ACLU and Christmas
It would seem that if the ACLU ran the nation - and at times it certainly seems they have quite a bit of authority - terrorists would be freed unless found guilt post-facto, rights would be continually manufactured out of thin air, and religion would be outlawed.
Too extreme? Perhaps, but religion certainly would be under attack. The Salvation Army has fewer places to ring their bells because spineless companies (Read: Target) fear a different organization suing them over 'sapce'.
With the desire to redefine marriage it is easy to see that tradition is meaningless in the quest for being the most self-centered and ego-driven entity or group. The desires of the majority have been pushed to the side by groups of loud and narcissistic views.
This 1% - 3% of the population described as homosexual (Kinsey's 10% is untrue) wants to push the 97%+ others into legally having to accept both relationships as being the same. Idiocy.
According to the CIA World Factbook, all but 10% of the people in the United States say they are religious, and take out the 1% Jewish, and 1% Muslim and the 10% 'other', and we find that 78% are Christian of some sort. 78% are people who will celebrate Christmas, yet it is improper to say, "Merry Christmas" anymore lest you offend.
The word Christmas itself seems to make the ACLU's ilk gasp in horror, and that is a very sad shame. Attempting to shut down the majority for the sake of a small minority on such a strange issue as Christmas only goes to show how far the nation has come on issues that do matter. 'Civil Liberties' must be a good state of affairs if the ACLU has to moan about the Baby Jesus being on public property.
Also, though I'm not a legal expert (I like to think I am at times though), I was curious if this has ever been argued and if not why not:
The Constitution states that 'Congress' is: A1:S1-4 (partial quotes)
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives"
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states..."
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state..."
That's Congress. That is what it is and who makes up its membership.
Now, the ever famous 1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
Let me repeat part of it, a very important part: "Congress shall make no law..."
So, how can judges declare that what the city of Clumpville does for Christmas to be unconstitutional UNLESS the Congress of the United States MADE Clumpville put the Baby Jesus in a manger on public property?
If the City of Los Angeles wishes to have a cross on the city seal, if the Feds didn't make this demand, why oh why is it unconstitutional? It actually goes against the "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." part of the first amendment.
If any of your are legal experts, or know someone who thinks of themselves as one, please have them get in contact with me because I have yet to get a good answer. Oh, and as you see there is no 'separation of church and state clause', only that Congress can't establish one religion as being 'better' than another.
For more proof, let's look further in the Amendments:
Am2: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "
Hmm. Congress is not mentioned is it? Looks like NO ONE has the right to infringe on this one - if we followed the Constitution.
Am3: "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Hmm. Since the Feds declare war, I guess the Feds make war-time policy. But in peace not even the Feds have authority. No one can force soldiers into your house.
Am4: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Tricky. It doesn't say that only the Feds have to do this, it does not make a distinction, so no one has the authority to violate this. Partiot Act... I don't mind it, but is it actually constitutional in all parts? No.
Am5: (pleading the fifth) "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "
Self explanitory, again no direct mention of who can or can not do this, so everyone or no one must be implied for civilians.
Am6: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. "
One of the few times the Constitution speaks about how States and lower need to do things. This says who can do what and how. It is clearly stated though, and not that confusing.
Am7: "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law"
Inflation has changed the value, but not the idea.
Am8: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. "
This is what they argue in death penalty appeals (Cruel and Unusual). But since it doesn't say to whom this law is for, we must assume it is for EVERY court.
Am9: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "
This basically says that the internet, though not invented when the Constitution was written DOES fall under press when it comes to being able to convey ideas, thoughts, opinions, and standard reporting of events, etc. What about TV? Should the FCC exist then?
Am10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "
Basically, if the Constitution does not speak on it, the States can make up laws or rights for the people as they see fit. A lack of a law does in fact mean it is legal as well.
This might be long, but as you can see some questions can be posed as to if certain things are Constitutional or not, but having a federal judge say that Three Wise men on the lawn of Town Hall at Christmas somehow goes against the Constitution is to have an abusive and agenda-driven judge because NO WHERE does it say that a city can not do as it pleases when it comes to religion and as you can see from the other Amendments the founders made it quite clear who was granted or denied authority in every case.
Merry Christmas to you all, sorry for spelling errors, I'll correct them tomorrow.
Too extreme? Perhaps, but religion certainly would be under attack. The Salvation Army has fewer places to ring their bells because spineless companies (Read: Target) fear a different organization suing them over 'sapce'.
With the desire to redefine marriage it is easy to see that tradition is meaningless in the quest for being the most self-centered and ego-driven entity or group. The desires of the majority have been pushed to the side by groups of loud and narcissistic views.
This 1% - 3% of the population described as homosexual (Kinsey's 10% is untrue) wants to push the 97%+ others into legally having to accept both relationships as being the same. Idiocy.
According to the CIA World Factbook, all but 10% of the people in the United States say they are religious, and take out the 1% Jewish, and 1% Muslim and the 10% 'other', and we find that 78% are Christian of some sort. 78% are people who will celebrate Christmas, yet it is improper to say, "Merry Christmas" anymore lest you offend.
The word Christmas itself seems to make the ACLU's ilk gasp in horror, and that is a very sad shame. Attempting to shut down the majority for the sake of a small minority on such a strange issue as Christmas only goes to show how far the nation has come on issues that do matter. 'Civil Liberties' must be a good state of affairs if the ACLU has to moan about the Baby Jesus being on public property.
Also, though I'm not a legal expert (I like to think I am at times though), I was curious if this has ever been argued and if not why not:
The Constitution states that 'Congress' is: A1:S1-4 (partial quotes)
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives"
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states..."
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state..."
That's Congress. That is what it is and who makes up its membership.
Now, the ever famous 1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
Let me repeat part of it, a very important part: "Congress shall make no law..."
So, how can judges declare that what the city of Clumpville does for Christmas to be unconstitutional UNLESS the Congress of the United States MADE Clumpville put the Baby Jesus in a manger on public property?
If the City of Los Angeles wishes to have a cross on the city seal, if the Feds didn't make this demand, why oh why is it unconstitutional? It actually goes against the "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." part of the first amendment.
If any of your are legal experts, or know someone who thinks of themselves as one, please have them get in contact with me because I have yet to get a good answer. Oh, and as you see there is no 'separation of church and state clause', only that Congress can't establish one religion as being 'better' than another.
For more proof, let's look further in the Amendments:
Am2: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "
Hmm. Congress is not mentioned is it? Looks like NO ONE has the right to infringe on this one - if we followed the Constitution.
Am3: "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Hmm. Since the Feds declare war, I guess the Feds make war-time policy. But in peace not even the Feds have authority. No one can force soldiers into your house.
Am4: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Tricky. It doesn't say that only the Feds have to do this, it does not make a distinction, so no one has the authority to violate this. Partiot Act... I don't mind it, but is it actually constitutional in all parts? No.
Am5: (pleading the fifth) "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "
Self explanitory, again no direct mention of who can or can not do this, so everyone or no one must be implied for civilians.
Am6: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. "
One of the few times the Constitution speaks about how States and lower need to do things. This says who can do what and how. It is clearly stated though, and not that confusing.
Am7: "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law"
Inflation has changed the value, but not the idea.
Am8: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. "
This is what they argue in death penalty appeals (Cruel and Unusual). But since it doesn't say to whom this law is for, we must assume it is for EVERY court.
Am9: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "
This basically says that the internet, though not invented when the Constitution was written DOES fall under press when it comes to being able to convey ideas, thoughts, opinions, and standard reporting of events, etc. What about TV? Should the FCC exist then?
Am10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "
Basically, if the Constitution does not speak on it, the States can make up laws or rights for the people as they see fit. A lack of a law does in fact mean it is legal as well.
This might be long, but as you can see some questions can be posed as to if certain things are Constitutional or not, but having a federal judge say that Three Wise men on the lawn of Town Hall at Christmas somehow goes against the Constitution is to have an abusive and agenda-driven judge because NO WHERE does it say that a city can not do as it pleases when it comes to religion and as you can see from the other Amendments the founders made it quite clear who was granted or denied authority in every case.
Merry Christmas to you all, sorry for spelling errors, I'll correct them tomorrow.
posted by Edward W. Prather at 22:11
<< Home