Wonder where the ACLU stands on this IRS deal ?

[Forever_frost]

A veterans' organization should have no say in legal talks on how to modify a war memorial cross that is located on federal land, the American Civil Liberties Union told a federal judge Friday in a hearing to decide whether the group should be dropped from the case.

U.S. District Court Judge Larry Burns said he will issue his ruling on the ACLU's request soon, but he told the court that he was inclined to allow the Mount Soledad Memorial Association to continue to intervene as a party in the case.

Court Rules War Memorial Cross Unconstitutional
In January 2011, a federal appeals court ruled that the war memorial cross -- which the association maintains -- was unconstitutional because it suggested that the government endorses religion. The federal court that ordered it be modified but did not specify what needs to be done.

David Loy of the ACLU in San Diego argued the veterans' organization maintains the memorial but does not own it and therefore has no right to decide how the property should be reconfigured.

Lawyer Jeff Mateer for the Mount Soledad Memorial Association said the veterans' group erected the 29-foot cross in 1954 on a San Diego mountain top and has contractual rights to decide the future of the memorial. The cross was initially constructed to honor Korean War veterans.

The decades long legal fight began in 1989 when an atheist sued the city of San Diego saying the cross memorial excludes people who were not Christian. A Jewish war veterans group and the ACLU joined the lawsuit. City officials have said because the cross is part of a secular war memorial, it doesn't endorse one particular religion.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57536445/aclu-remove-veterans-group-from-cross-case/

Very quick search. All I had to do was type in "ACLU attacks veteran cross."

[Maddhattter]

A veterans' organization should have no say in legal talks on how to modify a war memorial cross that is located on federal land, the American Civil Liberties Union told a federal judge Friday in a hearing to decide whether the group should be dropped from the case.

U.S. District Court Judge Larry Burns said he will issue his ruling on the ACLU's request soon, but he told the court that he was inclined to allow the Mount Soledad Memorial Association to continue to intervene as a party in the case.

Court Rules War Memorial Cross Unconstitutional
In January 2011, a federal appeals court ruled that the war memorial cross -- which the association maintains -- was unconstitutional because it suggested that the government endorses religion. The federal court that ordered it be modified but did not specify what needs to be done.

David Loy of the ACLU in San Diego argued the veterans' organization maintains the memorial but does not own it and therefore has no right to decide how the property should be reconfigured.

Lawyer Jeff Mateer for the Mount Soledad Memorial Association said the veterans' group erected the 29-foot cross in 1954 on a San Diego mountain top and has contractual rights to decide the future of the memorial. The cross was initially constructed to honor Korean War veterans.

The decades long legal fight began in 1989 when an atheist sued the city of San Diego saying the cross memorial excludes people who were not Christian. A Jewish war veterans group and the ACLU joined the lawsuit. City officials have said because the cross is part of a secular war memorial, it doesn't endorse one particular religion.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57536445/aclu-remove-veterans-group-from-cross-case/

Very quick search. All I had to do was type in "ACLU attacks veteran cross."

No where here is a person's right to exercise their religion or have faith being prevented/challenged in this article.

If this were an individual soldier's headstone, I'd agree that it is. However, seeing as how this is a sectarian religious symbol, owned by the government on federal land to represent a memorial to the multi-cultural people of a federal organization, there is no way to claim that a cross is not an overtly religious symbol promoting Christianity over all other religions regardless of the religious beliefs of the people it is memorializing.

It would be no different if a star of David, a star and crescent, a representation of Kali or any other religious symbol was on top of a federal memorial.

No one's rights to the exercise of their religious beliefs is being infringed except for those people who believe that the government should promote their religion above others and it's the constitution that prevents that. No one's right to have faith is being challenged either, so this article does not meet either of the criteria requested.

So, I ask again, can you, or anyone else, name one example of the ACLU working to prevent religions from being exercised or challenging the people's right to have faith?

[Forever_frost]

The symbol of the cross has been used on gravestones as far back as I can remember. Arlington is full of them. Explain how it's Congress establishing a religion in violation of the 1st amendment.

[Maddhattter]

The symbol of the cross has been used on gravestones as far back as I can remember. Arlington is full of them. Explain how it's Congress establishing a religion in violation of the 1st amendment.

If the ACLU was trying to have religious symbols removed from gravestones, I would agree that the ACLU was working to infringe the exercising of religion.

However, the article you linked is not about a gravestone, which represents an individual, but a memorial, which represents a diverse group of people. So, unless you want to claim that the ACLU is working to remove crosses from gravestones and provide evidence that they are doing so, the discussion of gravestones is irrelevant.

Again, there's no support here that the ACLU working to prevent religions from being exercised or challenging the people's right to have faith.

[svauto-erotic855]

I wonder if you guys realize the ACLU fights for both sides.

Really? When? I have yet to see them defend the 2nd and they only fight to protect the parts of the 1st that they like.

[racrguy]

Really? When? I have yet to see them defend the 2nd and they only fight to protect the parts of the 1st that they like.

Someone didn't read the thread.

[Forever_frost]

If the ACLU was trying to have religious symbols removed from gravestones, I would agree that the ACLU was working to infringe the exercising of religion.

However, the article you linked is not about a gravestone, which represents an individual, but a memorial, which represents a diverse group of people. So, unless you want to claim that the ACLU is working to remove crosses from gravestones and provide evidence that they are doing so, the discussion of gravestones is irrelevant.

Again, there's no support here that the ACLU working to prevent religions from being exercised or challenging the people's right to have faith.

Have you missed all of the 10 commandment plaques removed from court houses, the removal of nativity scenes from cities, the attacks on city council meetings where they pray beforehand and most recent, the removal of a picture from an AF school that had an airman standing with a knight in the background and under it it read Matt 3:8?

[Maddhattter]

Have you missed all of the 10 commandment plaques removed from court houses, the removal of nativity scenes from cities, the attacks on city council meetings where they pray beforehand and most recent, the removal of a picture from an AF school that had an airman standing with a knight in the background and under it it read Matt 3:8?

I've not seen any info on the removal of the picture of an airman standing with a knight, the rest I'm fully aware of.

No one's rights to the exercise of their religious beliefs is being infringed except for those people who believe that the government should promote their religion above others and it's the constitution that prevents that. No one's right to have faith is being challenged either, so these situations (barring the last one, to which I've no information on) do not meet either of the criteria requested.

So, I ask again, can you, or anyone else, name one example of the ACLU working to prevent religions from being exercised or challenging the people's right to have faith?

[Forever_frost]

How is this a violation of the 1st amendment:
Two advocacy groups have gone to court to force the removal of a large portrait of Jesus Christ which has hung inside a rural southern Ohio middle school since 1947.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio and the Freedom from Religion Foundation filed the lawsuit on Thursday in U.S. District Court in Columbus, reports the Columbus Dispatch.

The suit claims that the portrait hanging in Jackson Middle School violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by endorsing Christianity.

“The maintenance and display of the portrait has the effect of advancing and endorsing one religion, improperly entangling the State in religious affairs, and violating the personal consciences of plaintiffs,” the lawsuit claims, according to Fox News.

There are three plaintiffs in the suit. One plaintiff is a student at the middle school; the other two are parents of children at the school. The plaintiffs are reportedly only identified as “Sam Doe.”

“The school system was warned weeks ago that this religious display is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and must be removed,” James Hardiman, the legal director of ACLU Ohio, told the Dispatch.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/09/ac...#ixzz2UzTyUETy

[Maddhattter]

How is this a violation of the 1st amendment:
Two advocacy groups have gone to court to force the removal of a large portrait of Jesus Christ which has hung inside a rural southern Ohio middle school since 1947.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio and the Freedom from Religion Foundation filed the lawsuit on Thursday in U.S. District Court in Columbus, reports the Columbus Dispatch.

The suit claims that the portrait hanging in Jackson Middle School violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by endorsing Christianity.

“The maintenance and display of the portrait has the effect of advancing and endorsing one religion, improperly entangling the State in religious affairs, and violating the personal consciences of plaintiffs,” the lawsuit claims, according to Fox News.

There are three plaintiffs in the suit. One plaintiff is a student at the middle school; the other two are parents of children at the school. The plaintiffs are reportedly only identified as “Sam Doe.”

“The school system was warned weeks ago that this religious display is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and must be removed,” James Hardiman, the legal director of ACLU Ohio, told the Dispatch.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/09/ac...#ixzz2UzTyUETy

(Emphasis mine)

There's no need for me to explain. The article has already done so.

No one's rights to the exercise of their religious beliefs is being infringed except for those people who believe that the government should promote their religion above others and it's the constitution that prevents that. No one's right to have faith is being challenged either, so this article does not meet either of the criteria requested.

So, I ask again, can you, or anyone else, name one example of the ACLU working to prevent religions from being exercised or challenging the people's right to have faith?

[Forever_frost]

No, it doesn't. It uses the false belief that the 1st amendment means anything BUT what it says. The First Amendment begins with "Congress shall make no law..." Unless Congress creates a law requiring these things be done, it is not a violation. Would you like me to copy and past the entire amendment?

Using the constitution, explain how this is a violation.

[Maddhattter]

No, it doesn't. It uses the false belief that the 1st amendment means anything BUT what it says. The First Amendment begins with "Congress shall make no law..." Unless Congress creates a law requiring these things be done, it is not a violation. Would you like me to copy and past the entire amendment?

Using the constitution, explain how this is a violation.

Again, I don't have to. The SCOTUS has already done so, via previous rulings. Therefore, via jurisprudence, if the displays/actions in question fail the lemon test, they are unconstitutional.

And before you go on about how the SCOTUS has no power to make these kind of rulings, I've already detailed how it has the legal authority to do so. Even if I hadn't and couldn't demonstrate it, history disagrees with you on the issues all the way back to ruling contemporary to the founders of the constitution. It seems rational to conclude that if none of the founding fathers found fault in the SCOTUS ruling on their interpretations of the constitution, that that process is working the way it was intended.

[Forever_frost]

The SCOTUS has no authority to change the wording of an amendment. If you believe they do, show me where they draw that authority. The Amendment is very clear on who is prohibited from doing what. The SCOTUS also said slavery and internment was legal and still hold that internment is legal. Are you truly saying that internment is everything working as it was designed?

Your argument falls apart when you read what the Founders actually enumerated as powers of the Supreme Court. If they believed it should have any powers other than what was expressly granted, they'd have amended the constitution to include it. As they did not, the Supreme Court has very limited powers, rewriting the constitution is not one of them.

[Maddhattter]

The SCOTUS has no authority to change the wording of an amendment.

They didn't change the wording. So, no problem here.

The SCOTUS also said slavery and internment was legal and still hold that internment is legal.

In 2011 the Department of Justice filed official notice, conceding that it was in error on it's initial ruling on internment, thus erasing the case's value as precedent for interning citizens. While there has been no explicit ruling on it, it's yet to be challenged again and the courts are a reactive, not a proactive, system.

So, considering that the two examples you give of the SCOTUS getting it wrong at first does, in essence, two things.

1. It demonstrates that bad decisions can be made but can be (and in the case of your examples, are) corrected when it's demonstrated that it was incorrect. Nobody claims that the SCOTUS gets it right the first time on every ruling. So, don't like the ruling? Challenge it and get it overturned.

2. That the intent of the founders is irrelevant to the document. After all, the founders had no problems with slavery. This would directly imply that slavery is, in fact, constitutional. However, since then, the SCOTUS has interpreted that same document to come to a different conclusion than the founders did.

Regardless, none of this supports your position that the SCOTUS does not have the authority to interpret the constitution or that they are misapplying the establishment clause.

Your argument falls apart when you read what the Founders actually enumerated as powers of the Supreme Court. If they believed it should have any powers other than what was expressly granted, they'd have amended the constitution to include it. As they did not, the Supreme Court has very limited powers, rewriting the constitution is not one of them.

As I explained in my previous post, here, SCOTUS does have the authority to rule on the matter and must have the authority to interpret the constitution to enact that authority.

[Forever_frost]

Actually they did. If the SC holds that anyone but the Congress can infringe on freedom of speech or prevent an establishment of religion, then they are changing the wording. Kind of like they decided that the second amendment isn't absolute despite the whole "Shall not be infringed" wording carefully included.

My examples prove the SC can and often is wrong and when it decides powers that aren't enumerated it's wrong 100% of the time. The SC did not come the the conclusion that was different than the founders on slavery, an amendment established that it was unconstitutional.

The SC has no interpretative power. None. They can evaluate a law based on what the constitution says but cannot interpret the constitution itself. If a clause can be expanded beyond the amendment it is attached, then there is no need for enumerated powers.