Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11,865
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot View Post
    What? You guys have a steel cage here!-
    http://www.debatepolicy.com/forumdis...?26-Steel-Cage

  2. #17
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3160
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475263

    Default

    Thanks for the info..
    That's really ... coooooool
    A steel cage match but with no bloodshed..
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    23,251
    Thanks (Given)
    7207
    Thanks (Received)
    11746
    Likes (Given)
    1048
    Likes (Received)
    1381
    Piss Off (Given)
    4
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ConHog View Post
    I was taught that it ONLY referred to Congress couldn't make any religion the "official" religion, nor could it out law any religion; yes that includes Islam. It doesn't however mean that Congress can't pass laws that pertain to religion, IE some religion can't claim human sacrifice as a protected right etc etc.....

    Coupled with the rest of the first, that clearly tells us that we have the right to voice our religious beliefs.

    The words are rather OBVIOUS. As in 'CONGRESS shall'. It doesn't say President, Lawyers, or Supreme Court members. Just CONGRESS.
    I love to make Liberals Cry, and Whine.
    So, this is for them.
    GOD BLESS AMERICA - IN GOD WE TRUST !

  4. #19
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    23,251
    Thanks (Given)
    7207
    Thanks (Received)
    11746
    Likes (Given)
    1048
    Likes (Received)
    1381
    Piss Off (Given)
    4
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475219

    Default Without it. We have nothing.

    1stbig.jpg All Americans need to learn what it ACTUALLY says.
    I love to make Liberals Cry, and Whine.
    So, this is for them.
    GOD BLESS AMERICA - IN GOD WE TRUST !

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Georgia!
    Posts
    11,851
    Thanks (Given)
    791
    Thanks (Received)
    723
    Likes (Given)
    1219
    Likes (Received)
    881
    Piss Off (Given)
    24
    Piss Off (Received)
    1
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1203909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aboutime View Post
    We all know how those who claim to know the words of the 1st amendment always distort them, or create their own context to suit their political needs.
    For instance.
    Nothing makes those who define the 1st amendment in their own words angrier than when you ask them to show you...where in the constitution. The words Separation of Church and State appear.

    Is that something those who want to destroy the constitution must use to make their argument sound better?
    Hopefully. Americans have finally begun to learn. Thanks to the freedom of the 1st amendment, and the World Wide Web, called the Internet. How knowledge is such a wonderful tool to fight those who are destined to fail.
    EXACTLY WHY SOME GOVERNMENTS and the UN want control of it.
    UNITED STATES ARMY AVIATION

    Above the Best

    Why the Hell should I have to press “1” for ENGLISH?

  6. Likes revelarts liked this post
  7. #21
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    5,457
    Thanks (Given)
    14
    Thanks (Received)
    714
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1515016

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dmp View Post
    I wonder how the courts define 'respecting'.

    Is it "Congress shall make no law with respect to an establishment of religion. As in, congress won't make any laws that direct an established, state-run religion."

    Or is it "Congress will not rule regulate any religious organization good or bad".

    I sorta think its the latter.
    Actually, I think it's both, really. A state run religion would be preferential treatment almost by default, and that would violate the Equal Protections Clause. At the same time, if the government "sanctions" certain religions and not others, then they're getting into the territory of deciding which religions are "right" and which are "wrong".
    "Government screws up everything. If government says black, you can bet it's white. If government says sit still for your safety, you'd better run for your life!"
    --Wayne Allyn Root
    www.rootforamerica.com
    www.FairTax.org

  8. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    12,504
    Thanks (Given)
    6
    Thanks (Received)
    210
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    3
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    565790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ConHog View Post
    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.



    Really just want to focus on the religious portion here.

    Contrary to what some (mostly those who dislike Christians) would like to believe the COTUS certainly does not promise to protect ANYONE from being exposed to ANY religion.

    I really don't understand why so many think that is the case.
    I agree. In fact, it explicitly telling us they cant stop us from exposing you to any religion.

    Which means I have a right to go door to door sharing the Gospel. You have the right to shut the door in my face. But I do have the right to exercise my religion freely and share it with others.
    If we were as industrious to become good as to make ourselves great, we should become really great by being good, and the number of valuable men would be much increased; but it is a grand mistake to think of being great without goodness; and i pronounce it as certain that there was never yet a truly great man that was not at the same time truly virtuous." - Ben Franklin

    Imagine what good we can do if we all joined together, united as followers of Christ - M. Russell Ballard

  9. Likes revelarts liked this post
  10. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    14,919
    Thanks (Given)
    4879
    Thanks (Received)
    4969
    Likes (Given)
    3183
    Likes (Received)
    1829
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    4
    Mentioned
    134 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14250993

    Default

    "I perceive two fundamental difficulties with a narrow reading of the Press Clause.

    First, although certainty on this point is not possible, the history of the Clause does not suggest that the authors contemplated a “special” or “institutional” privilege. . . . Most pre-First Amendment commentators “who employed the term ‘freedom of speech’ with great frequency, used it synonymously with freedom of the press.” . . .
    Those interpreting the Press Clause as extending protection only to, or creating a special role for, the “institutional press” must either
    (a) assert such an intention on the part of the Framers for which no supporting evidence is available . . . ;
    (b) argue that events after 1791 somehow operated to “constitutionalize” this interpretation . . . ; or
    (c) candidly acknowledging the absence of historical support, suggest that the intent of the Framers is not important today. . . .

    The second fundamental difficulty with interpreting the Press Clause as conferring special status on a limited group is one of definition. . . . The very task of including some entities within the “institutional press” while excluding others, whether undertaken by legislature, court, or administrative agency, is reminiscent of the abhorred licensing system of Tudor and Stuart England—a system the First Amendment was intended to ban from this country. . . . In short, the First Amendment does not “belong” to any definable category of persons or entities: It belongs to all who exercise its freedoms."


    Chief Justice Warren Burger, who wrote in response to the press-as-institution view:
    https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/...9/sentelle.pdf
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  11. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    14,919
    Thanks (Given)
    4879
    Thanks (Received)
    4969
    Likes (Given)
    3183
    Likes (Received)
    1829
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    4
    Mentioned
    134 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14250993

    Default



    The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.
    Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger


    .
    .
    .




    Churchmen are quick to defend religious freedom; lawyers were never so universally aroused as by President Roosevelt's Court bill; newspapers are most alert to civil liberties when there is a hint of press censorship in the air. And educators become perturbed at every effort to curb academic freedom. But too seldom do all of these become militant when ostensibly the rights of only one group are threatened. They do not always react to the truism that when the rights of any individual or group are chipped away, the freedom of all erodes.

    Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums