The Supreme Court ruled slavery was constitutional. Plessy v. Ferguson. It took passage of the 13th Amendment to make it unconstitutional. You keep repeating that there was "always" a ban on religious tests for public office, but you ignore the plain language of Article VI that it was limited to offices "under" the uS, ie federal offices, not state ones. The Supreme Court danced around that by applying the First Amendment Establishment Clause to the states. I'm finished with this thread unless someone else chimes in with something non-boring.
If you want to quote case law, go do some homework first. Plessy v. Ferguson was to do with segregation not slavery. I repeat it was always unconstitutional correctly , one reason being - it is devious to try and suggest a limit to its remit where one does not exist The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Youâre trying to argue that clause .... â was limited to offices "under" the uS, ie federal offices, not state ones..... ALL bound by oath to support the Constitution, judicial and state legislatures, but you think that means only federal. Both of the United States and of the several states is somehow supposed to mean only the executive legislative and judicial branches of the federal government. Shit Brilliant argument you got there. Who are you trying to kid with that apart from yourself? Furthermore there was no dancing around by the Supreme Court. They used The First quite satisfactorily. It is a denotative ruling in line with the Constitution. . You're a sore loser that's all. Religious pride getting in the way of sound reasoning. Nothing new there. So by all means , don't let the facts get in the way of your boredom. I doubt anyone gives a flying f*k anyway whether you are finished with the thread or not as you can always slink off somewhere else to be a pompous jackass.
Multiculturalism only works if everyone is dedicated to the common good; in the West, multiculturalism consists of factions fighing one another for priviledge. Western nations are losing their semse of identity and along with that their sense of purpose in being nations and their most fundamental beliefs in the implications of nationhood (eg. democracy vs dictatorship). While the titularly democratic West is weakening in its resolve other cultures are growing stronger. For all its military hardware, the U.S. is rapidly losing its power to defend its people from the incursions of anti-democratic influences, including religious fundamentalism and runaway capitalism.
This is a big day for you. You are actually right about one thing. I meant Dred Scott case, not Plessy. Otherwise, you're still batting .000. Yes, of course the difference in the two phrases you quote is determinative. Why else would they separate them out and include the states in the oath clause but limit the religious test clause to federal offices? As for the Supreme Court, clearly they were overreaching when they ignored consistent practice since the Constitution was ratified, ignored consistent practice since the First Amendment was ratified and ignored consistent practice since the 14th Amendment was ratified, and miraculously discovered that the First Amendment barred religious tests for state offices. That pretty much is the definition of judicial activism. Hope that clears it up for you and you have learned something from this thread.
We have been indoctrinated that it is somehow shameful and immoral to defend the culture that produced our country. We actually debate whether or not we have a right to enforce our immigration laws. Both presidential candidates seemingly take the position that we should not. Islam is insidious because it poses as a religion but uses our tolerance to advance a repressive political/social agenda. Islam is profoundly undemocratic. Its edicts are neither debatable nor negotiable to true believers. Every demand that is granted becomes the floor for future concessions. Publishers are already deathly afraid to publish books critical of any aspect of islam. It is supremely ironic to me that the same liberals who reflexively support the ACLU's jihad against Christianity largely side with muslims in their demands. While they are trying to undermine Christianity, they support the spread of a faith that oppresses women, bans abortion, mandates the death penalty for homosexuality and has zero tolerance for free speech. All in the name of tolerance ironically.
Well one thing's for sure with two mistakes under your belt which you've now acknowledged , by putting my batting score at 0, your talent as a referee looks piss poor as well as your argument . Since when did you think that a semicolon would separate anything out ? The Clause and its terms are inextricably connected with one of these ; than any other punctuation the English language provides. It boils down to this .. Senators and representatives, members of the several state legislatures all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states; .. no religious test ever... An argument which says something was not wrong nor unconstitutional because it was either common or consistent practice is just plain redundant. It's already been said , slavery was common practice , so clearly more to do with the question of belated Constitutional Amendments and overdue Supreme Court ruling than any activism. However, unlike slavery -no religious test- was always in the Constitution and therefore ipso facto always unconstitutional to act contrarily . It's just plain silly at best to say the Supreme Court is activist because it is tardy in getting to grips with bad practices. Especially those practices being undertaken by a nation which some are proud to consider was built on Christian moral standards like slavery and theocratic leanings toward religious tests. You know, the same sort of tests any Islamic nation requires its state offices and their representatives to hold. The main idea upholding the Constitution, is that it is not destroyed by those who would willingly surrender into a mess of theocracy for the chance of enforcing their personal beliefs . Like fundamentalist evangelical Christianity for instance. Keeping ALL religion out of ALL government IS the defense of American culture. It frees democracy . Unconstitutional concessions to any religion , Christianity or Islam or whatever, is what is profoundly undemocratic.
Actually, this would be a fine description of Christianity, at least historically. Thank God for the Enlightenment.
========================== Hadn't heard that one [live in TN]; but knew Tyson has been sued lots for improper chicken waste/fertilizer disposal.LOL
This is my favorite thread. Xenophobic Republicans attacking a decision of the majority because they're outraged that a plant has gotten rid of a holiday instituted by labor unions and socialists that was achieved via a general strike. My irony meter just exploded.
It must especially ironic to you that a conservative supported the will of the majority even though he is concerned that liberal policies are ruining our culture. Oh wait - that normal for a real conservative.