Author Topic: GOP Sen. Ben Sasse Blasts Roy Moore, Condemns ‘White Backlash Grievance’ on the Right  (Read 13801 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,738
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Absolutely incorrect.   Read the establishment clause.  It is far broader than an admonition against a state religion.  It says that Congress shall pass NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion.   Not just the official religion - ANY religion.   No endorsement of religion.   No subsidization of religion.  ANY religion.   

You've pulled your "originalist" take of the Constitution out of your ass.   I doubt you can find any court decision that limits the establishment clause to prohibiting an "official" religion.   On the other thread,  I kept citing the Everson case,  not for its ruling per se but because of its scholarly examination of the Founders' original intent.   It proves that the establishment clause was rooted not in the Founders' lack of religious faith, but in their fear of religious tribalism and its tyrannies.   Yes, there is a free market for religion in this country - but it is one in which the government cannot and must not take sides.   

A monument in a court of law proclaiming that one "shall have no other gods before the one true God" is unconstitutional,  and Roy Moore's contempt for the Constitution renders him unfit to serve.

Right on, Ben Sasse.     
...NOR PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.

You are free to worship or not as you please, but you will be surrounded by people who will worship as they please. Just as you have the freedom of expression (speech), so do others, and you do not have the freedom to not be offended. A monument to the most recognized early code of law in this country is wholly appropriate. That is no guarantee no one will get their thong in a knot. Remove those basic laws enshrined in that early code from our society against murder, theft, adultery, perjury and you will have mayhem in the streets, so like it or not, those religion based laws will persist.
The removal of prayer and the mention of The Almighty are only the first step in the Libertine society you seem to think is a good idea, which produces things like 50,000,000+ dead babies and 1.3 million dying of HIV/AIDS. Whine away, the carnage continues.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
...NOR PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.

You are free to worship or not as you please, but you will be surrounded by people who will worship as they please. Just as you have the freedom of expression (speech), so do others, and you do not have the freedom to not be offended. A monument to the most recognized early code of law in this country is wholly appropriate. That is no guarantee no one will get their thong in a knot. Remove those basic laws enshrined in that early code from our society against murder, theft, adultery, perjury and you will have mayhem in the streets, so like it or not, those religion based laws will persist.
The removal of prayer and the mention of The Almighty are only the first step in the Libertine society you seem to think is a good idea, which produces things like 50,000,000+ dead babies and 1.3 million dying of HIV/AIDS. Whine away, the carnage continues.

QFT
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,586
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Six of the thirteen states that signed the Constitution ran established churches. It is a historical fact that the First Amendment was written not to suppress those state churches but to protect them. Those six states would have never signed the Constitution otherwise. They insisted on the language, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” to make clear that the federal government had no right to establish its own religion and disestablish theirs. The wall of separation in the Constitution is not between government and religion but between the federal government and the states’ religious activities.

The notion that the First Amendment requires individual states to treat all religious believers equally was invented out of thin air by judicial activists. For decades after the Constitution was written, several states baldly preferred one religion over another. As author M. Stanton Evans has written, “there remained a network of religious requirements for public office — typically, that one be a professing Christian of orthodox persuasion. Such requirements existed in New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Georgia and the Carolinas. For example, the state of Vermont, one of the more liberal states of the era (admitted to the Union in 1791) required the following oath of office: "I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration and own and profess the Protestant religion.”
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,586
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations."

Patrick Henry
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,660
What "haters"?   Why is it "hate" to criticize a judge who was fired twice for ignoring court rulings? 


Liberal,  illegitimate court rulings.   The man is a hero for defying them.  I've been urging us all to deliberately defy fake court rulings by liberal judges for years.   Just tell them "we won't obey."   


They piss on us and tell us it's "raining."  No,  it's Liberal Judges pissing on us.   The law does not mean what they say.   They are liars. 





Why is it "hate" to expect Christians to follow the law just like everyone else?   Why is it "hate" to understand that the Establishment Clause establishes a wall of separation between government and religion?   


Because that is a deliberately incorrect interpretation of what they meant and intended at the time.  Also the use of the 14th amendment to apply it to the states is a deliberately incorrect interpretation that does not at all conform to the intent of the framers of the 14th amendment.   


They are taking the intent of the founders far beyond it's original meaning,   and then they are taking the intent of the framers of the 14th far beyond their original meaning. 


It is an offense against Democratic governance.   
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,660
What "originalist text"?   The Establishment Clause, even under a reading which doesn't call for a wall of separation, provides that the state cannot endorse religion. 


It most certainly does not.   You have to be Ignorant to assert that.    The applying of the first amendment to the states was based on the 1868 14th amendment,   and not even liberal judges could claim there was any basis for applying it to the states prior to the 14th amendment. 


Several States did have official state religions in 1789.    Some had specifically Christian requirements for office.    I've quoted the state constitutions of these states to you,    so you ought to know better than to make such an incorrect claim.   




‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,660
The text provides the State cannot endorse A religion over others.



I hate this.   The usage of the word "state"  is deliberately confusing in this context.   In the context of the 1rst amendment,  the word "State",   means "National Government."   It did not mean,  nor was it intended at the time to mean,   any of the individual states that make up the Union.   


The confusion arises from the fact that the individual "States",   used to be their own national governments,  but now that they are combined,   they have given up some of their sovereignty to the National Government which we now call the "Federal"  government.   

The 1rst amendment was a constraint on the Federal,  not on the States,  many of which had their own protections written into their constitutions. 



‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
Well, perhaps those lawyers and citizens who gained their "education" from a Cracker Jack box. *****rollingeyes*****
Rather than the stupid eye rolling and obvious put down of others, can you please enlighten us on how laws are made in this country if it is not in the Constitution or passed by Congress?

You seem to know more on this subject than the rest of us. @Jazzhead
« Last Edit: November 01, 2017, 02:15:18 pm by IsailedawayfromFR »
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male


I hate this.   The usage of the word "state"  is deliberately confusing in this context.   In the context of the 1rst amendment,  the word "State",   means "National Government."   It did not mean,  nor was it intended at the time to mean,   any of the individual states that make up the Union.   


The confusion arises from the fact that the individual "States",   used to be their own national governments,  but now that they are combined,   they have given up some of their sovereignty to the National Government which we now call the "Federal"  government.   

The 1rst amendment was a constraint on the Federal,  not on the States,  many of which had their own protections written into their constitutions.

The 14th Amendment changed the Constitution.   You can't solely interpret the Constitution based on the intent of the Founders - the document has been amended since then.   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,738
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.


I hate this.   The usage of the word "state"  is deliberately confusing in this context.   In the context of the 1rst amendment,  the word "State",   means "National Government."   It did not mean,  nor was it intended at the time to mean,   any of the individual states that make up the Union.   


The confusion arises from the fact that the individual "States",   used to be their own national governments,  but now that they are combined,   they have given up some of their sovereignty to the National Government which we now call the "Federal"  government.   

The 1rst amendment was a constraint on the Federal,  not on the States,  many of which had their own protections written into their constitutions.
Correct, in that each of the States were national governments, complete with executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and their own constitutions and Cabinet officers.

My bad. The confusion arises from my use of the word "State" when I meant the Federal Government (which was of these united States until the War of Northern Aggression, when it became a de facto National Government, and no longer a Federal one).

That was sloppy of me, and thank you for pointing that out.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,660
The 14th Amendment changed the Constitution.   



Well first of all,   that's not what you routinely say about the Founders intent regarding the "establishment cause"  and the states. 


Second of all,   it did not.    That people think it did was because Liberal Kook Judges appointed by Roosevelt claimed it did.   


They are wrong.   It was never the intent of the framers of the 14th amendment to ban religion in the states.    Their intent was to secure rights for freed slaves,  and nothing else. 




You can't solely interpret the Constitution based on the intent of the Founders - the document has been amended since then.


We can talk about the way things were originally intended,  and we can talk about amendments.   You are conflating an incorrect 1940s era Liberal interpretation of the 14th as applying back in 1787,   when it obviously did not.    It could not possibly have applied prior to 1868.   



We must agree on some facts,  or it is pointless to debate.   
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,660


That was sloppy of me, and thank you for pointing that out.


Well you are welcome.   It's just unfortunate that the term in modern usage has more than one meaning.   It adds to the confusion,   and I believe some people deliberately exploit this confusion in making their claims.   


‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male


Well first of all,   that's not what you routinely say about the Founders intent regarding the "establishment cause"  and the states. 


Second of all,   it did not.    That people think it did was because Liberal Kook Judges appointed by Roosevelt claimed it did.   


They are wrong.   It was never the intent of the framers of the 14th amendment to ban religion in the states.    Their intent was to secure rights for freed slaves,  and nothing else.

  Not so.  The language of the 14th amendment is not limited to the narrow subject of slaves.  If it were, it would say so.   And a decision by "liberal kook judges" is still the law - especially since the ruling regarding the 14th amendment's reach has not been essentially changed in over 70 years,  by subsequent opinions or by the act of Congress.     





It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,738
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.

Well you are welcome.   It's just unfortunate that the term in modern usage has more than one meaning.   It adds to the confusion,   and I believe some people deliberately exploit this confusion in making their claims.
I have noticed that.
Sometimes, I, too, wonder if it isn't deliberate. Like when protests were occurring over grazing leases in the West, the group "Black Lives Matter" popped up, even though police shootings of violent black perpetrators were nothing new. But doing a web search for the BLM (Bureau of Land Management, the Federal Agency which oversees those leased  grazing lands) became increasingly difficult, because "BLM" brought up a racist group instead.  :shrug:
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,660
  Not so.  The language of the 14th amendment is not limited to the narrow subject of slaves. 


Other than the 13th and 14th amendments,  You won't find the word "slave"  in the US Constitution,  but make no doubt about it,   there are several clauses that were intended exclusively to deal with slaves and slavery. 


If you want to know what was the intent of the 14th,  you read the debates on the 14th.  Here is a link to get you started.   I've read them.   They say nothing about religion, abortion,  homosexuality,  or making anchor babies into citizens.   It's all about citizenship for freed slaves and protecting their rights.   
 


https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html





If it were, it would say so.   And a decision by "liberal kook judges" is still the law - especially since the ruling regarding the 14th amendment's reach has not been essentially changed in over 70 years,  by subsequent opinions or by the act of Congress.     


The way this works is for Congress to pass a law or an amendment.   The way this does not work is for Tyrant Judges who want to impose their morality on others to "declare"  something is the law,  and then ram it down the throats of the public.   


The default position of this Nation is that legitimacy of law is bestowed by affirmative acts from Congress,  not by Congress failing to act in overturning bad court decisions.   


The Court has long been acting outside it's legitimate power,  and people have been tolerating it.    All power ultimately resides with the people,  and the people need to stop tolerating abuse of power by Judges. 


 
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
I've lost count of how many names he's called me or @INVAR.

I don't give a rat's ass what the resident hedonist Marxist wants to call me.  It is what one can expect from an overt enemy to nearly every single thing we hold dear and believe in.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline Suppressed

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,921
  • Gender: Male
    • Avatar
[...] which produces things like 50,000,000+ dead babies and 1.3 million dying of HIV/AIDS. Whine away, the carnage continues.

The Left loves such arguments.  Throw away the Rule of Law, freedom, principles, in the name of security. 

"If it saves one life, gun control is worth it!" is where we usually see it.


No thanks....I'd rather take principle over emotionalism.
+++++++++
“In the outside world, I'm a simple geologist. But in here .... I am Falcor, Defender of the Alliance” --Randy Marsh

“The most effectual means of being secure against pain is to retire within ourselves, and to suffice for our own happiness.” -- Thomas Jefferson

“He's so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent.” --Foghorn Leghorn

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 80,206
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
I don't give a rat's ass what the resident hedonist Marxist wants to call me.  It is what one can expect from an overt enemy to nearly every single thing we hold dear and believe in.

I don't much care, either, which is why I don't recall all the names.  But, I do consider it a marker for assessing character, and it hasn't been playing well for me.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
The Left loves such arguments.  Throw away the Rule of Law, freedom, principles, in the name of security. 

"If it saves one life, gun control is worth it!" is where we usually see it.


No thanks....I'd rather take principle over emotionalism.

@Smokin Joe was articulating supreme principles that were foundational to the existence of the rule of law and the consequences that happen as a result of a form of lawlessness being referenced as "freedom".

Cast those out, regardless of whatever justification you want to give it - and the civil society collapses wholesale and in short order into caste, corruption and mayhem - which are the fruits we are already experiencing.

Consequences are about to become a horrific nightmare for a generation wholly ignorant of what it has done to itself.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline Emjay

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,687
  • Gender: Female
  • Womp, womp

Liberal,  illegitimate court rulings.   The man is a hero for defying them.  I've been urging us all to deliberately defy fake court rulings by liberal judges for years.   Just tell them "we won't obey."   


They piss on us and tell us it's "raining."  No,  it's Liberal Judges pissing on us.   The law does not mean what they say.   They are liars. 






Because that is a deliberately incorrect interpretation of what they meant and intended at the time.  Also the use of the 14th amendment to apply it to the states is a deliberately incorrect interpretation that does not at all conform to the intent of the framers of the 14th amendment.   


They are taking the intent of the founders far beyond it's original meaning,   and then they are taking the intent of the framers of the 14th far beyond their original meaning. 


It is an offense against Democratic governance.

Judges are not gods, although they've come to think they are.  Until we can get rid of the Clinton/Obama appointed judges, it is incumbent upon people to defy unjust rulings just to get people to notice.
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain.

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,660
Six of the thirteen states that signed the Constitution ran established churches. It is a historical fact that the First Amendment was written not to suppress those state churches but to protect them. Those six states would have never signed the Constitution otherwise. They insisted on the language, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” to make clear that the federal government had no right to establish its own religion and disestablish theirs. The wall of separation in the Constitution is not between government and religion but between the federal government and the states’ religious activities.

The notion that the First Amendment requires individual states to treat all religious believers equally was invented out of thin air by judicial activists. For decades after the Constitution was written, several states baldly preferred one religion over another. As author M. Stanton Evans has written, “there remained a network of religious requirements for public office — typically, that one be a professing Christian of orthodox persuasion. Such requirements existed in New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Georgia and the Carolinas. For example, the state of Vermont, one of the more liberal states of the era (admitted to the Union in 1791) required the following oath of office: "I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration and own and profess the Protestant religion.”


Well done and exactly right. 
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,601
  • Gender: Male
  • Dumbest member of the forum
The more I hear from Judge Moore, the more I wish I had the opportunity to vote for him, instead of being offered idiots like Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy...

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,738
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
The Left loves such arguments.  Throw away the Rule of Law, freedom, principles, in the name of security. 

"If it saves one life, gun control is worth it!" is where we usually see it.


No thanks....I'd rather take principle over emotionalism.
I would much rather have that law back..."nor prohibit the free exercise thereof." and let my kids pray where they please.

 It was the court-imposed idea that freedom of religion is freedom from religion, that started tearing things down.

That's not what the Founders said at all.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline To-Whose-Benefit?

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,613
  • Gender: Male
    • Wulf Anson Author
The more I hear from Judge Moore, the more I wish I had the opportunity to vote for him, instead of being offered idiots like Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy...

Cheezus H.

What a national embarrassment those 2 are.

Gov Dannel Malloy's World of Next Tuesday Worker's Paradise.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2017, 05:25:54 am by To-Whose-Benefit? »
My 'Viking Hunter' High Adventure Alternate History Series is FREE, ALL 3 volumes, at most ebook retailers including Ibooks, Barnes and Noble, Kobo, and more.

In Vol 2 the weapons come out in a winner take all war on two fronts.

Vol 3 opens with the rigged murder trial of the villain in a Viking Court under Viking law to set the stage for the hero's own murder trial.

http://wulfanson.blogspot.com