Workers In Tennessee Forced To Take Muslim Holiday Instead Of Labor Day

There is no point to miss jem , you don't have one .
You referenced Buck v Bell , not I. It has been clearly described to you how Buck v Bell is not relevant.
The case was brought in two ways neither of which tested a Constitutional right to reproduce. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about . You brought up a case example for your argument which has no bearing or connection with the subject at issue.

Your feeble argument is this .... when the Court rules yes and the Constitution says No, then yes is Constitutional and No is unconstitutional.
Then when the Court rules back to yes, that is Constitutional again. So although the Constitution says No, it's now the Constitution which is unconstitutional because the Court said yes.
You still can't see how puerile an argument that is.

But on top of the ludicrous notion you have there , on the subject of religious test always being unconstitutional, the Court has not ruled yes when the Constitution says No anyway. It has ruled No. Then it was by that simple and straightforward observation always unconstitutional for states to employ a religious test even by your brainless standards.
So all of your argument is just another thick headed red herring buried in a mixed up smog of confusion.
and you call yourself a lawyer... puleeze.
 
I was waiting for you to get off your guard. Now we know you have no idea what you are talking about. You are referencing the different types of tests the court employs to come to decisions. When lawyers have tests on their side they argue the tests, when lawyers have the constitution or the cases on their side they argue the constitution and the cases. When fairness is on their side they argue fairness. Buck v. Bell is an illustration that a court can come to almost any conclusion. You clearly do not understand jurisprudence.

By the time most cases get to the Supreme court - we have mulitple competing fundamental issues - the question is whose Ox gets gored. (which right gets destroyed) Once the justices figure out which side they are on they deploy the appropriate construct to support their conclusion.

Again that is why conservative jurists favor strict readings of the law or constitution. They want to reign in the wild card decisions. Liberals like you support alllowing the judges to make any decision they deem fit.

However, just to prove what a numbskull you are I have the wikipedia entry discussing the Supreme Court decisions in the trinity case - Where they looked to those state Constitutions as evidence that we "were" a Christian Nation.

Now how could you be correct f we were a Christian Nation and the Supreme Court used the very same State Constitutions as proof.

From wikipedia:

Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)[1], was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding an employment contract between The Church of the Holy Trinity, New York and an English preacher.

Contracts to import labor were forbidden by the U.S. Code, and specifically by "An act to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its territories, and the District of Columbia." The court held that a minister was not a foreign laborer under the statute even though he was a foreigner.

The court used the soft plain meaning rule to interpret the statute in this case. Justice David Josiah Brewer made a principle of statutory construction that "It is a familiar rule that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit nor within the intention of its makers." Its decision stated that "the circuit court did err when it held that the contract hiring an English rector was within the prohibition of the statute, which disallowed a "...person, company, partnership, or corporation, in any manner whatsoever to prepay the transportation, or in any way assist or encourage the importation or migration, of any alien or aliens, any foreigner or foreigners, into the United States ... under contract or agreement ... to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States..."

This case is cited most often for its determination of how legislative intent can be determined. Justice Antonin Scalia has denounced the Holy Trinity decision as the "prototypical case" in which a judge follow the intent of the legislature rather than the text of the statute, and thus as being in opposition to his judicial philosophy of textualism. The textualist position holds that courts should follow the text of a law rather than attempt to read exceptions into the law in accordance with the legislative intent. Scalia has thus criticized the principle of the Holy Trinity case as "nothing but an invitation to judicial lawmaking."[1]

The case is also famous for Justice Brewer's statements that America is a Christian nation. While this case was not specifically about religion, the court considered America's Christian identity to be a strong support for its conclusion. Almost half of the text of the opinion is spent demonstrating America's Christian identity, in order to show that congress could not have intended to prohibit foreign ministers. Referring back to this case in Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989)[2], Justice Kennedy, joined by The Chief Justice and Justice O'Connor, wrote:

"The central support for the Court's ultimate conclusion that Congress did not intend the law to cover Christian ministers is its lengthy review of the 'mass of organic utterances' establishing that 'this is a Christian nation,' and which were taken to prove that it could not 'be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation.'" Id., at 471.

From Wikipedia.

Stu have one choice here - admit you were wrong. Those constitutions could not have been unconstitutional at the time this court cited them as support for the fact this is a Christian nation.

Anything you try will be pure bullshit.
 
jem,
What are you trying to do flailing around like this?
It just makes you look more and more incapable.
Are you ill?
 
I sense the only form of concession a twisted guy like you can make is the writing below.

thanks


Quote from stu:

jem,
What are you trying to do flailing around like this?
It just makes you look more and more incapable.
Are you ill?
More...
 
Well ok, I suppose furthering misconceptions is bound to appeal to the state of denial your reasoning defaults to.
Face it jem, anyone who doesn’t agree with that inappropriate religious prejudice of yours is "twisted". Recognize that and maybe one day you will understand where your argument fails so much. You may start to learn something. Like how wrong you are for instance.
Quote from jem:

I sense the only form of concession a twisted guy like you can make is the writing below.

thanks
More...
 
Its STU against the U.S. Supreme Court in this case.

Its STU against dictionaries in others.

Its STU against all noted historians in another.

Its STU against mainline Christian churches right to determine their own theology in another.

Its not Stu against Jem - its always STU against intelligence and logic.
 
Quote from jem:

Look at the torment Stu will put himself through all to avoid changing his screwed up weltanschung.
More...
um... jem, just who are you talking to there :D
I'll stick with the understanding that no religious test actually means no religious test.
If you want to continue to live with the devious idea that no test means yes test, then be my guest.
 
Quote from stu:

um... jem, just who are you talking to there :D
I'll stick with the understanding that no religious test actually means no religious test.
If you want to continue to live with the devious idea that no test means yes test, then be my guest.
More...

you are a deceptive bastard aren't you.

My argument was that you have no support for your premise and you were too much of fairy to explain it. When you tried to create support - I showed that your thinking was ass backward and juvenile.

Why? just for starters:

Because -- the U.S. Supreme Court used state constitutions with religious tests within them to support their finding We "were" a Christian nation. Now there is no way even a deceiver like you would argue that the U.S. Supreme court was citing "unconstitutional" state constitutions to support their ruling. Therefore those state constitutions with religious tests were constitutional.

You could not have been proven more dead ass wrong. You are too much of an intellectual fairy to admit it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top