GOP Can't Win Honestly; Time to Cheat

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

It's a selective process.

'Ignoring' works for 'separation of church and state,' but it is by the book for the second amendment.

You do realize only one of the two is actually written in the Constitution.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Do youthink gerrymandering to maximize votes is cheating?

Yes, when it leads to Republicans winning elections instead of Democrats.

That's the only consistency you'll find here.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

It's a selective process.

'Ignoring' works for 'separation of church and state,' but it is by the book for the second amendment.

The concept of seperation of church and state is John Locke and thought highly of by Thomas Jefferson. It was penned by Jefferson in some letter or article he wrote in a religious newspaper, or to a church something like that.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

Yep, a republic in which the framing document specifies that the chief executive is elected not by the people, but by the states, hence the concept of each state casting all or nothing votes.

Wrong answer. The Constitution gives the States the power to select Electors to the Electoral College in a process freely decided by each State's government. It makes no stipulation on who those electors should be or how they should vote.

It's impossible that the framers had in mind a winning-party-takes-all mandate since they had no parties in mind when they designed the Electoral College. Like most things, they intended to leave the details up to each state.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

The concept of seperation of church and state is John Locke and thought highly of by Thomas Jefferson. It was penned by Jefferson in some letter or article he wrote in a religious newspaper, or to a church something like that.

Ironically it was written to a Baptist Minister in the spirit that his Church was off limits to government meddling. The "Wall of Separation" was meant to protect the Church from the threat of Government more than to protect the Government from the Church. Exactly the opposite conclusion from what the modern progressive professional re-interpreters like to take away.

I always thought if I were a history teacher, I'd require all my students to read the Danbury Baptist letter so students could see the context as it was intended. There'd be more that a few people out there who would complain that reading that very same letter in public school was a violation of their modern SOCAS construction.

Long story short, they only want you to remember 5 words out of that letter.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

You do realize only one of the two is actually written in the Constitution.

Of course, but I was responding to 'intent.'

My point was that one is loosely interpreted, whereas the other is by the book.

Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."[2]

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Of course, but I was responding to 'intent.'

My point was that one is loosely interpreted, whereas the other is by the book.

You're saying an off-the-cuff line in a friendly letter should be as strictly interpreted as language that was written into and ratified as part of the Constitution? Should we do this with everything Jefferson wrote? That could get fun.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Ironically it was written to a Baptist Minister in the spirit that his Church was off limits to government meddling. The "Wall of Separation" was meant to protect the Church from the threat of Government more than to protect the Government from the Church. Exactly the opposite conclusion from what the modern progressive professional re-interpreters like to take away.

I always thought if I were a history teacher, I'd require all my students to read the Danbury Baptist letter so students could see the context as it was intended. There'd be more that a few people out there who would complain that reading that very same letter in public school was a violation of their modern SOCAS construction.

Long story short, they only want you to remember 5 words out of that letter.

This nicely illustrates my point.

The first amendment is 'loosely,' or incorrectly, interpreted, whereas the second amendment is by the book.

Separation of church and state is a concept based in the Establishment Clause, found in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Establishment Clause was extended to apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and prohibits laws dealing with the establishment of religion. Neither the state or federal government may enact laws which aid one or all religions, or give a preference to one religion over another. The Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sep...rch-and-state/

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

You're saying an off-the-cuff line in a friendly letter should be as strictly interpreted as language that was written into and ratified as part of the Constitution? Should we do this with everything Jefferson wrote? That could get fun.

Did you read the supreme court interpretations I included?

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

This nicely illustrates my point.

The first amendment is 'loosely,' or incorrectly, interpreted, whereas the second amendment is by the book.



[/URL]

It's not quite that simple. The wording of the actual ratified 1st Amendment is not 100% in line with the way many people like to interpret SOCAS. There are many who seek to use SOCAS as a means to banish the Church from the public square. But in the spirit of "Free exercise thereof" that's a much harder argument to make.

There's a large contingent out there who would rather just replace in the national conscience what the 1st Amendment actually says about freedom of religion with 5 words Thomas Jefferson once wrote in a letter.

[Rohirrim]

Here's the part where Beavis is proved almost ridiculously wrong, so instead of admitting it, he pretends the argument was about something else.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

It's not quite that simple. The wording of the actual ratified 1st Amendment is not 100% in line with the way many people like to interpret SOCAS. There are many who seek to use SOCAS as a means to banish the Church from the public square. But in the spirit of "Free exercise thereof" that's a much harder argument to make.

There's a large contingent out there who would rather just replace in the national conscience what the 1st Amendment actually says about freedom of religion with 5 words Thomas Jefferson once wrote in a letter.

My understanding has always been that the intent was 'freedom of and from religion, without bias.'

I understand that the religious right want to interpret it only as 'freedom of,' but according to the supreme court, that is not correct.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Here's the part where Beavis is proved almost ridiculously wrong, so instead of admitting it, he pretends the argument was about something else.

I'm sorry did you make a point somewhere? I'm still waiting to hear how what's OK in Nebraska is cheating in Michigan. Or how upholding a 200 year old Senate tradition is cheating.

Please enlighten me.

[frerottenextelway]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...5th-of-popular

"....Obama would have received almost exactly 3/5 of the electoral vote compared to their actual population -- 30.7 percent of the electoral vote over 51 percent of the popular vote. The coincidence recalls one of American history's -- and especially Virginia's -- most infamous numbers, the three-fifths compromise that counted slaves as a fraction of a person when calculating a state's federal representation."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive...Micah+Marshall)

"Another way of looking at this is that the new system makes the votes of whites count for much more than non-whites — which is a helpful thing if you’re overwhelmingly dependent on white votes in a country that is increasingly non-white."

I'm shocked that Cutt supports it!!!

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

My understanding has always been that the intent was 'freedom of and from religion, without bias.'

I understand that the religious right want to interpret it only as 'freedom of,' but according to the supreme court, that is not correct.

I'm sorry, but are you arguing that the Supreme Court interpreted the Free Exercise clause out of the Constitution? I'm not sure what you're saying.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

I'm sorry, but are you arguing that the Supreme Court interpreted the Free Exercise clause out of the Constitution? I'm not sure what you're saying.

I thought the rulings were self explanatory. What is it you don't understand?

Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."[2]

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

I thought the rulings were self explanatory. What is it you don't understand?

How does the "clause against establishment of religion by law" have any impact on the Free Exercise Clause?

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

How does the "clause against establishment of religion by law" have any impact on the Free Exercise Clause?

I'm not sure where your trying to go, so I'll simply restate what I have already commented on.
And if you are going to use Free Exercise, you must also include the Establishment Clause:

Your comment:

The "Wall of Separation" was meant to protect the Church from the threat of Government more than to protect the Government from the Church.

My later comment.

My understanding has always been that the intent was 'freedom of and from religion, without bias.'

A quote I used.

Neither the state or federal government may enact laws which aid one or all religions, or give a preference to one religion over another. The Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion.

With or without the Supreme Court, it seems straightforward.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

I'm not sure where your trying to go, so I'll simply restate what I have already commented on.
And if you are going to use Free Exercise, you must also include the Establishment Clause:

With or without the Supreme Court, it seems straightforward.

I'm honestly not sure what we're even arguing. Guessing it might have to do with your mention of freedom "from" religion. And if it is, that's a non-starter.

Freedom of religion does not imply freedom from religion any more than freedom of speech means freedom FROM speech.

In a free society, you'll be constantly burdened with the opinions and beliefs of others, whether you agree with them or not.

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Both have the same effect: Giving a minority the power to win what they did not earn and both ignoring the will of the people.

Here's a newsflash, neither side gives a damn about the will of the people.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

I'm honestly not sure what we're even arguing. Guessing it might have to do with your mention of freedom "from" religion. And if it is, that's a non-starter.

Freedom of religion does not imply freedom from religion any more than freedom of speech means freedom FROM speech.

In a free society, you'll be constantly burdened with the opinions and beliefs of others, whether you agree with them or not.

That's your opinion, mine is different.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

That's your opinion, mine is different.

In what way? Banishment of religious speech in public? Of religious text or symbols?

So far the Courts have carefully maintained that Religious speech enjoys the same protections afforded any other.

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/r...uidance.html#3

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment requires public school officials to be neutral in their treatment of religion, showing neither favoritism toward nor hostility against religious expression such as prayer. [ 2 ] Accordingly, the First Amendment forbids religious activity that is sponsored by the government but protects religious activity that is initiated by private individuals, and the line between government-sponsored and privately initiated religious expression is vital to a proper understanding of the First Amendment's scope. As the Court has explained in several cases, "there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect."

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

In what way? Banishment of religious speech in public? Of religious text or symbols?

So far the Courts have carefully maintained that Religious speech enjoys the same protections afforded any other.

At this time, it has greater protections, particularly for Protestant Christian speech.

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

I'm still waiting to hear how what's OK in Nebraska is cheating in Michigan.

I am too.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

In what way? Banishment of religious speech in public? Of religious text or symbols?

So far the Courts have carefully maintained that Religious speech enjoys the same protections afforded any other.

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/r...uidance.html#3

I don't care about any of those issues.

This is what we should all be concerned about, Santorum et al and their belief in social interference.