In a message dated 7/22/2005 3:21:54 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Put
another way, Republicans believe they have at least as good a claim
asDemocrats to being committed to democratic principles; given their view
thatDemocrats wish to use nondemocratic courts to
For those interested, until 1939, not
one majority opinion on the Supreme Court spoke of the United States as a
democracy or had anything good to say about democracy (Brandeis did, but in
concurring and dissenting opinions). The floodgates opened in
1939.
MAG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/22/05
"Scarberry, Mark" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Put another way, Republicans believe they have at least as good a claim asDemocrats to being committed to democratic principles; given their view thatDemocrats wish to use nondemocratic courts to overturn democratic decisionson matters such as abortion and
May I suggest that this entire
discussion could benefit from reading William Connolly on "essential contested
concepts." Alas, there is no neutral definition of "democracy," "judicial
activism," "moderate," etc. out there in large part because a good definition
depends on resolution of
How would Rick's theory explain Republican support for decisions
striking down parts of the Brady Bill (Printz), the Violence Against
Women Act (Morrison), and law protecting kids from guns in schools
(Lopez). Seems like Republicans were using the courts to defeat social
policies they did not
Mark:
Do you have a particular case or series of cases in mind? I'd
appreciate a cite.
Thanks,
Richard Dougherty
Mark Graber wrote:
For
those interested, until 1939, not one majority opinion on the Supreme Court
spoke of the United States as a democracy or had anything good to say about
As always, I will
be happy to send the relevant paper to all interested parties. it is
forthcoming in an anthology from Oxford.
MAG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/22/05 10:34AM
Mark: Do you have a particular case or series of cases in
mind? I'd appreciate a cite. Thanks, Richard Dougherty
Mark
To answer Paul's question about Roe and the abortion liberty, I don't believe the Constitution even remotely speaks to a liberty to kill a child in the womb. So certainly Roe should be reversed and the issue left to the democratic branches.
Would I, personally, support a
Rick runs together different ideas and
political causes and uses a highly technical definition of theocracy to avoid grappling
with difficult issues. Doing so makes it harder to identify areas of agreement and
disagreement.
1.I dont know of anyone of
consequence who says that religious
In a message dated 7/22/2005 10:20:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And,
what position do you have, Rick, on the desire of some Republicans to not
merely reverse Roe, but declare that abortion violates the 14th Amendment and
thus the many states which protect
Mark Stern speaksof "rumblings from congress about protecting America's Christian heritage...by law." Is this a sign of a theocracy developing in Congress? Or merelyits concern that the Court has used the EC to cleanse the public square of an important part of America's culture?
I am not sure
Twice within the last month Congressman Hostettler
of Indiana has made comment son the House floor
about preserving Americas
Christian heritage. One comment came in debate over officers and chaplains proselytizing
at the Air Force Academy
and the other in defense of an amendment to the
In a message dated 7/22/2005 12:14:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With respect, Rick,
no one is pushing 10 commandment displays to make a purely historic point
about the role of Christianity in America. Those efforts are
about the contemporary role of
Rick
writes:
To answer Paul's question about Roe and the abortion liberty, I
don't believe the Constitution even remotely speaks to a liberty to kill a child
in the womb. So certainly Roe should be reversed and the issue left to
the democratic branches.
Am I
correct ininterpreting this
In a message dated 7/22/2005 12:33:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am not sure about this.
Change the hypo a bit. Imagine no contrary federal law. Surely a
state with a speed limit of 60 MPH cannot ban state citizens from going 70 MPH
on out-of-state
The fact that I'm agreeing with Jim Henderson will doubtless be occasion
for agonized soul-searching, prayer and fasting. I'm appalled by
the idea of extraterritorial abortion bans. But there is a
substantial argument that your home jurisdiction may have a right to
govern your behavior even when
The answer to your first
question is perfectly obvious.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005
12:50 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: George Washington
adding under God to the Presidential oath
Sorry, but because I just recently began following this line of discussion
would someone kindly inform me as to the meaning of the subject line which
has "George Washington adding 'under God' to the Presidential oath." Or,
is it merely a bit of humor? And, I hope my grammar is okay. Thanks.
Anent homophobia: you left out the good
stuff. People can believe whatever they want to (even if the beliefs are
stupid, evil, or worse). But the problem is not one of belief, but rather
one of action. If believing in traditional sexual
morality means locking up gay people in jail, then, I
Actually the phrase is as
much a sociological or cultural one as it is, in any real sense, doctrinal. To
get the flavor of this read Will Herbergs Protestant-Catholic-Jew.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005
11:46
In a message dated 7/22/2005 2:42:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does this mean that
if some people doesn’t respect you that they are, in your view, free to call
you anything they want to? Can they call you a fundamentalist, or a
homophobe, or bigot, and
Oh, I see. Democrats are
on a par with the Chinese and the North Korean communists? Didnt you
mention McCarthy in an earlier post?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005
12:31 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Actually, I responded to the mention by another of McCarthy. Another
on the list responded to my use of the term Democrat Party by using the logical
fallacy of the poisoned well; essentially, that post put it this way, "McCarthy
used the term so you must be a modern day equivalent of
For anyone who is interested:
Read Gene Garman's essay in the May/Jun 1999 issue of Liberty magazine.
It documents Justice William H. Rehnquist's abuse of the Establishment Clause
and its history. Click on the following url: http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/162/1/41
At 09:29 AM 7/21/05 -0500, you wrote:
I like the title of this thread Assaults on the England language,
which suggests the grammatical argument for why it's wrong to say
Democrat Party. But if the grammatical point is so strong, why do we
I stole it from Russell Baker, who anticipated that
At 10:37 AM 7/21/05 -0500, you wrote:
The quibble over language in this string: If any of you want to see use of
Xn in a sentence written by the Father of the Constitution you may
click on the following link:
I doubt that complainers would be appeased by the news that sometime,
somewhere,
26 matches
Mail list logo
