addendum to 6/11/05 post: Establishment Clause
In light of today's ambiguous Supreme Court rulings regarding displays of the Ten Commandments on government property, I need to expand my little list of examples of things that the Establishment clause of the 1st Amendment to our Constitution is not intended to prohibit/protect. (IMHO) Here's the MSNBC version by Tom Curry.
This is my original paragraph:
Congress (This is the entity being directed here.) Not the state governors or legislatures, not city councils or county boards, not school boards or parks departments beaurocracies, not your individual schools and classrooms and playground attendants and teachers, not the president speaking during his state of the union address or an inauguration speech, nor a high school senior during a commencement address, not some kindergartner reading his bible at recess, and not some cadets saying grace at mealtime. Got that?!
Well, I thought I covered most of the entities often affected by an expansive, living & breathing, interpretation of this clause: state governors/legislatures, and
city/county/school/park boards. A pox upon me! I forgot the 3rd branch itself: judicial.
And as luck would have it, that's where the most schizophrenic decisions are likely to impact.
I mean, how many courtrooms across this great "Christian nation" are adorned with some homage to the Ten Commandments, and their origin?
If you can't make a trip to our nation's capitol to view the acknowledgements [of Divine Law's influence on our legal traditions] on the walls of The Supreme Court, then visit your local state or even county courthouse and you're likely to find something similar. The Minnesota Supreme Court main courtroom, as I recall, has a depiction of Moses recieving the tablets, and it dominates the scenery. (I sure hope I'm remembering this correctly. My research on the web was inconclusive, so far. I'll correct myself, if necessary.)
But let me get back to the two 5-4 decisions that, according to the AP analysis (I call it that, even though it's an anonymous NEWS story that was on the MSN portral this afternoon, because there are very few attributed quotes but alot of info; so somebody is giving us their perception of what transpired at the high court today) allowed an outdoor monument, but prohibited an indoor courthouse display. The ambiguity develops from the truly subjective notions of: whether it goes too far; if religious content is overemphasized; and "...the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion..." the latter is from Chief Justice Rehnquist's majority opinion. (emphasis added)
The decisions about what constitutes "advancing", "overemphasized", and "too far" seem to be left up to the discretion of whomever is hearing any related cases in the future.
But, ya know...this entire argument and the many details and citations of precedence (always relatively recent precedence, to be sure) are missing the main point, IMHO. I return to the Establishment clause in The Constitution's 1st Amendment: NONE of this is making a law! Not one law is being passed. This seems so utterly, laughably, and painfully obvious! Only an overeducated and biased mind could miss that point, it seems.
I know, I know... all these esteemed legal minds understand something I obviously don't. Who am I to differ with this legal-eagle legion?
I will post anew on this on 06-29 or 06-30, I hope. And, if you are new to this whole topic, you may be blown away with the real history of the Ten Commandments in America.
Brad
This is my original paragraph:
Congress (This is the entity being directed here.) Not the state governors or legislatures, not city councils or county boards, not school boards or parks departments beaurocracies, not your individual schools and classrooms and playground attendants and teachers, not the president speaking during his state of the union address or an inauguration speech, nor a high school senior during a commencement address, not some kindergartner reading his bible at recess, and not some cadets saying grace at mealtime. Got that?!
Well, I thought I covered most of the entities often affected by an expansive, living & breathing, interpretation of this clause: state governors/legislatures, and
city/county/school/park boards. A pox upon me! I forgot the 3rd branch itself: judicial.
And as luck would have it, that's where the most schizophrenic decisions are likely to impact.
I mean, how many courtrooms across this great "Christian nation" are adorned with some homage to the Ten Commandments, and their origin?
If you can't make a trip to our nation's capitol to view the acknowledgements [of Divine Law's influence on our legal traditions] on the walls of The Supreme Court, then visit your local state or even county courthouse and you're likely to find something similar. The Minnesota Supreme Court main courtroom, as I recall, has a depiction of Moses recieving the tablets, and it dominates the scenery. (I sure hope I'm remembering this correctly. My research on the web was inconclusive, so far. I'll correct myself, if necessary.)
But let me get back to the two 5-4 decisions that, according to the AP analysis (I call it that, even though it's an anonymous NEWS story that was on the MSN portral this afternoon, because there are very few attributed quotes but alot of info; so somebody is giving us their perception of what transpired at the high court today) allowed an outdoor monument, but prohibited an indoor courthouse display. The ambiguity develops from the truly subjective notions of: whether it goes too far; if religious content is overemphasized; and "...the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion..." the latter is from Chief Justice Rehnquist's majority opinion. (emphasis added)
The decisions about what constitutes "advancing", "overemphasized", and "too far" seem to be left up to the discretion of whomever is hearing any related cases in the future.
But, ya know...this entire argument and the many details and citations of precedence (always relatively recent precedence, to be sure) are missing the main point, IMHO. I return to the Establishment clause in The Constitution's 1st Amendment: NONE of this is making a law! Not one law is being passed. This seems so utterly, laughably, and painfully obvious! Only an overeducated and biased mind could miss that point, it seems.
I know, I know... all these esteemed legal minds understand something I obviously don't. Who am I to differ with this legal-eagle legion?
I will post anew on this on 06-29 or 06-30, I hope. And, if you are new to this whole topic, you may be blown away with the real history of the Ten Commandments in America.
Brad
posted by Brad @ 10:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home