with all due respect, you seem to 'want to interpret and change the intent of the Fathers' a little yourself, no?

 

No he isn't.

 

Then point it out. Where? Don't be so vague.

 

No, he doesn't. I don't get that from shines at all.

 

apparently, this bit of trivia is irrelevant to the argument of who deserves to live here and who doesn't...

 

The US Supreme Court has made several rulings on the "Establishment Clause" beginning with Everson v. Bd. of Ed.

Shines, I don't think even you can overrule them...you might not agree with them---I know that I don't always agree with them, but they make the decisions on the US Constitution; not us.

I still think that we need to keep the motto, though.

Tim C.

 

Hold on, are you saying that I shouldn't be here?

 

my apologies, i didn't consider it so vague:


here's your interpretation, plain and simple...if it differs from the interpretation of another, as is clearly the case, then we have the 'change the intent of the Fathers' (as viewed from the person with a different interpretation as yourself)

i hope you don't presume that i disagree with your position on the matter just because i see irony in your reasoning and find the incessant name calling and finger pointing from both 'sides' in this self-perpetuated regression of civilization (ie democrat/republican, liberal/conservative, et al) as part of the problem rather than any solution

momalle 1 posted a clear and well-formed response, i found your rebuttal seemed to ignore his idea in favor of attacking his opening remark, which i happen to disagree with as well...but it didn't really discredit the rest of his post

the bottom line is that things on a national scale were never black and white, and even less so today...with multi-faceted issues, it's nonsensical to press toward a solution via a bipartisan approach

 

Go to Findlaw.com---type in the "Establishment Clause." You will see what the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled as to what the founding fathers meant by the First Amendment.

Here's another example: Does the "Cruel and Inhumane Punishment" specifically mention that a man cannot have his head crushed by an elepahnt? No, it does not, but the justices have ruled that that sort of stuff is a no-no---just as the US Supreme court has ruled that lethal injection (again, not directly mentioned in the document) does adhere to and is permissable under the Bill of Rights.

TSC

 

not at all, i placed a comma after the word "apparently" that shouldn't have been there

i was about to ask the same question regarding the historical timeline of the phrase on u.s. currency

 

I take little comfort in the supreme court. With ginsburg, breyer and kennedy there it is hardly a honest interpretation to what the founding fathers meant.
The constitution had the wisdom to say cruel and inhumane punishment knowing full well that as the nation grew that new methods would be made, but the premise of the constitution would still apply. That is quite different than interpreting that a woman has a right to abortion. (not there) or we can't own guns. (also not there) There is medaling in the constitution, and there is living up to the spirit of it. Conservatives tend to want to live up to the spirit of the constitution.

 

Cool Guess I just read it wrong.

 

But the USSC has been interpreting this document long before Bader, Ginsburg, et. al---and that is their job---to interpret the Constitution. I may not agree with their decisions, either, but they do have the ultimate say.


BTW--one of the recent rulings handed down also showedthat members of the court--several nominated by Reagan...actually voted away from the conservative side...

TSC

 

I voted no. In God we trust is far better than in dirt we trust.

 

But it has been on our coins since the 1800's. Paper aint the only form of currency. Either way, the duration it has been on our currency is irrelevant.