First of all Stu law consists of case law and statute. So that is argument is foolish. Supreme Court law is law, as are statutes and treaties. Second -- the court in 1989 explained Trinity for those who can not read a case. The 3 justices told you what the the central support for the ultimate conclusion is. Which means the holding was that the Trinity Chruch was not commiting a misdemeanor when it hired a foreign minister and the reason was that as a matter of law we were a Christian nation. The court then gave the rationale. Finally as I have stated to you before even if your argument were correct the Trinity court gave you a review showing that the individual states endorsed Relgion as a whole and Christinity in particular, although many states did not pick a particular chruch. Although some did. So even your own argument is specious. Your argument fails on every count.
whister, May I just say, you do not need to keep repeating over and over how free speech is constitutionally protected . It is not an answer which deals with my questions to you. If you can't or don't want to deal directly with the issues I tried to raise, it's fine
What argument is foolish? Opinion is not Statute. There is nothing foolish about that. Law is a collective noun for all those things. You are trying to separate and isolate Opinion and call it Law.. You are wrong so to do. You flip in and out of Opinion to Statute to Rationale as if to say, each one will hold as Law on its own. It is the fact that they won't and they don't. Supreme Court law is not made BY opinion. If the Justice's Opinion you quote were not present or did not contain the 5 words you depend so heavily upon, Trinity would still be 'Supreme Court Law'. Exactly the same holding relating to the specific facts in the case and enacted by the Court would exist. ..has no bearing on the Holding and the specific Rule of Law. Court explantion is a distinct and separate thing It is not the "Law" itself. If it weren't there in part or entirety, the (Trinity) "Law" still would be Again that has no bearing on the specific Rule of Law. In fact, for a lawyer to cite Trinity because of this "ultimate conclusion" would be ludicrous. A brain surgeon from France or a philosopher from Hungary brings a case using Trinity to get permission to work in America becase the Court gave a Rationale "we are a christian nation" ? Don't be so ridiculous jem. ...." make no law respecting an establishment of religion ." It's Unconstitutional for any State to make any Law endorsing religion. Why do you want to associate yourself to something that is fundamentally unconstitutional? Obviously you need to rethink as far as those those remarks go. But on the evidence so far, think is not what you are doing.
More dodging. My question was not about one which involved incitement You introduced incitement erroneously In fact you gave an example yourself of the type of speech which I actually described, which is not incitement, and which in case law has been found to be open to legitimate censor by a public body. You say you don't draw lines. But you do. Mode lines, venue lines and bullhorn lines. And the Courts draw lines, when what you call "free speech" interferes with legitimate school rules and purpose in its public places, as well as in the classroom, for different reason. Your idea appears to be an argument for an anarchic tyrannical free for all , just so that you can include a bogus justification for any rule breaking speech under the guise of religious expression, in order to proclaim it has constitutional rights to flout a college's legitimate controls.
I'm not sure it would amount to much if you did Anyway leave us to it we're not harming you, ya big 'orrible troll
Stu you clearly do not understand jurisprudence. You delude yourself and your analysis is a joke. You do not realize that a persons opinion and Supreme Court "Opinion" have different meanings. "Opinion" is a term of art corectly used by lawyers and people who studied up on the subject like zzz. You like to swing in your own ignorance. I have explained to you the Establishment clause was injected into the constituiton by a majority of the states because they already had established religion in 75% of the states. That is what the Trinity case was pointing out. It was also pointed out by Scalia in the case KJ cited on our previous thread. We were a Christian nation. And not just any lawyer will tell you that is what Trinity stood for, but it was 3 supreme court cases said it stands for.
jem, Your silly pretend arguments are tiresome, making them up the way you do, as if they had anything to do with what has been said and in your usual pathetic childish tantrums, time after time, you provide no real response or argument against any of the actual issues raised. It is perfectly clear what opinion is being talked about, so your only course is to ignore what is being said and name call . And you have the audacity to have described yourself a lawyer And just for your information Trinity case stood and stands for rule on immigration of alien labor and does not stand as rule for "we are a christian nation" Every lawyer worth their salt knows that to be the case