|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/15/2006 01:17:43 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I would give more credence to your final statement if you could
a) clearly articulate the "rights" that you feel millions are cheated out of, and
b) provide excerpts, from the Constitution, of course, where those "rights" are delineated. |
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The right to NOT have other's beliefs thrown in their face (liberty and freedom from oppression), especially on subjects that are as prone to violent reaction as Religion. I find attempted conversion to be a hostile action (goes against domestic tranquility and general welfare).
Amendment 9 allows for common sense to be used, in lieu of spelling everything out. Otherwise, the US constitution would look like the Texas Constitution. It's a nightmare. :P
Oh, yeah - by putting up one symbol and refusing all others, does that not oppress the ones being denied while affirming the beliefs of the other?
And one last, mostly unrelated, item: According to this website, the US ranks number 7 in the number of atheist citizens. Somewhere between 8.5 million and almost 27 million people. But our national legal tender states "In God We Trust". Well, some of us do, anyway.
Message edited by author 2006-12-15 13:40:55. |
|
|
|
12/15/2006 04:07:27 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by shamrock:
Originally posted by RonB:
I would give more credence to your final statement if you could
a) clearly articulate the "rights" that you feel millions are cheated out of, and
b) provide excerpts, from the Constitution, of course, where those "rights" are delineated. |
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The right to NOT have other's beliefs thrown in their face (liberty and freedom from oppression), especially on subjects that are as prone to violent reaction as Religion. I find attempted conversion to be a hostile action (goes against domestic tranquility and general welfare).
Amendment 9 allows for common sense to be used, in lieu of spelling everything out. Otherwise, the US constitution would look like the Texas Constitution. It's a nightmare. :P
Oh, yeah - by putting up one symbol and refusing all others, does that not oppress the ones being denied while affirming the beliefs of the other?
And one last, mostly unrelated, item: According to this website, the US ranks number 7 in the number of atheist citizens. Somewhere between 8.5 million and almost 27 million people. But our national legal tender states "In God We Trust". Well, some of us do, anyway. |
In a ruling handed down by the SCOTUS in 2000 ( Troxell vs. Granville ) Justice Scalia wrote "The Declaration of Independence...is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution’s refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people."
In other words, unless and until courts decide, based on LAW, whether a persons unenumerated rights have been violated, no such determination is possible. As such, you cannot say that a person's rights have been violated just because they are offended at what another says or does, if such behaviours have not been determined to violate someone's rights. And, even if found to be a violation within a given court's jurisdiction, they may still not be unconstitutional at the federal level.
Message edited by author 2006-12-15 16:12:56. |
|
|
|
12/19/2006 05:21:57 AM · #53 |
My colleague has just returned from a businesstrip to China. They had all kinds of Christmas decorations, trees, Santa's, they even sprayed fakesnow on their windows hahahahaa!! When he asked if they knew the meaning of Christmas they had no idea, they just like the happy lights and Santa's and everything. So he explained that it is a Christian holliday to celebrate the birth of Jesus, they asked him back "So you only have one God? We have many more whahaha!"
I saw a docu on TV last night (in Holland), that there's even a special phonenumber in the states to report christmas decorations that are not multireligious???? Now how far do people go to ruin Christmas?
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 03:14:53 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by RonB:
In a ruling handed down by the SCOTUS in 2000 ( Troxell vs. Granville ) Justice Scalia wrote "The Declaration of Independence...is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution’s refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people."
In other words, unless and until courts decide, based on LAW, whether a persons unenumerated rights have been violated, no such determination is possible. As such, you cannot say that a person's rights have been violated just because they are offended at what another says or does, if such behaviours have not been determined to violate someone's rights. And, even if found to be a violation within a given court's jurisdiction, they may still not be unconstitutional at the federal level. |
Shouldn't you point out that you're quoting from Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion? Justice O'Connor wrote the prevailing opinion.
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 15:15:18. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 04:01:19 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
In a ruling handed down by the SCOTUS in 2000 ( Troxell vs. Granville ) Justice Scalia wrote "The Declaration of Independence...is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution’s refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people."
In other words, unless and until courts decide, based on LAW, whether a persons unenumerated rights have been violated, no such determination is possible. As such, you cannot say that a person's rights have been violated just because they are offended at what another says or does, if such behaviours have not been determined to violate someone's rights. And, even if found to be a violation within a given court's jurisdiction, they may still not be unconstitutional at the federal level. |
Shouldn't you point out that you're quoting from Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion? Justice O'Connor wrote the prevailing opinion. |
Perhaps, but the prevailing opinion did not address the ninth amendment, which was the issue at hand. There are extremely few SCOTUS opinions that even mention the ninth amendment, and no prevailing opinions that rely on it to any great extent, hence even a dissenting opinion of that court which does bear on the ninth amendment is relevant to a discussion of it as an indication of how the court might decide, were a challenge based on ninth amendment rights to come before it. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 09:54:53 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
In a ruling handed down by the SCOTUS in 2000 ( Troxell vs. Granville ) Justice Scalia wrote "The Declaration of Independence...is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution’s refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people."
In other words, unless and until courts decide, based on LAW, whether a persons unenumerated rights have been violated, no such determination is possible. As such, you cannot say that a person's rights have been violated just because they are offended at what another says or does, if such behaviours have not been determined to violate someone's rights. And, even if found to be a violation within a given court's jurisdiction, they may still not be unconstitutional at the federal level. |
Shouldn't you point out that you're quoting from Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion? Justice O'Connor wrote the prevailing opinion. |
Perhaps, but the prevailing opinion did not address the ninth amendment, which was the issue at hand. There are extremely few SCOTUS opinions that even mention the ninth amendment, and no prevailing opinions that rely on it to any great extent, hence even a dissenting opinion of that court which does bear on the ninth amendment is relevant to a discussion of it as an indication of how the court might decide, were a challenge based on ninth amendment rights to come before it. |
Ron,
Given the high evidentiary standards you place on others in these types of debates, I must confess I find this mischaracterization both surprising and disappointing. In your post, you refer to "a ruling" handed down by the Supreme Court, but what you in fact quoted was not a ruling, but a dissent to that ruling. Further, the dissent was one of three separate dissenting opinions written in the that 6-3 ruling, meaning that this dissent was signed only by Scalia. None of the other dissenting opinions, and neither affirming opinion, addressed the Ninth Amendment at all. When combined with the fact that, for the first 50 opinions of the 2005 term (the only stats I could find), the only justice that voted with the majority less frequently than Scalia was Thomas, the validity even of your argument that this opinion provides insight into likely future ninth-amendment rulings is questionable. In any case, your use of this dissenting opinion to refute Shamrock, especially after requiring that she support her arguments with quotes from the Constitution, is at best a careless choice of supporting evidence.
In any case, I would like to address your challenge to Shamrock as well, specifically that of indicating which rights have been violated. To do this, I'll need to provide some further background, and clear up some misconceptions regarding Rabbi Bogomilsky's request to the Port Commission.
First, it should be noted that the initial request to place the menorah was made verbally in mid-October, and a formal request in mid-November (source), so any arguments that this was an eleventh-hour request made during the full throes of the holiday travel season are inconsistent with the facts as they are now known.
Further, it should be noted that when Chabad-Lubavitch requests these displays, it typically offers to provide the menorah and covers all of the costs related to its installation, operation and removal. In this interview on CNN Sunday Morning, Rabbi Bogomilsky stated that this had in fact been the case.
Originally posted by CNN Sunday Morning:
BOGOMILSKY: It's -- I believe that in the airport there is about 22 Christmas trees. We were asking for one menorah display. It wasn't coming at any cost to the port. It was something that our organization -- we have it throughout the Seattle area -- throughout Washington State, I should say. We have about 25 different public menorahs...
(CROSSTALK)
NGUYEN: So you were offering to provide the menorah to the airport?
BOGOMILSKY: A hundred percent. We provide it at our cost. All it is, is a display.
It takes about five minutes to erect. It's UL (ph) improved. Our insurance. I mean, it's sort of a turnkey operation. |
It should further be noted that Chabad-Lubavitch does not ask the government to preform the lighting ceremonies, but instead conducts the ceremonies themselves. It conducts thousands of these lighting ceremonies in the United States and worldwide, including the lighting of the National Menorah in Washington DC, on the Ellipse between the White House and Washington Monument. In seeking to perform these ceremonies themselves, the group is not asking for a government endorsement of religion, but rather for the right to assemble.
So, once again, you asked:
Originally posted by RonB:
a) clearly articulate the "rights" that you feel millions are cheated out of, and
b) provide excerpts, from the Constitution, of course, where those "rights" are delineated. |
Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (relevant sections underlined).
While of course this amendment as originally written limits only the power of the Federal government, The Supreme Court has held that the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment extends these restrictions to the States as well.
~Terry
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 22:09:01.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2006 05:06:00 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
In a ruling handed down by the SCOTUS in 2000 ( Troxell vs. Granville ) Justice Scalia wrote "The Declaration of Independence...is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution’s refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people."
In other words, unless and until courts decide, based on LAW, whether a persons unenumerated rights have been violated, no such determination is possible. As such, you cannot say that a person's rights have been violated just because they are offended at what another says or does, if such behaviours have not been determined to violate someone's rights. And, even if found to be a violation within a given court's jurisdiction, they may still not be unconstitutional at the federal level. |
Shouldn't you point out that you're quoting from Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion? Justice O'Connor wrote the prevailing opinion. |
Perhaps, but the prevailing opinion did not address the ninth amendment, which was the issue at hand. There are extremely few SCOTUS opinions that even mention the ninth amendment, and no prevailing opinions that rely on it to any great extent, hence even a dissenting opinion of that court which does bear on the ninth amendment is relevant to a discussion of it as an indication of how the court might decide, were a challenge based on ninth amendment rights to come before it. |
Ron,
Given the high evidentiary standards you place on others in these types of debates, I must confess I find this mischaracterization both surprising and disappointing. In your post, you refer to "a ruling" handed down by the Supreme Court, but what you in fact quoted was not a ruling, but a dissent to that ruling. Further, the dissent was one of three separate dissenting opinions written in the that 6-3 ruling, meaning that this dissent was signed only by Scalia. None of the other dissenting opinions, and neither affirming opinion, addressed the Ninth Amendment at all. When combined with the fact that, for the first 50 opinions of the 2005 term (the only stats I could find), the only justice that voted with the majority less frequently than Scalia was Thomas, the validity even of your argument that this opinion provides insight into likely future ninth-amendment rulings is questionable. In any case, your use of this dissenting opinion to refute Shamrock, especially after requiring that she support her arguments with quotes from the Constitution, is at best a careless choice of supporting evidence. |
First, when asked to articulate the "rights" that were being violated, Shamrock replied with "The right to NOT have other's beliefs thrown in their face". Obviously that is not really a "right", since, if it was a "right", I, and thousands of others would be in a perpetual state of redress before the Supreme Court claiming that our "rights" were being violated.
Secondly, note that I preceded the quotation with "Justice Scalia wrote", not "the Court said...", which is the normally accepted way of introducing a majority opinion.
Thirdly, dissenting opinions are, indeed, part of the Court's ruling, and have been influencial in further rulings by the Courts. For example: In the SCOTUS case of "JOHN GEDDES LAWRENCE and TYRON GARNER, PETITIONERS v. TEXAS", the MAJORITY opinion states
Originally posted by SCOTUS:
The rationale of Bowers does not withstand careful analysis. In his dissenting opinion in Bowers Justice Stevens came to these conclusions:
“Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.” 478 U.S., at 216 (footnotes and citations omitted).
Justice Stevens’ analysis, in our view, should have been controlling in Bowers and should control here. |
In other words, the Court quoted a prior dissenting opinion in support of its majority opinion. Hence, my statement that dissenting opinions DO have weight in law.
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
In any case, I would like to address your challenge to Shamrock as well, specifically that of indicating which rights have been violated. To do this, I'll need to provide some further background, and clear up some misconceptions regarding Rabbi Bogomilsky's request to the Port Commission.
First, it should be noted that the initial request to place the menorah was made verbally in mid-October, and a formal request in mid-November (source), so any arguments that this was an eleventh-hour request made during the full throes of the holiday travel season are inconsistent with the facts as they are now known. |
While you are most correct, you have neglected to indicate that even though the original request was not at the eleventh-hour, the threat of a lawsuit was - and it was the threat of a lawsuit that was the impetus for the ensuing kerfuffle. And while the Rabbi, himself, never threatened a lawsuit, his lawyer did - and did so at the eleventh-hour.
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Further, it should be noted that when Chabad-Lubavitch requests these displays, it typically offers to provide the menorah and covers all of the costs related to its installation, operation and removal. In this interview on CNN Sunday Morning, Rabbi Bogomilsky stated that this had in fact been the case.
Originally posted by CNN Sunday Morning:
BOGOMILSKY: It's -- I believe that in the airport there is about 22 Christmas trees. We were asking for one menorah display. It wasn't coming at any cost to the port. It was something that our organization -- we have it throughout the Seattle area -- throughout Washington State, I should say. We have about 25 different public menorahs...
(CROSSTALK)
NGUYEN: So you were offering to provide the menorah to the airport?
BOGOMILSKY: A hundred percent. We provide it at our cost. All it is, is a display.
It takes about five minutes to erect. It's UL (ph) improved. Our insurance. I mean, it's sort of a turnkey operation. |
It should further be noted that Chabad-Lubavitch does not ask the government to preform the lighting ceremonies, but instead conducts the ceremonies themselves. It conducts thousands of these lighting ceremonies in the United States and worldwide, including the lighting of the National Menorah in Washington DC, on the Ellipse between the White House and Washington Monument. In seeking to perform these ceremonies themselves, the group is not asking for a government endorsement of religion, but rather for the right to assemble. |
As I have indicated in a prior post, it is the very fact of LIGHTING that turns a multi-branched candleabrum into a religious symbol - and that would have made it the ONLY religious symbol permitted to be granted permission for display in the government-owned airport. That exclusivity would be interpreted by virtually every court as an unconstitutional "establishment" of religion.
And, fwiw, it appears that those Constitutional issues are avoided in Washington by including a ( Christian ) nativity scene on the Ellipse.
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
So, once again, you asked:
Originally posted by RonB:
a) clearly articulate the "rights" that you feel millions are cheated out of, and
b) provide excerpts, from the Constitution, of course, where those "rights" are delineated. |
Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (relevant sections underlined).
While of course this amendment as originally written limits only the power of the Federal government, The Supreme Court has held that the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment extends these restrictions to the States as well. |
Correct, again. And, to repeat, if the menorah was the ONLY religious symbol displayed, it could very well be considered an unconstitutional "establishment". |
|
|
|
12/21/2006 05:15:51 PM · #58 |
So, you are saying that a "Christmas Tree" is only a secular symbol, displayed in late December purely by coincidence?
I guess Tom Lehrer was right:
"... Christmas, with its spirit of giving, offers us all a wonderful opportunity each year to reflect on what we all most sincerely and deeply believe in - I refer, of course, to money." |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 12:10:49 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 12:10:49 PM EDT.
|
