The difference between private speech and government sponsorship is indeed
the point: The Founding Fathers separated religion and government by prohibiting
religion tests as a qualification to any office or public trust. The First
Congress separated religion and government by prohibiting
In a message dated 7/25/2005 12:53:10 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does any
liberal seriously think this president, with a solid Republican Senate
majority, would appoint anyone we could expect more from? We Democrats
and liberals should save the all-out
In a message dated 7/25/2005 2:12:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The
First Congress separated religion and government by prohibiting Congress from
establishing religion by law.
But of course the First Congress did not do this. They proposed to
the States
Perhaps you'd be interested in this news story: "The
Internal Revenue Service has ruled that the Rev. Jerry Falwell violated no
regulations by mentioning his support for the re-election of President George W.
Bush in a Texas speech last yearThe Federal Elections Commission dismissed a
News of the weird is
always welcome here.
J
Joel L. Sogol
Attorney at Law
811 21st Avenue
Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401
ph (205) 345-0966
fx (205) 345-0971
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ben Franklin observed
that truth wins a fair fight -- which is why we have evidence rules in U.S.
Interesting decision. Does anyone have access to the IRS rulings in these cases so we can see the totality of what it says?
I wonder if the result differs when the speaker is preaching a sermon rather than simply being an "invited speaker," or when the speaker is the pastor of her own
Sorry. Comment went to the wrong
list.
Joel L. Sogol
Attorney at Law
811 21st Ave.
Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401
ph: 205-345-0966
fx: 205-345-0971
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a
fair fight -- which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts.
Ed Darrell wrote:
Interesting decision. Does anyone have access to the IRS rulings in
these cases so we can see the totality of what it says?
I wonder if the result differs when the speaker is preaching a sermon
rather than simply being an invited speaker, or when the speaker is
the pastor
Before traipsing to the library I would appreciate hearing from list members
what you regard as the best sources on the Virginia religious controversy of
the 1780s, i.e., on Patrick Henry's A Bill Establishing a Provision for
Teachers of the Christian Religion, Madison's Memorial and
Despite the rally-the-troops messages on websites like the ACLJ and Concerned
Women for America, no one can seriously believe John Roberts makes the hearts
of religious conservatives beat faster. Social conservative groups are
falling
into line behind Bush and going through the motions of the
To try and understand what conservatives who are Christians FIRST think about
John Roberts, you might want to visit, please, Peroutka2004.com, click on the
first story and listen to our radio show on this subject. Thanks. And God bless
you all. John Lofton, co-host The American View, syndicated
Ed Brayton wrote:
I've been on record as saying that the ban on endorsing candidates
should just be done away with because A) it's so easy to get around
(everyone knows that churches give de facto endorsements all the time
through voter information guides and the like) and B) it's so prone to
Douglas Laycock wrote:
... But when the pastor
simply says something, about an issue or a candidate, there is no
marginal cost in dollars and no possible way to run his speech through
the political affiliate. The effect of an absolute ban on endorsements
is simply to censor the speech of a
In a message dated 7/25/2005 4:37:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(Since
this is a religion list, what exactly does it mean to "enforce
theConstitution as written" when it comes to the religion
clauses?)
A distinct but equally
important question is this.
Well necessary criteria would be that the decision (1) is based on the
language of the Constitution itself, and the original meaning of those
words, (2) does not rely on some extra-Constitutional basis, such as
modern social policy or foreign law, unless that policy or law is
incorporated by the
John Lofton wrote on 07/25/2005 03:36:28 PM:
One thing I'd like to hear you folks who know a lot more about
everything than I do discuss is this dismissal by many of personal
views as irrelevant. Does anybody think it would not matter,
and be
relevant, if Roberts, or any such nominee, in
You will probably have to ILL it: Separation of Church and State in Virginia,
H. J. Eckenrode.
Gene Garman, M.Div.
America's Real Religion
www.americasrealreligion.org
Pybas, Kevin M wrote:
Before traipsing to the library I would appreciate hearing from list members what you regard as the
Also Thomas Buckley, Church and State in Revolutionary
Virginia 1776-1787 (1977). Eckenrode is a much older book -- early
twentieth century I think.
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law
School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341
(phone)
512-471-6988
(fax)
From:
Doug is right that Buckley is the best work of history on this subject
Paul Finkelman
Douglas Laycock wrote:
Also Thomas Buckley, Church
and State in Revolutionary Virginia 1776-1787 (1977). Eckenrode
is a much older book -- early twentieth century I think.
Douglas Laycock
Words mean things or the Constitution is nothing more than a blank piece
of paper.
The wording of the religion commandments of the Constitution are very specific:
1. "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office
or public trust under the United States" (Art. 6.,
Eckenrode's work is dated 1910 and is an invaluable resource as to documented
opinions expressed on both sides of the Virginia debate relating to disestablishment
of the state church in Virginia.
The Writings of John Leland by L.F. Greene should also be read.
Gene Garman, M.Div.
America's
Constitutional protections . . . should not depend merely on a strict
construction that may allow 'technicalities of form to dictate consequences of
substance.' As the Court remarked in the leading contract clause case of this
century [Blasidell], 'where constitutional grants and limitations
On Jul 25, 2005, at 6:07 PM, Gene Garman wrote: Words mean things or the Constitution is nothing more than a blank piece of paper. This is a faulty dilemma. Of course words mean things. But they are not so hard-edged and clear as to be incapable of multiple meanings and there are always things
Title: Is Roberts a Strict Constructionist?
Marty quotes a passage from
Roberts's casenote accept the Blaisdell majority's description ofthe
Contracts Clause as one of the Constitution's "general clauses, which afford a
broad outline" and therefore require "construction . . . to fill in
24 matches
Mail list logo
