Newsies...
Aug. 19th, 2003 10:07 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsHey, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
technoshaman, check out The Language Police, a new book about how school textbooks are authorized and written in the United States. Various textbook approval committees have banned stereotypes such as "whites living in affluent neighborhoods," or "boys expressing anger"; others have forbidden "snowman" and "forefather" on the grounds that they're sexist. One parent successfully got her daughter's grade overturned on the grounds that, since she lived in Chicago, she was unfairly disadvantaged by a writing assignment that asked her to imagine life on the ocean.
Ugh. Someone tell me that multiculturalism deserves a snowflakes's lifespan in a cyclotron after they read this.
Bwahahaha. Al Qaeda tells the boys back home, "Yeah, we caused the U.S. blackout. Don't pay attention to the news from the U.S. There was looting in the streets. New York now looks like Bagdhad."
The Baptist Press is reporting that Alan Keyes has spoken in defense of Roy Moore's Ten Commandments Monument, claiming that the First Amendment clause, as it is written, applies only to the Federal Government and not the states, and that states are free to implement whatever religious oaths and tests that they deem acceptable, to authorize state churches, and to make religious statements.
Someone remind Keyes of the following very important words:
A Norwegian man who discovered his friends were throwing him a surprise party decided to turn the tables and surprise them by lighting off his shotgun into the air. But he tripped and shot six of his friends instead. A likely excuse.
The Lord works in mysterious ways. At least, that's what's being said about the death of Hitoshi Nikaidoh, who was decaptitated in a freak elevator accident at St. Joseph Hospital in Texas just days before he was due to be sent to Africa as part of a Christian Mission.
technoshaman, check out The Language Police, a new book about how school textbooks are authorized and written in the United States. Various textbook approval committees have banned stereotypes such as "whites living in affluent neighborhoods," or "boys expressing anger"; others have forbidden "snowman" and "forefather" on the grounds that they're sexist. One parent successfully got her daughter's grade overturned on the grounds that, since she lived in Chicago, she was unfairly disadvantaged by a writing assignment that asked her to imagine life on the ocean.Ugh. Someone tell me that multiculturalism deserves a snowflakes's lifespan in a cyclotron after they read this.
Bwahahaha. Al Qaeda tells the boys back home, "Yeah, we caused the U.S. blackout. Don't pay attention to the news from the U.S. There was looting in the streets. New York now looks like Bagdhad."
The Baptist Press is reporting that Alan Keyes has spoken in defense of Roy Moore's Ten Commandments Monument, claiming that the First Amendment clause, as it is written, applies only to the Federal Government and not the states, and that states are free to implement whatever religious oaths and tests that they deem acceptable, to authorize state churches, and to make religious statements.
Someone remind Keyes of the following very important words:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
A Norwegian man who discovered his friends were throwing him a surprise party decided to turn the tables and surprise them by lighting off his shotgun into the air. But he tripped and shot six of his friends instead. A likely excuse.
The Lord works in mysterious ways. At least, that's what's being said about the death of Hitoshi Nikaidoh, who was decaptitated in a freak elevator accident at St. Joseph Hospital in Texas just days before he was due to be sent to Africa as part of a Christian Mission.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-20 03:23 pm (UTC)Now, I don't like that idea any more than you do. But the first amendment does read, "Congress shall make no law..." It does not read, "the right to religious freedom shall be preserved." So how does that apply to the states at all?
Jeremy
no subject
Date: 2003-08-20 06:04 pm (UTC)Did some research on the separation issue, but that is one that would take a whole law firm to work on. There is much precedent here (just search any law reporter site for the subject - whew!).
Both Alabama State and Federal case law have upheld the doctrine that church and state should be separate. However there is a wide range of how that should be applied and it is very subjective. This particular case is very borderline, even given Alabama's more specific statutes. It will be interesting to see what any succesive appeals may say.
As to this: Where in the Constitution does it say that states are forbidden from establishing religions?
That would depend on judges' interpretations as to how the 1st and 14th amendments work. But again, case law has shown that no governmental body has the right to establish a religion (separation of church and state).
no subject
Date: 2003-08-20 06:12 pm (UTC)Except that's not what he said. He said the first amendment as it is written (as opposed to how it has been interpreted since) speaks only about the federal government, not about the states. He's right there. Despite the fact that I like the overall effect, I'm one of those who thinks the first amendment has been "interpreted" well beyond any reasonable meaning of the actual words.
Jeremy
no subject
Date: 2003-08-20 06:35 pm (UTC):re-reads original post
Yep, you're right about that.
However, as I pointed out in another reply in this post, interpretation and precedent *are* a big part of how our laws are made. You can't just look at statutory law and ignore case law (and vice versa). The judicial system was set up to address the fact that people rarely agree when it comes to matters of interpretation. So the first amendment (and any statutory law) *is* what it has been interpreted to be.
Whew! It's morning man, and you're making me think! Ow! :p
no subject
Date: 2003-08-20 08:52 pm (UTC)It is case law based purely on personal opinions.
Since there is no appeal beyond a Supreme Court ruling...the current system allows the US Supreme Court to create new law arbitrarily...with no provision for their opinion to ever be overturned except by that very same body. A tyranny of the very worst sort.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-21 12:29 am (UTC)As to the other, well yah. That's the way our system is set up. In every case, a final decision must eventually be made. I don't like the abuse potential inherent in this ultimate part of the system myself but I believe that we do need a place for the buck to stop.
One solution I can see to this is to limit the terms of the Supreme Court Justices to something like 10 or 20 years. This way we can still get the stability, experience, and reduction of chaos that a long-time bench seat provides but still provide a way of changing the tyranny. FYI - SC Justices can be impeached too (and that action is nearly as rare as with the presidents).
Perhaps another solution would be to appoint justices by election instead of giving the president this incredible power. I hope to God Renquist doesn't retire while Dubya is still in office! *shudder*
BTW - what is your experience and/or background with the legal system? I don't mean to be denigrating in any way here, I fully admit that I'm a student myself and a new one at that. Just curious as to where you're coming from. I've been enjoying this debate. :)
no subject
Date: 2003-08-21 01:31 am (UTC)But if you read the 1st and 14th Amendments, they are quite specific. The 1st places SPECIFIC restrictions on Congress, the 14th places SPECIFIC restrictions on the States.
The case law in question covers areas NOT specified in either. It is purely court created law extending those two into areas they didn't previously cover.
"It's because they are so wide open to interpretation that the court must make the decision."
I would argue that both of them are quite specific and not really open to wide interpretation. Unfortunately the ones deciding if they are open to interpretation (Supreme Court) are the same ones benefiting from that decision. (it allows them absolute power to make law as they see fit)
Experience/background? Just a hobby... and a personal goal that one should understand the legal system that one is governed by/participates in.