Workers In Tennessee Forced To Take Muslim Holiday Instead Of Labor Day

oh dear , it's pitiful to see you flounder so much jem.
Nothing I mentioned is out of context
No one has ever, final arbiter or not , used unconstitutional religious tests as evidence. It just has not happened dude.
Seriously man stop it, your going to make yourself sick again.

 

you must not comprehend case law.

 

you must be the dumbest man or the most intellectually dishonest man on the planet.

I suspect the later.

You are right - The Supreme Court did not use unconstitutional religious tests as evidence.... because the tests were not unconstitutional as evidence when the Supreme Court cited them as evidence that we are a Christian nation.

Case closed you lose.

 

What you suspect, is obviously extremely suspect. But you’re getting there sparky.

" The Supreme Court did not use unconstitutional religious tests as evidence."

1. Correct. woo.

".... because the tests were not unconstitutional as evidence when the Supreme Court cited them as evidence that we are a Christian nation."

2. The tests weren't used as evidence.... anywhere by the Supreme Court....ever.

3. No Supreme Court anywhere has ever cited as evidence ....anywhere " we are a Christian Nation" .....ever. A judge's opinion on immigration law does not count as evidence , nor is it law , nor is it Court ruling.

4. The tests were unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution always made them so.

How long to you want to keep this up? Producing no corroboration for ignorant claims is always going to make you "the dumbest man or the most intellectually dishonest man on the planet."
You are a suspect for both.

 

You make an interesting claim.

Now prove it dipshit. Mind you - you seem to using the term evidence very narrowly- but for the sake of argument prove it. Frankly - I do not know if you can make your case - using what will be a very narrow definition - but I would sure like to see you try.

First - I would like to see you define evidence.

then you would have to speak to admissible evidence

Then what type of evidence a court reviews on appeal.

Then you have to explain judicial notice and what the supreme court can cite as evidence.

Then you would have to explain away The court statements in the Trinity Case - and explain how the U.S. Supreme Court would be willing to cite "something that is unconstitutional" as "evidence" that we are a Christian country.

You are so full of shit Stu -it is funny.

If you did the above properly with footnotes actually proving your point.

You would have a law review article.

And you would need to do that to back up part of your claim.

Note - you still have not proven that a ruling from the 1960s went back in time to prove to invalidate the religious tests in the state constitutions.

You have not competency to back up your statements. And you are just plan ass wrong.

 

now here is my point from wikipedia about the U.S Supreme Court Case of Trinity vs U.S.
-----
For background the mass of "evidence" reviewed included state constitutions which required office holders to affirm a belief in God and sometimes Jesus.

So the question is how fricken stupid is STU to argue with the Supreme court.

.....



The case is also famous for Justice Brewer's statements that America is a Christian nation. While this case was not specifically about religion, the court considered America's Christian identity to be a strong support for its conclusion. Almost half of the text of the opinion is spent demonstrating America's Christian identity, in order to show that congress could not have intended to prohibit foreign ministers. Referring back to this case in Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989)[2], Justice Kennedy, joined by The Chief Justice and Justice O'Connor, wrote:

"The central support for the Court's ultimate conclusion that Congress did not intend the law to cover Christian ministers is its lengthy review of the 'mass of organic utterances' establishing that 'this is a Christian nation,' and which were taken to prove that it could not 'be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation.'" Id., at 471.

 

So you don't know if the U.S. Constitution can make a case ?
You can't say if the words " no test ... ever " in the U.S. Constitution make too narrow a definition to make a case??? Really ??...
.....you've still not thought this through yet, have you..... dipshit.

Ok, so you're just an idiot... you can't grasp it.

" 3. No Supreme Court anywhere has ever cited as evidence ....anywhere " we are a Christian Nation" .....ever. A judge's opinion on immigration law does not count as evidence , nor is it law , nor is it Court ruling."

The dispute in Trinity case has nothing to do with the Court having to rule on Christianity or religion. The rule of law in that case specifically related to facts pertaining to the importation of foreign workers.
The very opinionated opinion of Judge Brewer is not law, nor does it adequately represent any law or any Court ruling why states should ever include unconstitutional requirements for religious tests.

You are flogging a dead horse with Trinity.

... see Judge Judy, you were right about yourself all along..... dipshit.

 

I guess you fail to understand. That the Trinity case is a U.S. Supreme Court case and that it has been cited by the court after your case. (your argument also fails because you are misquoting the constitution. )

so your illogical argument is sandwiched in between these cases.

Do you not get how fricken stupid your argument is.

You are trying to say the U.S. Supreme court was citing "unconstitutional" religious tests as support for its conclusion that we were a Christian nation.

Now how the hell can the Supreme Court in the Trinity case (the final arbiter of what is constitutional) be citing unconstitutional religious tests for as support of their conclusion that We are a Christian nation.

Are you saying the Supreme Court was lying and deceiving when it cited those constitutions with religious tests?


Your argument is so illogical it is funny. I am just wondering if you are being stupid on purpose.

.....



The case is also famous for Justice Brewer's statements that America is a Christian nation. While this case was not specifically about religion, the court considered America's Christian identity to be a strong support for its conclusion. Almost half of the text of the opinion is spent demonstrating America's Christian identity, in order to show that congress could not have intended to prohibit foreign ministers. Referring back to this case in Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989)[2], Justice Kennedy, joined by The Chief Justice and Justice O'Connor, wrote:

"The central support for the Court's ultimate conclusion that Congress did not intend the law to cover Christian ministers is its lengthy review of the 'mass of organic utterances' establishing that 'this is a Christian nation,' and which were taken to prove that it could not 'be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation.'" Id., at 471.

 

Justice Brewer could have commented on the Koran if he'd wanted to. In fact he did make disparaging remarks during his opinion in Trinity against Mulims which proves the point.
But it is not law.
Those comments by the Court (Justice Brewer) do not have any bearing to the specific rule of law made by the Trinity case .
The ruling is a distinct and separate thing altogether , which had nothing to do with religious tests.
Neither do those comments have any bearing in future or past cases.
They are not relevant as evidence in any future cases. It's called dictum. . There is no procedural value in dictum. Dictum proves nothing. It is not the evidence used to rule on the case.
You would know that if you has any understanding of the matter.

You can keep cutting and pasting from wiki all you like it won't make you a lawyer, it only goes to show you have no idea what on earth it is you are talking about.

 

you have no idea what you are talking try proving what you state.

and try refuting the fact the court looked to the state constitutions and cited them when it concluded we are a Christian nation.


Now answer the question ...

How could those religious test have been unconstitutional if the U.S. Supreme court... not only Justice Brewer, cited them as support for its conclusion.