tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post674970309868806087..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: First they came for my prayer mural. Then they came for my T-shirt...mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger132125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-21248056145394259652012-01-27T13:53:29.490-05:002012-01-27T13:53:29.490-05:00"I know that they voted to allow the Catholic..."<i>I know that they voted to allow the Catholics to use the buses, but would you at least admit that he had a serious bias?</i>"<br /><br />Do you think that Justice Frank Murphy thought that Black had a serious bias? do you think Murphy was somehow tricked into voting for the majority opinion?<br /><br />"<i>You know, maybe if some of the non-KKK justices had written the majority opinion, they wouldn't have slipped part of the KKK creed in there.</i>"<br /><br />When a justice signs on to a decision, they get a copy of the majority opinion before they attach their name to it, and are given the opportunity to offer edits or change their position and vote against the opinion or write their own concurrence in which they explain their disagreement with the majority. Justice Murphy did none of these things. Was Justice Murphy anti-Catholic?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-11467666822948420732012-01-27T11:50:47.095-05:002012-01-27T11:50:47.095-05:00"You're not so humble yourself. You'r..."<i>You're not so humble yourself. You're quite arrogant.</i>"<br /><br />Interesting. Having actual knowledge on a subject and using that knowledge is "arrogant". Have I presumed to tell you the ins and outs of your job?<br /><br />My assessment of Christians is based upon frequent contact with members of the faith. Most have more hubris and pride than non-Christians.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-86217846454955052212012-01-27T11:30:48.166-05:002012-01-27T11:30:48.166-05:00"It's tiresome because it's true. In ..."<i>It's tiresome because it's true. In any case, anti-Catholic feelings were quite common, especially among elite circles, at the time. Okay, they are now too. You're an elite lawyer and you hate Catholics too.</i>"<br /><br />Who hates Catholics? I'm married to a Catholic. I just know the way the law works and that as structured now, it protects religion.<br /><br />"<i>Are you really trying to tell me that Black was not anti-Catholic?</i>"<br /><br />Black recanted his anti-Catholic views, and his actions while serving as a Supreme Court Justice support this.<br /><br />"<i>I know that they voted to allow the Catholics to use the buses, but would you at least admit that he had a serious bias?</i>"<br /><br />Given his progressive views as a serving Senator, and his record as a Justice, you have a hard case to make there.<br /><br />"<i>Will you at least admit that the concept of separation of "church and state" was one wholeheartedly supported by the KKK, precisely because they were paranoid about the influence of Catholics in government? Will you admit that these words appeared in the initiation oath of the Klan before it appeared in case law?</i>"<br /><br />I guess you're opposed to free speech and a free press, because those appeared in the Klan oath too. free public schools, just laws, and liberty are on your down list as well I guess.<br /><br />Given that the oath you cite came from the second Klan, which was founded in the twentieth century, <i>Reynolds</i> predates it.<br /><br />"<i>You know, maybe if some of the non-KKK justices had written the majority opinion, they wouldn't have slipped part of the KKK creed in there.</i>"<br /><br />And you still haven't explained what part of <i>Everson</i> is wrong. All the portions you opined on you said were correct.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-73530288392518140582012-01-27T11:30:31.782-05:002012-01-27T11:30:31.782-05:00"The part where the Klansman makes up words t..."<i>The part where the Klansman makes up words that don't appear in the Constitution. That part.</i>"<br /><br />Ah. So your version of valid judicial opinions would just be reprinting provisions of the Constitution <i>verbatim</i>?<br /><br />"<i>You know, that says "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church" is spot on. Because that's what "establish" means. And if we use the incorporation doctrine to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, that would include them as well.</i>"<br /><br />Okay. So you're up to speed here.<br /><br />"<i>Questionable. At least he's stuck to "laws", which we seemed to have dropped in its entirety from our cultural definition. The constitution doesn't say anything about aiding religion, but establishing one. Verbs matter. Do you see how Black is departing from the actual language of the Constitution?</i>"<br /><br />You don't think aiding religion is tantamount to establishing one? "The State of Massachusetts hereby gives a million dollars to the Congregationalists" would be okay because it is just aiding religion?<br /><br />"<i>That's free exercise.</i>"<br /><br />That is also Establishment. You see, if a State were to want to establish an official church, it could compel attendance.<br /><br />"<i>Free exercise again.</i>"<br /><br />Once again, it is also Establishment. Part of Establishing an official church could be compelling attendance or penalizing non-attendance.<br /><br />Interesting. You responded to part of the quoted opinion, but left out this:<br /><br />"<i>No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.</i>"<br /><br />Which pretty much eviscerates you claim that "<i>And I think you'll notice that there isn't a single provision in there about prayers on school walls.</i>" Because that violates the "no tax may be levied" portion.<br /><br />Simlarly, "<i>It says nothing about crosses on federal property,</i>"<br /><br />No tax may be levied to support any religious activities.<br /><br />"<i>about kids selling candy canes in school with Bible verses on them, about the military teaching just war theory using the Bible,</i>"<br /><br />No tax may be levied to support religious activities.<br /><br />"<i>or any other such nonsense. It doesn't say anything about Boy Scout troops meeting on military bases either.</i>"<br /><br />No tax may be levied to support religious activities.<br /><br />"<i>Trish and Joey aren't loudly proclaiming their ignorance. They're simply not ceding their right to form an opinion to a pushy anonymous commenter who claims expertise because he's a lawyer. In any case, you did take a dig at Christians.</i>"<br /><br />They are loudly claiming their ignorance by asserting they have not bothered to read the opinions they think are wrong and not being able to come up with any cogent reason why those opinions are wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-83272487620525022142012-01-27T11:01:21.812-05:002012-01-27T11:01:21.812-05:00"Which part is flawed there?"
The part ..."Which part is flawed there?"<br /><br />The part where the Klansman makes up words that don't appear in the Constitution. That part. <br /><br />You know, that says "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church" is spot on. Because that's what "establish" means. And if we use the incorporation doctrine to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, that would include them as well.<br /><br />"Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another."<br /><br />Questionable. At least he's stuck to "laws", which we seemed to have dropped in its entirety from our cultural definition. The constitution doesn't say anything about aiding religion, but establishing one. Verbs matter. Do you see how Black is departing from the actual language of the Constitution?<br /><br />"Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." <br /><br />That's free exercise. <br /><br />"No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance."<br /><br />Free exercise again. <br /><br />And I think you'll notice that there isn't a single provision in there about prayers on school walls. It says nothing about crosses on federal property, about kids selling candy canes in school with Bible verses on them, about the military teaching just war theory using the Bible, or any other such nonsense. It doesn't say anything about Boy Scout troops meeting on military bases either. <br /><br />"Trish and Joey have said they haven't bothered to read the cases, and loudly proclaimed their ignorance as to the contents of those cases."<br /><br />Trish and Joey aren't loudly proclaiming their ignorance. They're simply not ceding their right to form an opinion to a pushy anonymous commenter who claims expertise because he's a lawyer. In any case, you did take a dig at Christians. <br /><br />"That would require a little humility though, and that seems to be one virtue that most Christians lack."<br /><br />You're not so humble yourself. You're quite arrogant. I wonder if you would say the same thing about other groups. "Most Jews seem to lack humility." "Most blacks seem to lack humility." The first step to sounding like a reasonable human being, if you want my advice, is to search your heart for the bigotry in its depths, and then expunge it. Go ahead.<br /><br />"The 'Black was a KKK guy and forced this into the law' mantra is tiresome because it is stupid."<br /><br />It's tiresome because it's true. In any case, anti-Catholic feelings were quite common, especially among elite circles, at the time. Okay, they are now too. You're an elite lawyer and you hate Catholics too. <br /><br />Are you really trying to tell me that Black was not anti-Catholic? I know that they voted to allow the Catholics to use the buses, but would you at least admit that he had a serious bias? Will you at least admit that the concept of separation of "church and state" was one wholeheartedly supported by the KKK, precisely because they were paranoid about the influence of Catholics in government? Will you admit that these words appeared in the initiation oath of the Klan before it appeared in case law?<br /><br />You know, maybe if some of the non-KKK justices had written the majority opinion, they wouldn't have slipped part of the KKK creed in there. <br /><br />CARLITOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-8210861863567885312012-01-27T10:41:43.494-05:002012-01-27T10:41:43.494-05:00"You claim to have read portions of bills, an..."<i>You claim to have read portions of bills, and hold opinions on them.</i>"<br /><br />I hold opinions <b>on the portions I have read</b>. Which is what I have said. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.<br /><br />"<i>Something that appears later in the bill might modify it.</i>"<br /><br />That would be why when reading legislation, it is important to cross reference portions to see if they do modify other sections or are modified by them. You seem to think no one who deals with legislation knows this, or takes it into account when they are reading bills.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-12050173952351277552012-01-27T10:37:13.884-05:002012-01-27T10:37:13.884-05:00"Why shouldn't we limit our thinking to t..."<i>Why shouldn't we limit our thinking to the actual author of the Constitution?</i>"<br /><br />Sure. Just make sure you don't limit your thinking to the words of Madison in 1789, which is what Rehnquist is doing. Make sure you pay attention to his actions as President, which tell a different story than the one Rehnquist wants to tell.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-60562648038163698162012-01-27T10:35:21.420-05:002012-01-27T10:35:21.420-05:00To quote Joe Q. Public, "You're ignorant ...To quote Joe Q. Public, "You're ignorant by your own standard."<br /><br />CARLITOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-39912885659830752652012-01-27T10:34:08.228-05:002012-01-27T10:34:08.228-05:00"So the separation, as a legal concept, is pr..."<i>So the separation, as a legal concept, is pretty much meaningless. I'll be sure to tell some angry atheist that next time I'm in an argument with them.</i>"<br /><br />The phrase is used as shorthand for this:<br /><br />"<i>The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.</i>"<br /><br />This is what separation as a legal concept means.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-750055719650159962012-01-27T10:32:18.496-05:002012-01-27T10:32:18.496-05:00"I think legislators should read the bills to..."<i>I think legislators should read the bills too. But we aren't talking only about legislators here, Anonymous. We're talking about citizens.</i>"<br /><br />Citizens who are by their own admission ignorantly opining on what the law should be. I don't think suggesting that they inform themselves first is too much to ask.<br /><br />"<i>I'm not a a lawyer, but I am informed enough to know that (a) rounding up whole ethnic groups without trial is unconstitutional,</i>"<br /><br />Well maybe you should read <i>Korematsu</i> and find out that wasn't the decision that was made.<br /><br />"<i>and (b) our constitution says nothing about separation of church and state.</i>"<br /><br />Perhaps you should read <i>Everson</i> and see what it actually says then.<br /><br />"<i>But you don't have to go around bashing Christians, telling people that they don't read, and calling them ignorant.</i>"<br /><br />Trish and Joey have said they haven't bothered to read the cases, and loudly proclaimed their ignorance as to the contents of those cases.<br /><br />"<i>I don't think you should go around assuming what other people know and don't know. For example, the Everson case. I see below that you assume that Trish doesn't know that the Catholics won that case. I can't speak for her, but i knew that, and I still think that the reasoning is wrong.</i>"<br /><br />Which part of the reasoning is wrong? Here, I'll quote the relevant portion for you, just pick out which part the court got wrong:<br /><br />"<i>The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.</i>"<br /><br />Which part is flawed there?<br /><br />"<i>More importantly, that doesn't prove that Hugo Black wasn't an anti-Catholic bigot. He was. It doesn't prove that he didn't take a principle of the KKK and insert it into our case law. He did.</i>"<br /><br />"He" didn't do anything. A unanimous Supreme Court did. The "Black was a KKK guy and forced this into the law" mantra is tiresome because it is stupid. Was Felix Frankfurter a KKK guy? How about Vinson? Reed? Douglas? The rest? They all voted in favor of his reasoning.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-3839982261176612362012-01-27T10:31:42.072-05:002012-01-27T10:31:42.072-05:00Oh, and another thing, Anonymous. You claim to hav...Oh, and another thing, Anonymous. You claim to have read portions of bills, and hold opinions on them. Isn't it better to read them in their entirety? I mean, you might miss something if you just focus on a small provision. Something that appears later in the bill might modify it. That would be like reading a small section of a legal opinion, without understanding the context. You might not know, for example, that the wall metaphor was "rhetorical flourish".<br /><br />Nope, you're not getting away with this. If you've ever formed an opinion about any bill you haven't read from cover to cover, you're a filthy hypocrite. <br /><br />CARLITOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-36169809566251114012012-01-27T10:26:29.385-05:002012-01-27T10:26:29.385-05:00"...Black's opinion isn't dependent u..."...Black's opinion isn't dependent upon the metaphor."<br /><br />Great. So the separation, as a legal concept, is pretty much meaningless. I'll be sure to tell some angry atheist that next time I'm in an argument with them. And if they don't like it, I'll just cite this guy named "Anonymous" on the Egnorance blog. Unless you feel like providing some credentials. <br /><br />CARLITOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-43568845636684046622012-01-27T10:23:31.252-05:002012-01-27T10:23:31.252-05:00And one humorous element here is that you think sh...And one humorous element here is that you think she never reads anything, but in fact she does. She can make intelligent arguments without being a constitutional lawyer. <br /><br />But according to you, she's cherry-picking. Let's see, Jefferson wasn't at the convention and the judge lifted his words, out of context, from a Letter to the Danbury Baptists. That's cherry-picking. Citing the words of the actual author of the Constitution is not cherry-picking.<br /><br />We've thusfar limited our insights to Jefferson's thinking and the KKK justice who quoted him. Why shouldn't we limit our thinking to the actual author of the Constitution? <br /><br />I hope for your sake that you aren't an actual constitutional lawyer. You certainly aren't very convincing in your diatribes. Let me ask you, do you usually insult the members of the jury when you're in court?<br /><br />CARLITOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-84096858941781705852012-01-27T10:22:50.035-05:002012-01-27T10:22:50.035-05:00No, sir. You have not.
I have, you just don't...<i>No, sir. You have not.</i><br /><br />I have, you just don't like the answer. because you don't know much of anything about the <i>Korematsu</i> case other than you have been told it must be wrong.<br /><br />As I noted before, <i>Korematsu</i> remains valid, albeit limited. In their decision, the Supreme Court limited the scope of their ruling to the exclusion orders, meaning it has limited precedential value. Korematsu was given a trial, and he was convicted, although the conviction was later voided in another proceeding, rendering the issues at the Supreme Court moot. On the other hand, <i>Korematsu</i>, for all the criticism it receives, is a valuable case because it is an early example of the Supreme Court applying strict scrutiny to a case involving race.<br /><br />It hasn't been overturned. People criticize the decision in Korematsu on substantive grounds - that the Court should not have found that the government met the strict scrutiny standard in implementing a general order to inter all citizens of Japanese descent. The case could be construed to have reached the wrong result in that specific case, but the legal standards set forth in the case are the same legal standards used today for cases that deal with racial issues. The case helped establish the framework of an important Constitutional principle for evaluating laws with a racial component.<br /><br />So, the answer to the question "was <i>Korematsu</i> wrong" is not as simple as you seem to think it should be. Was Korematsu himself denied due process? He got a trial. One might say that the Executive Order he was convicted under violated substantive due process, but the concept and content of substantive due process is one that is pretty far removed from the text of the Constitution. The ruling in the case is still a useful underpinning for the area of law relating to laws that affect race, so on that point it is not only good law, but it is fairly valuable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-16871828044454166592012-01-27T10:16:59.226-05:002012-01-27T10:16:59.226-05:00I think legislators should read the bills too. But...I think legislators should read the bills too. But we aren't talking only about legislators here, Anonymous. We're talking about citizens. <br /><br />"I have opinions on the portions that I have read."<br /><br />In other words, you haven't read the whole thing, but you have read enough to form an opinion. I think the same can be said about Everson, Korematsu, et al.<br /><br />I'm not a a lawyer, but I am informed enough to know that (a) rounding up whole ethnic groups without trial is unconstitutional, and (b) our constitution says nothing about separation of church and state. Your being a lawyer doesn't change those facts. Judges who find otherwise are wrong.<br /><br />And could you do me one thing, Anonymous? Tone down the contempt. Seriously. It's clear that you think you're the smartest person in the room with your unverifiable law degree from George Mason. But you don't have to go around bashing Christians, telling people that they don't read, and calling them ignorant. <br /><br />I don't think you should go around assuming what other people know and don't know. For example, the Everson case. I see below that you assume that Trish doesn't know that the Catholics won that case. I can't speak for her, but i knew that, and I still think that the reasoning is wrong. More importantly, that doesn't prove that Hugo Black wasn't an anti-Catholic bigot. He was. It doesn't prove that he didn't take a principle of the KKK and insert it into our case law. He did. <br /><br />CARLITOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-54214569502620262872012-01-27T10:11:36.767-05:002012-01-27T10:11:36.767-05:00Why should we limit our insights into Madison'...Why should we limit our insights into Madison's thinking to his actions during 1789? Perhaps because his actions once he entered office as President demonstrate a more expansive view of the meaning of the clause? You don't suppose Rehnquist could be cherry picking his examples to serve his ideological viewpoint, do you?<br /><br />One humorous element here is that you claim not to have time to read cases like the <i>Everson</i> decision, but you apparently have time to hunt through Rehnquist dissents to pick out quotes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-13206095013635779332012-01-27T10:09:11.994-05:002012-01-27T10:09:11.994-05:00I see him dodging the question...again.
This time...I see him dodging the question...again.<br /><br />This time his answer is "I've already answered that!"<br /><br />No, sir. You have not. <br /><br />I'm beginning to think he may be a lawyer. He's certainly a pain in the ass. <br /><br />CARLITO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-82018878401156283702012-01-27T10:03:32.642-05:002012-01-27T10:03:32.642-05:00"It is impossible to build sound constitution..."<i>It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years.</i>"<br /><br />As Rehnquist notes, Jefferson's material was a metaphor. What Rehnquist doesn't say, and which is why he is in the dissent and not the majority, is that Black's opinion isn't dependent upon the metaphor. That "wall of separation" language has become shorthand for the extensive argument made in Black's opinion, but the truth is Black didn't say "Jefferson wrote this letter saying 'wall of separation' and that's the rule." He wrote a lengthy argument with the Establishment clause as its foundation and used Jefferson's letter as an extra bit of flair.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-91514784203968919892012-01-27T09:58:40.026-05:002012-01-27T09:58:40.026-05:00If only people who had read every page of the bill...<i>If only people who had read every page of the bills were allowed the have an opinion, that would exclude 99.999999999% of the public. It would probably exclude a lot of the people who voted on them!</i><br /><br />Yes it would. And it should. or do you think members of Congress should be voting on bills without knowing their contents?<br /><br /><i>If Anonymous has an opinion about any piece of legislation he hasn't read in its entirety, he's a hypocrite. No Child Left Behind? The Patriot Act? The new banking reforms? The car bailout? The end of DADT? PIPA? NDAA?</i><br /><br />I have opinions on the portions that I have read. On the others, I don't know enough to claim knowledge sufficient to judge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-23063226838392335802012-01-27T09:55:31.496-05:002012-01-27T09:55:31.496-05:00"The KKK wasn't really all that concerned..."<i>The KKK wasn't really all that concerned with religious freedom. They were concerned with sticking it to Catholics. The same can be said of today's warriors for separation. If I thought for one moment they were trying to safeguard religious liberty, I might have some sympathy for their arguments. But from what I can see, they're only concerned with keeping the church (and its members!) out of the state, not the state out of the church.</i>"<br /><br />I guess you missed all the cases in which the ACLU has fought in <a href="http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression" rel="nofollow">favor of religious expression</a>. But since you haven't bothered to read much of anything, that's not surprising.<br /><br />"<i>The words "separation of church and state" were not the words debated and voted upon by the founders. They were words unilaterally imposed by a KKK member name Hugo Black.</i>"<br /><br />"Unilaterally" is an interesting way to describe something that nine justices voted in favor of. Twice. (The <i>Reynolds</i> case was also decided 9-0, eight justices signing on to the majority with one concurring opinion).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-38666852001056299312012-01-27T09:55:03.591-05:002012-01-27T09:55:03.591-05:00"And there he was deciding a case concerning ..."<i>And there he was deciding a case concerning Catholics and school buses, ie a question of church and state. No bias there. The KKK were strong supporters of the separation, which might explain how those words ended up in hallowed case law. They got there because a KKK member put them there.</i>"<br /><br />And somehow, this frothing at the mouth KKK member who had it in for the Catholic church ruled in favor of the use of tax funds to provide school buses for Catholic schools. Oh wait, you haven't read the <i>Everson</i> case, so you didn't know that the case was decided in favor of the Catholic schools. Yeah, they sure were biased against those Catholics. ruling in their favor and all.<br /><br />The majority opinion was written by Hugo Black. But it wasn't dependent upon the "wall of separation" language. Since you won't bother to read it, here is the language from the case that you have decided, without reading it, is wrong:<br /><br />"<i>The meaning and scope of the First Amendment, preventing establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, in the light of its history and the evils it was designed forever to suppress, have been several times elaborated by the decisions of this Court prior to the application of the First Amendment to the states by the Fourteenth. The broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been accepted by this Court in its decisions concerning an individual's religious freedom rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging religious freedom. There is every reason to give the same application and broad interpretation to the "establishment of religion" clause. "The structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference. On the other hand, it has secured religious liberty from the invasion of the civil authority."<br /><br />The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."</i><br /><br />One might note that the "wall of separation" language was nothing more than a rhetorical flourish. The meat of the decision comes before it. Explain what part of that reasoning you think is not supported by the text of the Constitution.<br /><br />The decision in <i>Everson</i> was voted 6-3. But the dissents in the case are very interesting. All of the dissents agree with the majority concerning the meaning of the 1st Amendment. The dissents disagree on the remedy: the dissents would have prohibited public funds from being used to support school busing for Catholic schools. The man you claim had it out for Catholics ruled in favor of allowing the use of public funds for school buses, because the statute was religiously neutral.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-60272324855636533322012-01-27T09:37:27.147-05:002012-01-27T09:37:27.147-05:00"Your silence on Korematsu is deafening. Was ..."<i>Your silence on Korematsu is deafening. Was it correctly or incorrectly decided?</i>"<br /><br />I've responded several times on <i>Korematsu</i> already. Your inability to read seems to cover more than just an inability to read the cases you are willing to opine upon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-33075287744291148262012-01-27T09:36:03.645-05:002012-01-27T09:36:03.645-05:00"I can't even read your lies, Anonymous.&..."<i>I can't even read your lies, Anonymous.</i>"<br /><br />That's not new. You can't seem to read the cases you claim were wrongly decided.<br /><br />"<i>I said they were wrong because they departed from what the Constitution says--Congress, law, and establishment--and substituted other words.</i>"<br /><br />It is almost as if you don't know what the 14th Amendment says, and how that changes the meaning of the 1st Amendment. It is almost as if you haven't read the cases in question, and thus have no idea what they actually say.<br /><br />Oh wait. It isn't "almost". It is "you haven't".<br /><br />"<i>So stop saying that I simply said they were "wrong" or "shady" or that I just don't like them. I formulated a real argument an your only response has been to say that wise judges have decided otherwise.</i>"<br /><br />You haven't formulated a response. You've trumpeted your ignorance as to what the cases say. You have no clue concerning the incorporation doctrine. You have no clue what <i>Everson</i> actually says.<br /><br />"<i>I understand that they decided otherwise. Judges sometimes make bad decisions, do they not?</i>"<br /><br />And thus far you've given no argument that these are bad decisions other than "they interpreted the document in a way I don't like".<br /><br />"<i>When seeking to justify case law, it helps to find some justification in the constitution. You, on the other hand, justify case law by finding some justification in case law.</i>"<br /><br />Umm, no. If you had read <i>Everson</i> you'd know the reasoning in the case. You'd know that it cited several prior Establishment clause decisions, building upon the jurisprudence already decided concerning the case. You'd know that <i>Everson</i> was not the first case to cite Jefferson's letter: In <i>Reynolds v. United States</i> (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."<br /><br />I suppose they were just wrong too?<br /><br />"<i>No, I have not read Everson, but I know that's wrong just the same way that I know that Korematsu is wrong because you can't violate a person's liberty, not without due process of law.</i>"<br /><br />Exactly what part of due process of law was violated in <i>Korematsu</i>? You don't know because you haven't read the case. You don't even know if there was a violation because you haven't read the case.<br /><br />"<i>I have given reasons why each case is wrong and you have dishonestly transcribed my responses as "i dunno, I just know."</i>"<br /><br />That's all your responses amount to, since you haven't read the cases, and don't know what they actually say.<br /><br />"<i>Joey's answer about due process was spot on. It's quite legal to deprive someone of their liberty if in fact they were given a fair trial and found guilty of a crime.</i>"<br /><br />Korematsu was tried and convicted. The <i>Korematsu</i> case was his appeal from his conviction. But if you had bothered to read the case, you'd know that and wouldn't make a fool out of yourself.<br /><br />"<i>People like that spend their days in jail--ie, deprived of liberty. If, however, the person was not given due process, it's unconstitutional. In the case of Japanese-Americans, the whole lot of them was rounded up for the non-crime of being Japanese-Americans, and then deprived of liberty without due process.</i>"<br /><br />Good thing those weren't the facts of the <i>Korematsu</i> case then.<br /><br />"<i>And I still haven't read the case. I don't plan to either. I'm a mother with a part time job.</i>"<br /><br />So you're ignorant and too busy to remedy that, but you'll maintain that the cases were wrong despite that. And you wonder why I say your responses amount to "I dunno, but I just know".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-10036994929645489502012-01-27T01:07:27.001-05:002012-01-27T01:07:27.001-05:00I don't think he's a constitutional lawyer...I don't think he's a constitutional lawyer either. We could check if he would tell us who he is, but that won't happen.<br /><br />If I had a dime for every internet arguer who claimed to be a scientist, Navy SEAL, or foreign policy expert, I'd be a millionaire. The internet is a land of make believe. Isn't that right, Aaron?<br /><br />Joe Q. PublicAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-66244707692109495672012-01-27T01:02:27.849-05:002012-01-27T01:02:27.849-05:00More from Rehnquist:
"It seems indisputable ...More from Rehnquist:<br /><br />"It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison's thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the House in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects. He did not see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between religion and irreligion."<br /><br />Exactly. <br /><br />TRISHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com