 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:27 am Post subject: Body Slam to the ACLU ( update - another one) |
 |
|
This was on appeal, decision was 3-0... now to see if ACLU takes to the new Supremes
seems these 3 judges don't deem the ACLU as reasonable, but instead tiresome 
WND
| Quote: | 1st Amendment 'doesn't create church-state wall of separation'
Court whacks civil-liberties group, OKs Ten Commandments display
December 20, 2005
A U.S. appeals court today upheld the decision of a lower court in allowing the inclusion of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse display, hammering the American Civil Liberties Union and declaring, "The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."
Attorneys from the American Center for Law and Justice successfully argued the case on behalf of Mercer County, Ky., and a display of historical documents placed in the county courthouse. The panel voted 3-0 to reject the ACLU's contention the display violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
<.snip>
Writing for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said the ACLU's "repeated reference 'to the separation of church and state' ... has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."
Suhrheinrich wrote: "The ACLU, an organization whose mission is 'to ensure that ... the government [is kept] out of the religion business,' does not embody the reasonable person." |
can read the full decision here
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0477p-06.pdf
some snips...
| Quote: |
"The ACLU’s argument contains three fundamental flaws. First, the ACLU makes repeated reference to “the separation of church and state.” This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.
" Our Nation’s history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion
"Second, the ACLU focuses on the religiousness of the Ten Commandments. No reasonable person would dispute their sectarian nature, but they also have a secular nature that the ACLU does not address. That they are religious merely begs the question whether this display is religious; it does not answer it. “
“Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause.”
The Constitution requires an analysis beyond the four-corners of the Ten Commandments. In short, “proving” that the Ten Commandments themselves are religious does not prove an Establishment Clause violation.
"Third, the ACLU erroneously–though perhaps intentionally–equates recognition with endorsement. To endorse is necessarily to recognize, but the converse does not follow.
we fail to see why the reasonable person would interpret the presence of the Ten Commandments as part of the larger “Foundations” display as a governmental endorsement of religion. We will not presume endorsement from the mere display of the Ten Commandments. If the reasonable observer perceived all government references to the Deity as endorsements, then many of our Nation’s cherished traditions would be unconstitutional, including the Declaration of Independence and the national motto. Fortunately, the reasonable person is not a hyper-sensitive plaintiff. …….
Instead, he appreciates the role religion has played in our governmental institutions, and finds it historically appropriate and traditionally acceptable for a state to include religious influences, even in the form of sacred texts, in honoring American legal traditions."
|
_________________
.
one of..... We The People
Last edited by kate on Sun Dec 25, 2005 4:59 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
I B Squidly
Vice Admiral
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 879
Location: Cactus Patch
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, Kate. That's this year's best Christmas present. Finally some blackrobes with vertebrae and the sense to say feces stink.
| Quote: | | Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said the ACLU's "repeated reference 'to the separation of church and state' ... has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state." |
my new hero.
_________________
"KILL ALL THE LAWYERS!"
-Wlm Shakespeare |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
They probably read Mark Levin's book and then went back to look up the law. Shazzam, it's not there. The 6th Circuit shows judgement. Thanks, your honors.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dusty
Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 1264
Location: East Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
All I can say is, "Glory be".
Dusty
_________________
Left and Wrong are the opposite of Right! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Undoubtedly, the ACLU will take this higher, hoping for a favorable outcome. Let's hope we have another friendly Justice by then and they too can see the fallacy of this so called "wall of separation between Church and State" in the First Amendment.
If nothing else, where is the "Tolerance" of these "hyper-sensitive plaintiffs?" Isn't it the left that says how "Tolerant" they are?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
We need to stomp on the neck of this ACLU beast and hold it down.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LewWaters wrote: | | Let's hope we have another friendly Justice by then and they too can see the fallacy of this so called "wall of separation between Church and State" in the First Amendment. |
Just for information, the origin of the infamous seven words, "wall of separation between Church and State", which the ACLU sees plainly written in the Constitution, is in a letter written by President Jefferson to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801.
The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature - as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only that on the national level.
Following is Jefferson's letter. (Note: The bracketed and italicized section in the second paragraph had been blocked off for deletion, though it was not actually deleted in his draft of the letter. It is included here for completeness. Reflecting upon Jefferson's knowledge that his letter was far from a mere personal correspondence, he deleted the block, he says in the margin, to avoid offending members of his party in the eastern states.)
| Quote: | To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802. |
No doubt Jefferson could have said the same thing with about a third of the words, but that was then.
In the business world we had a saying, "What does the contract say?", when those for whom we worked wanted to change something without amending the contract.
In the case of the "wall of separation", the contract (Constitution) contains no such words and, hopefully, the ACLU will be reminded of that with increasing frequency.
EDIT: Of course, we'll never know for sure, but I think in using the stark words, "wall of separation", Jefferson was just reiterating the demand that the government never be permitted to establish a "Church of America" in the mould of the tyrannical Church of England from which the Founders had escaped.
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dusty
Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 1264
Location: East Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | EDIT: Of course, we'll never know for sure, but I think in using the stark words, "wall of separation", Jefferson was just reiterating the demand that the government never be permitted to establish a "Church of America" in the mould of the tyrannical Church of England from which the Founders had escaped. |
Excellent interpretation of Jefferson's words Schadow. And exactly correct.
Dusty
_________________
Left and Wrong are the opposite of Right! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GenrXr
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 1720
Location: Houston
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
We have judges who have read the constitution?
_________________
"An activist is the person who cleans up the water, not the one claiming its dirty."
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Founder of Conservative Philosophy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrJapan
PO1
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 465
Location: Chiba, Japan
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GenrXr wrote: | | We have judges who have read the constitution? |
Well... They have read what they wanted to read (believe)... I think there was the ACLU version that the LSM printed listed on here a few months (a year?) ago.... It was definately not the same as the actual constitution, but the majority of the people in the USA have only seen what was printed in their version... as a matter of fact, I think I saw that same version in the textbooks when I was in high school....
MJ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Another 'lil Slam to the ACLU
different topic -
I am enjoying this too much
Buffalo News
| Quote: | Muslim-Americans held at border lose suit
Judge says agents did not violate rights of those detained after Islamic gathering
A federal judge has ruled against a group of Muslim-Americans who asked him to guarantee they will not be harassed at the border after attending the Reviving the Islamic Spirit convention in Toronto this weekend.
Last December, some who attended the conference said they were treated like terrorists and detained for hours at the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge. On Thursday, District Judge William M. Skretny refused to tell U.S. Homeland Security officials they cannot conduct the same kind of inspections of people returning from this year's conference. He also granted summary judgment in favor of Homeland Security, dismissing the lawsuit filed by four Muslim-Americans from Western New York and one from Brooklyn.
<>snip>
The judge noted that Homeland Security officials decided to detain and question the Muslim-Americans after receiving information that someone linked to terrorist activities might have attended the conference.
Skretny wrote that especially since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the government has a duty to protect the borders and investigate all possible terrorist threats. He said a lack of manpower at the bridge and "burdensome" fingerprinting procedures caused some of the Muslim-Americans to be detained for a long time.
According to the plaintiffs, about 40 Muslim-Americans who attended the conference were detained at Lewiston on Dec. 26-27 for as long as six hours, with no explanation of why they were being held.
"As unfortunate as the incident may have been, I find that it was not unconstitutional," Skretny wrote. "It is well settled that the government's interest in securing the nation against the entry of unwanted persons and things reaches its pinnacle at the border. It is for this reason that the government's authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at international crossings has long been recognized."
<snip>
The lawsuit claimed those who attended the conference were referred for intensive "secondary inspections" at Lewiston for the sole reason they had attended the conference.
Some of the Muslim-Americans claimed they were treated roughly by bridge personnel and asked inappropriate questions......
more.... |
Gessh, it's not like we didnt have our very own terror cell in Buffalo. ACLU may appeal...but appeals do take time. Be interesting to see how this one turn out.? On the surface it seems like 'profiling'., but the 'profiling' was during the time that known gathering was taking place.
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PhantomSgt
Vice Admiral
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 972
Location: GUAM, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obviously this didn't pass thru the 9th Circuit in California.
_________________
Retired AF E-8
Independent that leans right of center. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
I B Squidly
Vice Admiral
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 879
Location: Cactus Patch
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
A 'bump' from good old Scrapple Face:
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2118
Why have I heard this nowhere else?
_________________
"KILL ALL THE LAWYERS!"
-Wlm Shakespeare |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrJapan
PO1
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 465
Location: Chiba, Japan
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PhantomSgt wrote: | Obviously this didn't pass thru the 9th Circuit in California.
|
ROK (Republic of Kalifornia... not a Republic nation nonetheless)?! you kidding?
I hope that 1 day we will be able to tame the RoK to American standards... Don't see it happening soon though  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
