People like Patty Robertson and his army of useful idiots pretty much controlled all of Europe during the Dark Ages, a period of time during which no significant progress in the arts and sciences were made because it was not allowed. During this period, anything that had to due with Ancient European culture was all but destroyed. Death Machine Bureaucracies like the Vatican were very hard at work during this time and even afterward condoning and encouraging: - The rape of countless millions of children, especially boys, an age old tradition that continues to this day despite the threat of litigation. - The encouragement of domestic violence â towards women and children. - Also the encouragement of slavery, genocide of indigenous peoples, the holocaust, etc., etc. Total death toll numbers hundreds of millions. Best or Worst (you chose) of all, they got away with everything. Yes, ârealityâ is what you can get away with â which is exactly how it has to be.
Medieval Sourcebook: Charlemagne: Letter to Baugaulf of Fulda, c.780-800 Charlemagne: "De Litteris Colendis" This letter illustrates Charlemagne's concern to promote learning in his empire. Charles, by the grace of God, King of the Franks and Lombards and Patrician of the Romans, to Abbot Baugulf and to all the congregation, also to the faithful committed to you, we have directed a loving greeting by our ambassadors in the name of omnipotent God. Be it known, therefore, to your devotion pleasing to God, that we, together with our faithful, have considered it to be useful that the bishoprics and monasteries entrusted by the favor of Christ to our control, in addition, in the culture of letters also ought to be zealous in teaching those who by the gift of God are able to learn, according to the capacity of each individual, so that just as the observance of the rule imparts order and grace to honesty of morals, so also zeal in teaching and learning may do the same for sentences, so that those who desire to please God by living rightly should not neglect to please him also by speaking correctly. For it is written: "Either from thy words thou shalt be justified or from thy words thou shalt be condemned." For although correct conduct may be better than knowledge, nevertheless knowledge precedes conduct. Therefore, each one ought to study what he desires to accomplish, sc) that so much the more fully the mind may know what ought to be clone, as the tongue hastens in the praises of omnipotent God without the hindrances of errors. For since errors should be shunned by all men, so much the more ought they to be avoided as far as possible by those who are chosen for this very purpose alone, so that they ought to be the especial servants of truth. For when in the years just passed letters were often written to us from several monasteries in -which it was stated that the brethren who dwelt there offered up in our behalf sacred and pious prayers, we have recognized in most of these letters both correct thoughts and uncouth expressions; because what pious devotion dictated faithfully to the mind, the tongue, uneducated on account of the neglect of study, was not able to express in the letter without error. Whence it happened that we began to fear lest perchance, as the skill in writing was less, so also the wisdom for understanding the Holy Scriptures might be much less than it rightly ought to be. And we all know well that, although errors of speech are dangerous, far more dangerous are errors of the understanding. Therefore, we exhort you not only not to neglect the study of letters, but also with most humble mind, pleasing to God, to study earnestly in order that you may be able more easily and more correctly to penetrate the mysteries of the divine Scriptures. Since, moreover, images, tropes and similar figures are found in the sacred pages, -no one doubts that each one in reading these will understand the spiritual sense more quickly if previously he shall have been fully instructed in the mastery of letters. Such men truly are to be chosen for this work as have both the will and the ability to learn and a desire to instruct others. And may this be done with a zeal as great as the earnestness with which we command it. For we desire you to be, as it is fitting that soldiers of the church should be, devout in mind, learned in discourse, chaste in conduct and eloquent in speech, so that whosoever shall seek to see you out of reverence of God, or on account of your reputation for holy conduct, just as he is edified by your appearance, may also be instructed by your wisdom, which he has learned from your reading or singing, and may go away joyfully giving thanks to omnipotent God. Do not neglect, therefore, if you wish to have our favor, to send copies of this letter to all your suffragans and fellow-bishops and to all the monasteries. [And let no monk hold courts outside of his monastery or go to the judicial and other public assemblies. Farewell.] http://cfcc.net/dutch/DarkAges.htm
If I think the justices are reading way too much crap into the constitution. And I know that --- one, they made up their right to review congressional laws out of thin air (one of the first decisions). two, they pretty much made up this so called wall of separation between church and state. (initially the point of the amendment from which they made up this "concept" was to make sure that Virginia did not declare itself a particular type of protestant state, it was not to keep Christmas trees or the 10 commandments out of public buildings.) three, intitially the states themselves controlled things like abortion. I think the Supreme Courts needs a power haircut and I have always thought that to be important. Four, dozens of others serious issues of overreaching. Why the heck wouldn't I want to pray for a better more judicial Supreme Court. I pray they do retire soon. (Just started my first prayer) So what. You can pray for 9 new Justice Brenners.
They don't review "congressional" laws out of thin air. There must be litigation that is appealed to the SC. Please tell me if I'm wrong and show me an example of this happening, because if this did happen it would be wrong and against the separation of powers. And there is no crap in the constitution... give me an example of crap in the constitution.
They had to so that fanatical pricks didn't take away the religious rights of people that weren't in the majority. And why does this bother you so much anyway? You can pray in school... almost every kid does before tests. You can gather in prayer groups as an after school activity. Just because schools don't push a particular religion on impressionable youth doesn't mean we're Godless.
Abortion is a personal rights issue that obviously requires national legislation. What powers would you take away from the Supreme Courts? They interpret the constitution and make learning and practicing the law their life's work. It's a pretty noble thing. And there is a reason why they're a bunch of old fogies. The courts are suppossed to stop the passions of the people. For example, there is a rash of deaths from dancing and the interest groups demand new legislation to stop these dancing deaths. The president introduces legislation (and it gets passed into law) that makes dancing illegal. Then a lawsuit is filed that claims that this law infringes on our rights of expression. If the lower courts don't declare it unconstitutional, then the right of appeals takes the case all the way to the SC if the lower courts can't get it right. They can also call cases that are in appeal if they think that said cases need to be resolved. Now they should definitely have more of a workload, but they are needed and their interpretive role is very important in the long run.
I understand the problem with bad law, but I did not see that it is American for nine guys to have the right to overrule Congress and declare a law unconstitutional. Perhaps a larger body of interpreters even a court of interpreters of the constitution. A larger body perhaps. But not nine guys whose composition can so easily be changed by a retirement or two. The inconsistency of it is scary. The case in which Justice Marshall made up the power of Judicial Review for the Supreme Court is Marbury vs Madison around 1800-1805. And yes he pretty much made it out of some smoke and mirrors. Many commentators appreciated the devious genius of this opionion. The constitution really did not say that the judicial branch can declare "unconstitutional" laws made by Congress. Also I do not think there is crap in the constitution, I think it has been in the minds of some of the judges interpreting it.
I agree wholeheartedly with the fact that the Supreme Court has a lot of power that is easily swayed by "a retirement or two". This wasn't the goal when our government was formed, either. The sad thing is that judges are so politicized at all levels (local, state, etc.), that when the make it to the SC you already know what they're going to vote on all of the major issues. Not only that, but the judges have to be that way to get appointed. Then again, it may just be that we're going through a judicial evolution or sorts and that the old need to be replaced with the new. The case in which Justice Marshall made up the power of Judicial Review for the Supreme Court is Marbury vs Madison around 1800-1805. And yes he pretty much made it out of some smoke and mirrors. Many commentators appreciated the devious genius of this opionion. The constitution really did not say that the judicial branch can declare "unconstitutional" laws made by Congress. [/QUOTE] It actually makes perfect sense. If the constitution (including the bill of rights, etc.) is the basis for our law, and you reference the law, and look at the Judicial act of 1789, Marshall had to do what he did to keep the court nonpartisan. Check out this link (it's a lot of reading)... http://www.jmu.edu/madison/marbury/marburyarticle2.htm And the constitution seems clear enough to me... just read the first part... "The judicial power shall extend to all cases". You can read further if you like, but it's pretty clear that the SC was suppossed to be the final decision maker on the constitutionality of cases brought before it. And I quote... 1. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; [to controversies between two or more states, between a state and citizens of another state, between citizens of different states, between citizens of the same state, claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.] {Altered by 11th Amendment} AMENDMENT XI Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795. The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.