Title: Re: Government displays protesting against the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence
Please allow me to make the obvious point that the Constitution does not "designate" a particular body to give definitive interpretations of the Constitution. 
 
sandy


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Steve Klemetti
Sent: Thu 7/7/2005 8:59 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Government displays protesting against the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence

Brad Pardee wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Klemetti"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> I don't think it would be because it sounds treasonous or something
>> like that.  When one
>> governing body goes against the orders of a higher court, then that
>> first body is violating
>> the constitution by that action.  If the people or these government
>> bodies want to add religious
>> symbols, they can amend the constitution to allow it, not defy the
>> interpretation of it by the
>> body that the constitution designates.
>
>
> Under the criteria you are setting forth, any government that assisted
> escaping slaves post-Dred Scott was guilty of treason or something
> like it. After all, to paraphrase what you have said, "If the people
> or these government bodies want to aid escaping slaves, they can amend
> the constitution to allow it, not the defy the interpretation of it by
> the body that the constitution designates."  It might well be illegal,
> and they might engage in it as an act of civil disobedience (which has
> a long history) but it can hardly qualify as anything akin to treason.
>
That is why I said "or something like that".  Afterall defending and
upholding the constitution is what the
president swears to and what the military does.  When any branch or
lower governments chooses to do what they want
to do, then they are no longer upholding the constitution.  I do know
that there have been bad interpretations
and bad laws, and I agree with bodies of government going against bad
laws and interpretations as a means
of starting the amending or law changing process.  But as a principle,
what I stated is correct.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Reply via email to