Question about church and state laws

[TheWesDude]

actually sander there are a lot of writings from the "founding fathers" that explain what they meant and intended with what they wrote.

people just ignore all of that because those writings lend credence that the federal government has very little power to do anything. when those writings that aim to clarify the wording and intentions in the constitution basically say the federal government only has the powers to do the military, inter-state commerce, rule on constitutional matters, and join international treaties, it calls into question the vast majority of what the federal government does in the US.

technically states are sovereign members of the union with very few powers reserved for the federal government. but that means a lot of the federal laws are unconstitutional. so its far easier to ignore all the writings on the constitution and rather only focus on the constitution itself in a vacuum.

 

[Crni Vuk]

hasn't the civil war actually settled that question?

 

[Sander]

I like how everyone seems to think they know more of the constitution than, y'know, constitutional scholars and Supreme Court judges.

TheWesDude, what you write is one interpretation. An interpretation that only a few people actually adhere to, I might add, and that is contradicted by volumes of constitutional research and many, many Supreme Court rulings.

Once again: stating that something is clear and unambiguous does not make the ambiguity go away anywhere but in your own mind.

 

[BonusWaffle]

hasn't the civil war actually settled that question?

Funny how they fought both for and against the freedom of their citizens, isnt it? The feds think everyone should have freedom.. just not freedom from the feds

 

[TheWesDude]

I like how everyone seems to think they know more of the constitution than, y'know, constitutional scholars and Supreme Court judges.

TheWesDude, what you write is one interpretation. An interpretation that only a few people actually adhere to, I might add, and that is contradicted by volumes of constitutional research and many, many Supreme Court rulings.

Once again: stating that something is clear and unambiguous does not make the ambiguity go away anywhere but in your own mind.

actually the federalist papers mention that states are intended to be sovereign unto themselves except for the rights expressly held through the constitution for the federal government. that was the purpose for including the 10th amendment in the bill of rights, the portion of the constitution that was intended to place broad restrictions on the federal government.

and the only rights expressly provided to the federal government is the supreme court to rule on legal and constitutional matters ( the judiciary ); the treasury, pass laws, and represent the people ( the congressional ); veto laws, lead the military, public figurehead ( executive ). their express permissions are limited to military, inter-state commerce, sign international treaties, final decision on legal matters.

those are the rights of the federal government expressly granted to the federal government. and the 10th amendment says that any right not expressly given to the federal government, and prohibited from the state, is reserved for the state NOT the federal government.

but, like i said, it is easier to try to find some way to say it is, or just ignore those restrictions.

and yes, even the supreme court has gotten into it. take gun control. the supreme court ruled the federal government has the right to pass national gun control laws because of how easy they are to transport across state lines. some states are working on getting around that by passing state-confined laws that allow manufacture of guns that requires special marking and making it illegal to transport them out of the state. per the supreme court any gun manufactured in that way would not fall under inter-state commerce and could ignore federal gun laws. they have also ruled on mandatory gun registration which is why we do not have it yet in the US. the supreme court has placed so many restrictions on a gun registry that nobody wants to pass a law that would conform to the restrictions the supreme court has already ruled it would have to have. such as: consequences could not be anything other than a misdemeanor, could not have any fine in excess of $1,000, could not have more than 30 days jail time, could not be used to locate and prosecute violators or owners of a firearm if it would be a crime to own them, and a few others. so nobody really passes a mandatory gun registry because it would be very watered down. in fact the gun registry that new york passed is unconstitutional per the USSC.

 

[Sander]

Yes, there are limits on federal power. That doesn't mean that those limits are unambiguously written and that they are clear in all cases, nor does it mean that those limits are as suffocating as you seem to think they are. Your example of gun control shows exactly that, even though you apparently don't see that.

Hell, the Founding Fathers themselves didn't even agree on the exact meaning and power of the constitution and the federal government, which is why you had a whole bunch of political squabbling in the late 1700s. And in general, the Supreme Court and the legislature have interpreted the commerce clause to grant the federal government a lot of power.

Again: there is a lot of debate on almost every constitutional article, both scholarly and judicial. The fact that these debates exist should be sufficient to show that your insistence that your interpretation is right and the rest is wrong is nonsense. You adhere to one interpretation, and that's fine. But to insist that that's the only way the constitution can be applied is delusional.

 

[SnapSlav]

I like how everyone seems to think they know more of the constitution than, y'know, constitutional scholars and Supreme Court judges.

I like how you think that just because something is done, that makes it, y'know, a good thing.

Anyway, to avoid further mockery without expressing justification for it... You're praising popular course and ignoring its validity. Yes, there's been TONS of debate over "interpretations", and there's entire careers dedicated to "interpreting" the Constitution. If I were to say that it ISN'T done, I'd be an idiot; but that isn't what I've said. I criticized the practices, not denied their existence. It's done, but its BEING done doesn't mean it's a good thing TO do. Very bad laws are enacted because of lobbyists and Constitutional Lawyers trying to dissect wording and argue that what was meant wasn't reeeeeally meant, so let's change that. Appropriate (or we'd hope so) amendments to the Constitution are just that; The Amendments. They aren't "reinterpretations" of existing Amendments and the Constitution itself.

Just like you want to point out that my attitude towards the debates doesn't dismiss them, you should take care to recognize that rule applies to yourself, as well. Your disapproval of my disapproval doesn't dismiss it, either.

The idea that if it is voluntary it is okay is actually nowhere to be found in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. It also largely misses the point. When you take a prayer (Christian or otherwise) and make it a part of a graduation ceremony, even if it is voluntary to join in, you are still endorsing a specific religious practice. This becomes very problematic when other religious practices are not a part of that ceremony, or when atheists are entirely denied a similar ceremony. "You can always ignore it" doesn't really work when your entire school is gathered for a ceremony that celebrates your graduation.

In addition, when 70% of your school is Christian and joining in, then any voluntary prayer quickly becomes a mandatory prayer, lest those not participating become excluded.

What misses the point is your comparison of public schools to Congress. Congress is where laws come from (as outlined by the Constitution) and they're expressly forbidden to make any such laws favoring or targeting religious practices (as outlined by..... THE CONSTITUTION). A school can do as it pleases, and they have no power to enforce that via laws.

If your problem is the exclusionary nature of such practices, you're barking up the wrong tree. I already expressed my own experiences with being singled out, bullied, and harassed by the larger part of my school for my voluntary exclusion of the customary practice of saluting the American Flag and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Telling me about how the voluntary nature of these practices still invites exclusion and singles out those who do not partake because of their popular custom is directing the wrong lesson to the wrong audience. I've been there, I've experienced it first hand, you can't tell me I'm just ignoring this or that I'm just unaware of it. I know it far better, I imagine, than you do. It doesn't change the fact that the OP asked if a LAW was being broken, and the fact of the matter is that no LAW was being broken whatsoever.

Is it appropriate? Perhaps not, and that point can certainly be made. But it still doesn't affect that it's absolutely, 100% legal to invite everyone to join in a prayer at a public school.

 

[Sander]

I like how you think that just because something is done, that makes it, y'know, a good thing.

I made no value judgments in my post and I'm not saying one side is superior. What I am saying is that neither side can claim that theirs is the one true, unambiguous interpretation -- which is what you were doing. Because there's a lot of debate on this stuff, by a lot of very educated and very intelligent people on the matter.

What misses the point is your comparison of public schools to Congress. Congress is where laws come from (as outlined by the Constitution) and they're expressly forbidden to make any such laws favoring or targeting religious practices (as outlined by..... THE CONSTITUTION). A school can do as it pleases, and they have no power to enforce that via laws.

It is a public school, and a public school is funded by and a representative of government. It can't just "do as it pleases". Which has been affirmed by a humongous amount of court rulings on a ton of issues relating to religion and other problems. What you're saying simply does not jive with reality.

Is it appropriate? Perhaps not, and that point can certainly be made. But it still doesn't affect that it's absolutely, 100% legal to invite everyone to join in a prayer at a public school.

Once again: there have been multiple court rulings that state that it is not legal to make a school prayer a part of a graduation ceremony. There is precedent. It is illegal, until that precedent is overturned. I've linked you to that stuff twice now.

Once again: you don't think that should be the case. That's fine. It changes nothing about the facts, however.

 

[SnapSlav]

Because there's a lot of debate on this stuff, by a lot of very educated and very intelligent people on the matter.

There's lots of lobbying and scheming done by intelligent and devious people. That doesn't make it at all legitimately proper or necessary.

It is a public school, and a public school is funded by and a representative of government. It can't just "do as it pleases". Which has been affirmed by a humongous amount of court rulings on a ton of issues relating to religion and other problems. What you're saying simply does not jive with reality.

That's hypocrisy, and you need to face that. A public school IS funded by the government, and the education it provides IS reflective of the government's aims. Absolutely true. This still does not make it a recipient of Constitutional Precedent which targets CONGRESS, with respect to its voluntary practices adopted by its administration. Its non-Congressional administration. You're including them in a matter and body in which they have no relevance. THAT is an objective and absolute, on this matter. They. Do. Not. Apply. Squirm and scream about it all you want. It's still not applicable to them, and no laws were broken.

If you want to insist that there are multiple possible "interpretations" of the Constitution based on the same frivolous arguments that the lawyers already use- the nonsense of the nature of our language having changed in the past 200 years, or the misapplication to advanced circumstances, or presumption of intentions that the precise wording contradicts, or... etc etc -then that's your business you're free to indulge in. But you can't ignore that there is no "interpreting" what is and isn't a LAW. That's of a binary nature; it is or it isn't. In this case it isn't, so no laws were broken.

 

[Sander]

That's hypocrisy, and you need to face that. A public school IS funded by the government, and the education it provides IS reflective of the government's aims. Absolutely true. This still does not make it a recipient of Constitutional Precedent which targets CONGRESS, with respect to its voluntary practices adopted by its administration. Its non-Congressional administration. You're including them in a matter and body in which they have no relevance. THAT is an objective and absolute, on this matter. They. Do. Not. Apply. Squirm and scream about it all you want. It's still not applicable to them, and no laws were broken.

The Supreme Court disagrees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_v._Weisman

Yet again: your interpretation (and it is an interpretation) is not the only one. The Constitution is not some infallibly written text that cannot possibly be interpreted in multiple ways. Which is part of the reason why there's a Supreme Court.

It's interesting to note that the dissenters in that Supreme Court case did not talk about the Establishment Clause not being applicable to public schools or other publicly funded institutions. The reasoning is that a public school is funded by Congress, directly or indirectly (states are also (partly) funded by Congress). Hence any actions public schools take are made possible by Congress law (ie. funds) -- which means that those public institutions have to adhere to constitutional clauses applied to Congress making laws.

As applied to the Establishment Clause, this stems from Everson v. Board of Education, which was a Supreme Court decision that as one part of it described the limits and interpretation of the Establishment Clause. That description of the Establishment Clause was supported unanimously.

 

[TheWesDude]

so what sander is doing is agreeing with my original statement.

they did not violate any laws, but they did violate your constitutional rights.

of which there is no official punishments, but you can sue for damages for clearly violating your constitutional rights based upon USSC rulings and judgments.