Stu just for fun since I know you no intention of being honest and answering the question I posed above. why don't you give us your definition of Supreme Court dictum. Tell us what it means and whether it has precedential value. Then compare an contrast your beliefs with the leading experts on the subject. Then please point to another case in which the court cited something unconstitutional to support its conclusions.
jem, you are not helping yourself by repeating this over and over. Each time you do it's only showing how ignorant you are . You cut&pasted Trinity as example of a case which is supposed to be relevant. Probably you've learned to do this in default when anything legal is mentioned with the word religion in it. But it is not relevant, you keep ostentatiously trying to make it relevant but never can. Needing things like definitions for Court dictum won't help you do it either. Here again is what I already explained to you.... The fact is , those religious comments by the Court (Justice Brewer), you know - dictum - , have no bearing on the specific rule of law made by the Trinity case. They can't have. Trinity ruling was not about religion. Furthermore such comment is not relevant as evidencial rule of law in any future cases. Just for fun it is then...... do you actually mean procedural not "precedential". Or are you having another site for cite moment? If you do mean precedential , there can be no precedence whatsoever made in a Judgeâs opinion remarks. They are not law. Non of the facts of the Trinity case were to do with religious exercise or religious test therefore, cannot anyway form any rule of law which would act as a precedent in Trinity, or in any other case. If your "leading experts" are suggesting like you that explanatory remarks in opinion made as dictum by the Court are evidence or rules of law or are anything else but opinion of the Judge, then putting it mildly , you and your experts need to do some re-thinking . I'm not bothered whether another case, another court, "cited" something unconstitutional to support its conclusions. Apart from the fact you couldn't even spell the word, now you over use it so much I doubt you know its context. The citing of opinion, in opinion, is not law. It is still opinion so makes no difference. Why don't you go do law 101 in wikipedia or something then you wouldnât perhaps keep nauseatingly repeating the same things over again.
You are such an little snake. There is a saying among lawyers - it may be dicta but it is Supreme Court dicta. When we speak of Supreme Court dicta it is sometimes hard to separate the rationale from the dicta. But in any case - your statements above need support. Second of all you keep ignoring the basic point. The Supreme Court used the existence of the Religious tests to conclude we are a Christian Nation. For your argument to not be absurd you would have to make the absurd point that the U.S. Supreme court cited religions which were unconstitutional at the time they were citing them. Your argument is unbearable deceitful and stupid. Argue all you want about the holding in Trinity... that does not matter for our purposes here. What you called dicta has been cited by later Supreme Courts numerous times. The fact that it exists sinks your argument. It does not matter whether it was dicta or the holding. The court cited the religious tests in State Constitutions when it stated we are a Christian Nation. Are you claiming the U.S. Supreme court was citing unconstitutional religions tests? Answer the question -