1 minute ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

So the constitution prohibits certain laws… which is basically what I said.  But it’s not as if the Federal Government starts with infinite power and the constitution merely carved out limited exceptions to the infinite power.  The reverse is true.  The federal government started with zero power, and the constitution added only the powers therein enumerated 

there's no question that we have a government of limitations. Where the Federal government is prohibited from having certain powers, they cannot then exercise that forbidden power by making certain law(s). Those law(s), if challenged in the SCOTUS, would likely be null.

9 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

there's no question that we have a government of limitations. Where the Federal government is prohibited from having certain powers, they cannot then exercise that forbidden power by making certain law(s). Those law(s), if challenged in the SCOTUS, would likely be null.

Should, but often aren’t…because we frequently elect people who are hostile to the constitution who in turn appoint people to the court

Quote

The Supreme Court Is Tearing Down the Wall between Church and State

There was so much other news yesterday that we didn't have time to write this story up, but it is a biggie. Some parts of Maine are so rural that there are no schools there. To help students who live in those areas, the state legislature created a voucher program that pays the tuition of students who want to attend a private school elsewhere in the state. However, the program does not allow the vouchers to be used at religious schools, since using taxpayer money to support religious schools would appear to violate the Constitution's separation of church and state. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court decided that nope, giving state money to religious schools is just fine and dandy. The vote was 6-3. We're not going to tell you who voted each way since, even if you haven't seen the story somewhere, we are confident you can guess who supported the law and who opposed it.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion and said that by not allowing religious schools to get state money, the state was discriminating against religion and that cannot be allowed. OK, that lets the cat out of bag as to one of the 6 "yea" votes. We'll also give you a hint about one of the dissenters. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: "This Court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build." Sotomayor foreshadowed more changes to come to decades of settled law. She suggested that the only reason this is going to happen is that conservatives now have a clear majority on the Court. In other words, the conservative justices can do whatever they want, law or no law, because they have the votes now.

Rachel Laser, CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, was laser-focused on the problem, saying: "The Court is forcing taxpayers to fund religious education." She called it "government-enforced tithing."

Justice Stephen Breyer asked: "What happens once 'may" becomes 'must?'" He is concerned that states that fund public schools using taxpayer money will soon be required to fund religious schools with taxpayer money as well.

Maine AG Aaron Frey (D) was also upset by the ruling. He said: "The education provided by the schools at issue here is inimical to a public education. They promote a single religion to the exclusion of all others, refuse to admit gay and transgender children, and openly discriminate in hiring teachers and staff." He argued that the Court is now forcing taxpayers to support a kind of education that is fundamentally at odds with the values (many) Americans hold dear.

This not the first Court decision that forces taxpayers to fund religious organizations. In 2020, the Court ruled that a Montana program that provided tax credits to donors who sponsored scholarships at private schools could also get them for donating to religious schools.

 

2 hours ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

So you don’t think people can know the constitution unless they’ve gone to Harvard or Yale

Of course they can.  There is nothing saying a SCOTUS justice has to come from those two places. 

4 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

You can tell the left is the one being political because they use words like "wall of separation” that never appear in the constitution.  Read section iii of the Maine constitution 

Section 3.  Religious freedom; sects equal; religious tests prohibited; religious teachers.  All individuals have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no person shall be hurt, molested or restrained in that person's liberty or estate for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of that person's own conscience, nor for that person's religious professions or sentiments, provided that that person does not disturb the public peace, nor obstruct others in their religious worship; -- and all persons demeaning themselves peaceably, as good members of the State, shall be equally under the protection of the laws, and no subordination nor preference of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law, nor shall any religious test be required as a qualification for any office or trust, under this State; and all religious societies in this State, whether incorporate or unincorporate, shall at all times have the exclusive right of electing their public teachers, and contracting with them for their support and maintenance.

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

Of course they can.  There is nothing saying a SCOTUS justice has to come from those two places. 

Except Congress of course

1 minute ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

You can tell the left is the one being political because they use words like "wall of separation” that never appear in the constitution.  Read section iii of the Maine constitution 

 

"Wall of separation between church and state" were the exact words used by Thomas Jefferson to describe the First Amendment.

Wrong again! 

2 hours ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

SCOTUS is not irrelevant… it decides cases and is most important when it comes to determining facts in a case.  Also, lawmakers are not perfect and it is conceivable that a law could have been made in error or present itself in certain cases as being a bit ambiguous as to meaning.  But there’s certain laws where the words are so clear and for them to rule against it is just obviously a violation

That isn’t for you to decide. 

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

"Wall of separation between church and state" were the exact words used by Thomas Jefferson to describe the First Amendment.

Wrong again! 

But not actually the words in the constitution 😨

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

That isn’t for you to decide. 

It is what already was decided in the convention of 1789

2 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

But not actually the words in the constitution 😨

It is what already was decided in the convention of 1789

 

Um, we typically interpret the Constitution by looking at the words of these exact people to understand what was intended when it was written. If Jefferson believed that the First Amendment was intended to be a "wall of separation between church and state," I'll take his word over yours.

4 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

Um, we typically interpret the Constitution by looking at the words of these exact people to understand what was intended when it was written. If Jefferson believed that the First Amendment was intended to be a "wall of separation between church and state," I'll take his word over yours.

This method is only a last resort, and if you’re resorting to notes and things that aren’t in the actual constitution, that’s not a good thing

The reason is because then you start getting into cockfights over who was the best founder (what if Madison had a different view?) and whether what they said before or after the convention matters more… things like that that are usually not very objective or fair

19 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

It is what already was decided in the convention of 1789

No, it was decided that SCOTUS is the arbiter, not you and not anyone else. 
 

Congress has the power to impeach and remove a justice should that be necessary.

Thats all you need to know on this topic. You might not like it but it is what it is. 

24 minutes ago, Talkingbirds said:

Or maybe not

Any pretense that this DOJ is apolitical is now gone

 

 

We inch closer…

4 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

Any pretense that this DOJ is apolitical is now gone

 

1 hour ago, Dave Moss said:

Justice officials testified that Trump called them every day except for Christmas and New Year’s Eve.  

We're, of course, talking about this DOJ, but the deflection was completely expected.

30 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

No, it was decided that SCOTUS is the arbiter, not you and not anyone else. 
 

Congress has the power to impeach and remove a justice should that be necessary.

Thats all you need to know on this topic. You might not like it but it is what it is. 

What would be the basis for an impeachment?

Just now, The_Omega said:

We're, of course, talking about this DOJ, but the deflection was completely expected.

at you pretending to give a F 

1 minute ago, The_Omega said:

We're, of course, talking about this DOJ, but the deflection was completely expected.

Fair enough.

Do tell. Are you still a Trump supporter?

28 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

Or maybe not

You would have a hard time firing a spitball.

4 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

What would be the basis for an impeachment?

Grave criminal or unethical conduct. That’s the typical verbiage.

Certainly not because you believe one of their rulings to be unconstitutional  

 

4 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

I must have missed it.  What are we riled up about?

 

 

58 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

Um, we typically interpret the Constitution by looking at the words of these exact people to understand what was intended when it was written. If Jefferson believed that the First Amendment was intended to be a "wall of separation between church and state," I'll take his word over yours.

Do "we?”

The entire point of the living constitution is to not do this.

That said, I agree with your point. The nuance here is in the context of European history where religion was commingled with state power and often forced on people. Is anyone forcing a religion on you by giving money to a private school you are not forced to attend?

Sure, you could argue that, and I’d even be sympathetic to the argument, but then you have to apply that to all the money spent by the government concerning the entire first amendment. I don’t want my tax dollars going to PBS, Raytheon, Planned Parenthood, etc. It becomes a veto on virtually all government spending.

8 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

 

 

I’m still trying to figure out what we’re locking and loading about