatives want religion entangled with the state?

No one wants a theocracy. Well, at least not 'til Shiloh come...

But the Judeo-Christian Ethic, our sense of right and wrong, is being eroded, and in fact, replaced with another set of morals - Another religion is being preferred. That of secular humanism - The self same religion preferred by communist constructionists everywhere. Not that that is a surprise - That is the point, isn't it... As the very same process evolves everywhere a people is willing to entertain it.

History is a great teacher. I would recommend a look at what happened to great nations that made them fall to socialism and communism, and you will find precisely the same things functioning here - those processes which you are all too quick to applaud.

You seem to see that as some great improvement, even though actual conditions on the ground deny the claim. Absolutely: Everything that is destroying this country boils down to a moral problem, and those problems have grown exponentially in every direction since the acceptance of Humanism - nay, rather, ever since Humanism has been jammed down our throats by a burdensome and overweening super-state, and the decree of ghouls in black robes.

Predictably, you cannot cut us away from that Judeo-Christian root, and the more you saw away at it, the further we'll slide into decadence and turpitude... until it is finally cut through, and everything the United States stands for and  everything that makes us a people ceases entirely to be... and something awful rises up in it's place.

But then, I think you know that, or you are a mindless tool of those who do. 

Religion is not 'entangled with the state', but the Judeo-Christian Ethic most necessarily is. All law is a form of moral enforcement... either by regulation or by punishment. If you are not using that law to enforce the Judeo-Christian Ethic, you are using it to enforce something else. Be careful what you wish for.

[INVAR]

The law's on my side, pal.   To secure religious freedom, religious tyranny must be prohibited.   

I do not recognize your perverted "law", and neither do I accept your tedious lectures justifying lawlessness.

As all tyrants do - you claim to secure liberty - while imposing your own twisted, perverted, wicked and lawless wished-for tyrannies upon a people you have stated it is your desire to punish utilizing the government and courts to do so.

As I said earlier - you are an enemy to absolutely everything I believe in and stand for and you continue to demonstrate that you are an enemy of liberty in favor of the perverted tyranny you seek to use the courts to impose on us.

[roamer_1]

The law's on my side, pal.   To secure religious freedom, religious tyranny must be prohibited.   

No, the color of law is on your side.

[txradioguy]

I do not recognize your perverted "law", and neither do I accept your tedious lectures justifying lawlessness.

As all tyrants do - you claim to secure liberty - while imposing your own twisted, perverted, wicked and lawless wished-for tyrannies upon a people you have stated it is your desire to punish utilizing the government and courts to do so.

As I said earlier - you are an enemy to absolutely everything I believe in and stand for and you continue to demonstrate that you are an enemy of liberty in favor of the perverted tyranny you seek to use the courts to impose on us.

What our Unitarian Liberal friend doesn't understand is that the 1st Amendment was designed and written to protect Americans from the kind of religious tyranny the colonies were breaking away from.

Jefferson had to be a member of the Church of England to be an Assemblyman in the Virginia Colony's legislature.  If he wasn't a member he couldn't serve according to the laws of the Crown at the time.

Imagine today if it was a requirement that you had to be a member of the Holy Roman Catholic Church or me a member of the LDS Church in order to be an elected official in Government.

That it what the 1st Amendment Protects against and that is why it states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Not these mamby pamby lame sauce excuses Jazzy tries to slip past us.

[Smokin Joe]

No, the color of law is on your side.

Not so much as just an amoral apartheid. We shall overcome was a gospel song. So no more singing that.

Funny how shamelessly the Left steals from the religious then tries to muzzle us.

[INVAR]

What our Unitarian Liberal friend doesn't understand is that the 1st Amendment was designed and written to protect Americans from the kind of religious tyranny the colonies were breaking away from.

Oh no, he understands it perfectly well.  He is not as 'ignorant' as one might want to give him the benefit of being.

His own words have stated he desires punishment on us 'bigots' for the free exercise of our faith and religion - and he has stated his desire to use the courts and the government to impose punishment and restriction on 'religious tyrants'.  Not to mention all the Statist Marxism the guy supports and has argued for incessantly while claiming his views are Conservative.

The guy has a liberal agenda he is pushing as part of the redefinition of what he wants Conservatism to be seen as.  Nothing we show him from the Founders, no quotes from great Conservatives and no reasoning or logic is going to sway him from what he regurgitates lectures as 'discussion' when he has already demonstrated he is not interested in discussion, only propagandizing his agenda.

Just consider his presence here a gift, a willful gojo mat for cutting practice.  That is what he is and that is how we should consider him and his "arguments" here.

[Smokin Joe]

Oh no, he understands it perfectly well.  He is not as 'ignorant' as one might want to give him the benefit of being.

His own words have stated he desires punishment on us 'bigots' for the free exercise of our faith and religion - and he has stated his desire to use the courts and the government to impose punishment and restriction on 'religious tyrants'.  Not to mention all the Statist Marxism the guy supports and has argued for incessantly while claiming his views are Conservative.

The guy has a liberal agenda he is pushing as part of the redefinition of what he wants Conservatism to be seen as.  Nothing we show him from the Founders, no quotes from great Conservatives and no reasoning or logic is going to sway him from what he regurgitates lectures as 'discussion' when he has already demonstrated he is not interested in discussion, only propagandizing his agenda.

Just consider his presence here a gift, a willful gojo mat for cutting practice.  That is what he is and that is how we should consider him and his "arguments" here.

He is well versed in the mantras of the Left. Which makes for good practice refuting that stuff.

[Sanguine]

He is well versed in the mantras of the Left. Which makes for good practice refuting that stuff.

You have much more patience than I do.

[Jazzhead]

Religion is not 'entangled with the state', but the Judeo-Christian Ethic most necessarily is. All law is a form of moral enforcement... either by regulation or by punishment. If you are not using that law to enforce the Judeo-Christian Ethic, you are using it to enforce something else. Be careful what you wish for.

The law can reflect the "Judeo-Christian Ethic" without violating the separation of church and state.   A law reflecting the commandment "thou shalt not steal" does not represent an establishment of religion.     

[Smokin Joe]

You have much more patience than I do.

Not necessarily. I just edit--a LOT. Whole posts go down the memory hole some times when I clean them up, because there just isn't enough left to convey complete thoughts. But I am learning to be more relaxed refuting his stuff, which is a good thing to practice for face to face encounters. I'm getting so I hate fighting. My hands hurt for days, but if they lose it and take the first swing, it's self defense...

[roamer_1]

The law can reflect the "Judeo-Christian Ethic" without violating the separation of church and state.   A law reflecting the commandment "thou shalt not steal" does not represent an establishment of religion.     

Neither do granite tablets stating the same in front of a county courthouse.

[Jazzhead]

His own words have stated he desires punishment on us 'bigots' for the free exercise of our faith and religion

Yes, when such free exercise harms or violates the rights of others.  Why should playing the religion card give you carte blanche to harm others?   

And why shouldn't I speak out as loudly as I can regarding bigotry?   Why is bigotry defensible because it bears the imprimatur of your religion?   

[Bigun]

Not necessarily. I just edit--a LOT. Whole posts go down the memory hole some times when I clean them up, because there just isn't enough left to convey complete thoughts. But I am learning to be more relaxed refuting his stuff, which is a good thing to practice for face to face encounters. I'm getting so I hate fighting. My hands hurt for days, but if they lose it and take the first swing, it's self defense...

God bless you Sir!  I just can't do the circular arguments thing so I'll leave it in your most capable hands!

[Jazzhead]

Neither do granite tablets stating the same in front of a county courthouse.

I'd agree if the tablet only said "thou shalt not steal".   But what about the commandment that one acknowledge the one true God?   Why should a government - in a court of law no less - appear to endorse such an explicitly religious command?   

[Smokin Joe]

Neither do granite tablets stating the same in front of a county courthouse.

If nothing else, that could be viewed as a milestone along the way to modern laws.

The fact that those same rules are common to many religions in one form or another, and the fact that Judaism and Christianity both have additional belief-based religious rules should make it obvious that mention of those ten is not an imposition of any specific church upon the State.

Or is the "weekend" just the imposition of the Judeo-Christian ethos of not working on the sabbath and takes in both just to be sure?

I guess most anything in our culture except the few things formerly regarded as immoral (like same-sex weddings) could be hammered into some religious rule somewhere and disposed of as a violation of the  imaginary wall of separation between church and state, but the result would be court enforced protection for all the things which society has generally found to be self-destructive. 

[roamer_1]

I'd agree if the tablet only said "thou shalt not steal".   But what about the commandment that one acknowledge the one true God?   Why should a government - in a court of law no less - appear to endorse such an explicitly religious command?   

Because it is part and parcel with the rest, and used as precedence in this country for 200 years (along with the rest of the Holy Writ). It can't be selectively edited and be the same thing. In fact, the moment it is edited, it is not the same thing, by definition.

And because it brings a humility to those who put on their Armani suits to go to work there - That the LAWS they are messing with are not the product of the puny minds of men... That there is a higher Court that will inevitably oversee their work.

That is perhaps the single most vile thing that Humanism is based upon - The illegitimate child of the French Rights of Man - That we may shape law to suit our fancy. It is anathema to the very first words uttered to consecrate this country (to a specific God, btw):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [...] That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

If there is no God, yea, if this is not in fact a country established and consecrated to YHWH specifically, then those rights are not unalienable, and governments are not instituted among men to secure them. In fact, what is left is nothing more than France's Rights of Man - A flawed document attributing law to the whim of men and that governments are instituted among men to establish them.

That which men establish, men can take away.

[roamer_1]

If nothing else, that could be viewed as a milestone along the way to modern laws.

The fact that those same rules are common to many religions in one form or another, and the fact that Judaism and Christianity both have additional belief-based religious rules should make it obvious that mention of those ten is not an imposition of any specific church upon the State.

Or is the "weekend" just the imposition of the Judeo-Christian ethos of not working on the sabbath and takes in both just to be sure?

I guess most anything in our culture except the few things formerly regarded as immoral (like same-sex weddings) could be hammered into some religious rule somewhere and disposed of as a violation of the  imaginary wall of separation between church and state, but the result would be court enforced protection for all the things which society has generally found to be self-destructive.

A question for you: Who is referred to as God in this country's consecration?

[INVAR]

Yes, when such free exercise harms or violates the rights of others. 

That biblical Christians exist and live by a faith you HATE and have declared harmful to others that you have argued deserve punishment by the courts and the state is nothing short of a viscous meddlesome tyranny that deserves resistance by all means possible.

I refuse to allow my business to serve behaviors and politics that I consider to be evil and harmful.  Tyrants like you advocate that the courts destroy my livelihood, plunder my wealth, prevent me from making a living unless I serve as you empower the state to demand that I serve, which is nothing but slavery that you pretend to oppose.  Imprisonment, fine and destruction are all things you have applauded and justify.

Which makes you the enemy of liberty I have declared you to be.

Because it is part and parcel with the rest, and used as precedence in this country for 200 years (along with the rest of the Holy Writ). It can't be selectively edited and be the same thing. In fact, the moment it is edited, it is not the same thing, by definition.

And because it brings a humility to those who put on their Armani suits to go to work there - That the LAWS they are messing with are not the product of the puny minds of men... That there is a higher Court that will inevitably oversee their work.

That is perhaps the single most vile thing that Humanism is based upon - The illegitimate child of the French Rights of Man - That we may shape law to suit our fancy. It is anathema to the very first words uttered to consecrate this country (to a specific God, btw):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [...] That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

If there is no God, yea, if this is not in fact a country established and consecrated to YHWH specifically, then those rights are not unalienable, and governments are not instituted among men to secure them. In fact, what is left is nothing more than France's Rights of Man - A flawed document attributing law to the whim of men and that governments are instituted among men to establish them.

That which men establish, men can take away.

Jazzhead will not read that or agree with such an irrefutable post of logic.

Because he has a Secular-Humanist Socialist-Universalist agenda to push upon the rest of us.

And he sees his tool to impose both "law" by color and punishment via the courts - like all the rest of the Leftists that share the same talking points and agenda that he spews on this board.