Frogm4n: This is what happens when you teach people that only religion is correct. They dont care about the corporeal world... Some of "suiciders" are not religious.
Sixpence: nazi extermination of the Jews) should prove beyond a doubt what happens w/o this separation... Nazi extermination of the jews had nothing to do with religion.
aknimitz: What cases are you familiar with, out of curiousity, where the Supreme Court has decided something in direct contradiction to the Consitution. I wish I kept record of all the cases I've encountered. I should probably do it in the future. Here is one of the most blatant:
1935 U.S. Supreme Court case
Home Building & Loan Association v. BlaisdellJohn and Rosella Blaisdell, citizens of Minnesota, had entered into a standard loan contract for the purchase of their home. The purchase money was secured by a lien on the property. The loan agreement provided that in the event of default on the debtor’s mortgage payments, the bank could foreclose its lien at a foreclosure sale. At the time the contract was entered into, Minnesota law provided that a debtor had a 30-day grace period after the foreclosure sale in which he could redeem the property by paying off the debt.
However, prior to the foreclosure sale (and after the loan contract had been entered into), the Minnesota legislature had enacted a law that provided that a debtor could go to court and seek a further extension of time in which to redeem the property (over and above the 30 days provided in the pre-existing law).
The Blaisdells went to state district court and sought the extension, which was granted by the court, provided that the Blaisdells made a monthly payment to the bank, to be applied to the indebtedness.
According to the Constitution,
"No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . .." Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did.
But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes set forth the applicable principles:
“The economic interests of the State may justify the exercise of its continuing and dominant protective power notwithstanding interference with contracts.
In short, if the state feels like it has interests in volating the Constitution, the heck with the Constitution.
He continued:
Where, in earlier days, it was thought that only the concerns of individuals or of classes were involved, and that those of the State itself were touched only remotely, it has later been found that the fundamental interests of the State are directly affected, and that the question is no longer merely that of one party to a contract as against another, but of the use of reasonable means to safeguard the economic structure upon which the good of all depends.
See? In the olden days the individual and his freedom were supreme but now in the new modern era, the collective interests of “society” would have to prevail, Constitution or no Constitution.
Another issue is that Supreme Court should be a check on the abuse of power by other two branches, not just a court to hear cases. It should not wait for a case to be submitted to strike down an unconstitutinal legislation of executive order.
I do not remember whether there was a case about money but it clearly says in the Constitution that
No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts righ next to
"pass any... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts".
Kieran: Whether it's a battle over abortion rights, the Ten Commandments on courthouse property, gay marriage... it's here. We have to deal with it one way or another. The struggle is much, much bigger than what is happening in public schools. It's not so bad from the practical point of view, Kieran. It may actually be easier to bring children up in your values in the hostile environment than otherwise. Make it a game of defying the government and the dumb majority.
There were many more anti-communists in the Soviet Union that here in US where communists did not
seem as much of a problem.
You will only lose if you want your children to be brought up properly but are too lazy to do it yourself and expect the "society" to do it. Somehow I do not think you are such a man.
miko
