Activist Federal Judges Make Up Their Own Rules

[CPA2]

Once again, an activist federal judge has stepped on our Constitution.

Federal District Court Judge Barbara Crabb ruled yesterday that the statute creating the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional because it calls on citizens to take part in religious activity.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Unfortunately, too many judges and trial lawyers believe this means Americans should be barred from celebrating their faith. And we face controversy over state mottos, prayer in schools or before athletic events, and religious expression in public places.

This country was founded by those who understood that religion was absolutely vital to the nation’s success and prosperity. In fact, for most of our country’s history, religion was not only an accepted part of public life, but a welcomed and celebrated one.

I will constantly work to restore that level of acceptance in America. Rest assured, I will continue fighting in the United States Senate to protect our religious freedoms.

Sincerely,

David Vitter
U.S. Senator

 

[GhostOfReason]

Once again, an activist federal judge has stepped on our Constitution.

Federal District Court Judge Barbara Crabb ruled yesterday that the statute creating the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional because it calls on citizens to take part in religious activity.

I see no flaw in this logic. Not everyone believes in prayer. A government sponsored “day of prayer” is clear support of the praying religious. The government can’t favor one religious group over another. Therefore the government cannot create a national day of prayer.
Q.E.D.

What if they made a “National No Prayer” day?

 

[cfdmpo]

You need to understand the constitution. It basically says that the Federal Government shall not promote one religion over another. The National Day of Prayer does not promote one religion over another. It also is not a “law”. In other words, the government is not forcing anyone to pray, just recognizing that prayer is a good thing and should be celebrated.

 

[kimmielittle]

Once again, an activist federal judge has stepped on our Constitution.

Federal District Court Judge Barbara Crabb ruled yesterday that the statute creating the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional because it calls on citizens to take part in religious activity.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Unfortunately, too many judges and trial lawyers believe this means Americans should be barred from celebrating their faith. And we face controversy over state mottos, prayer in schools or before athletic events, and religious expression in public places.

This country was founded by those who understood that religion was absolutely vital to the nation’s success and prosperity. In fact, for most of our country’s history, religion was not only an accepted part of public life, but a welcomed and celebrated one.

I will constantly work to restore that level of acceptance in America. Rest assured, I will continue fighting in the United States Senate to protect our religious freedoms.

Sincerely,

David Vitter
U.S. Senator

Freedom OF Religion not Freedom FROM Religion

 

[tr1strev]

I see no flaw in this logic. Not everyone believes in prayer. A government sponsored “day of prayer” is clear support of the praying religious. The government can’t favor one religious group over another. Therefore the government cannot create a national day of prayer.
Q.E.D.

What if they made a “National No Prayer” day?

You need to review what the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause actually say. You would then see the insanity in this ruling, which will soon be overturned by the Supremes.

 

[GhostOfReason]

You need to understand the constitution. It basically says that the Federal Government shall not promote one religion over another. The National Day of Prayer does not promote one religion over another. It also is not a “law”. In other words, the government is not forcing anyone to pray, just recognizing that prayer is a good thing and should be celebrated.

It supports praying religions over non-praying religions. Not everyone agrees with “prayer is a good thing and should be celebrated.”

 

[cfdmpo]

It supports praying religions over non-praying religions. Not everyone agrees with “prayer is a good thing and should be celebrated.”

The constitution is very specific in that the Government can not support one religion over another, does not say anything a class of religions. And I will argue that all person pray (worship) even if it is money.

 

[BillP]

You need to understand the constitution. It basically says that the Federal Government shall not promote one religion over another. The National Day of Prayer does not promote one religion over another. It also is not a “law”. In other words, the government is not forcing anyone to pray, just recognizing that prayer is a good thing and should be celebrated.

I believe it is your understanding of the Constitution that is defective.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note the prohibition against establishment of “religion” NOT establishment of “a religion”. Your characterization of the amendment:

It basically says that the Federal Government shall not promote one religion over another.

Is simply not true. The amendment, was explicitly intended to keep the Government out of religion entirely, even to the extent of not being permitted to:

“recognizing that prayer is a good thing and should be celebrated”.

 

[CPA2]

Today we live in an age of judicial activism, or as some have called it, judicial tyranny. Thomas Jefferson wrote, **“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary…working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped” **(Bergh 331-332). Judicial activism is contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers.

 

[ChadS]

Today we live in an age of judicial activism, or as some have called it, judicial tyranny. Thomas Jefferson wrote, **“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary…working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped” **(Bergh 331-332). Judicial activism is contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers.

Perhaps we could have a National Day of Prayer that used Thomas Jefferson’s Bible. Would both sides be happy then?

ChadS

 

[BillP]

Today we live in an age of judicial activism, or as some have called it, judicial tyranny. Thomas Jefferson wrote, **“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary…working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped” **(Bergh 331-332). Judicial activism is contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers.

Do you seriously not see the irony of quoting a text written more than 200 years ago to"prove" that something its happening “today”??

 

[BillP]

Here’s a better Jefferson quote, since you seem to like him so much:

Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts,* I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion ***presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

(My emphasis)

Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association
usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

 

[CPA2]

Here’s a better Jefferson quote, since you seem to like him so much:

(My emphasis)

Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association
usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

"make no law…prohibiting the free exercise (of religion)" That sounds good to me. Therefore, we may pray in public places without the interference of activist judges!

 

[crazzeto]

I see no flaw in this logic. Not everyone believes in prayer. A government sponsored “day of prayer” is clear support of the praying religious. The government can’t favor one religious group over another. Therefore the government cannot create a national day of prayer.
Q.E.D.

What if they made a “National No Prayer” day?

I have a problem with promoting athism over other religions.

 

[CPA2]

Do you seriously not see the irony of quoting a text written more than 200 years ago to"prove" that something its happening “today”??

You have defined yourself as as judicial activist! Do you have the same attitude about the bible?

Judicial activism is contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers. Therefore, I support the concept of jury nullification. This view holds that the trial jury has more power than Congress, the President, or even the Supreme Court. “This is because it (the trial jury) has the final veto power over all acts of the legislature that may come to be called laws” (Jurors’ Handbook). Jurors’ rights not only include an assessment of the facts, but an evaluation of the law itself.

 

[BillP]

"make no law…prohibiting the free exercise (of religion)" That sounds good to me. Therefore, we may pray in public places without the interference of activist judges!

Yes, when have you (or anyone else!) ever been prevented from praying?

I seen people say Grace in School lunchrooms, I’ve seen kids meet on campus to read the bible together. No one has ever interfered with their right to do so.

Who was it that said “as long as we have tests, we’ll have prayer in schools”?

The only cases I’ve ever seen have prevented government mandated prayer (like this proclamation).

I challenge you to find me one example of someone being prevented from freely exercising his or her religion in his capacity as a private citizen.

Why are you guys so fixated on demanding that your particular religious preferences be mandated for others by the government?

As far as praying in public, didn’t Jesus say:

"When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.

usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew6.htm

 

[BillP]

You have defined yourself as as judicial activist! Do you have the same attitude about the bible?

No. Again, you’re wrong.

Jefferson’s letter indicates that he believed that the SCOTUS was acting correctly by establishing the “separation of Church and State”. That the court was correctly interpreting the design of the founders. That means their 1st Amendments are not judicial activism, but rather the proper exercise of their function.

 

[CPA2]

No. Again, you’re wrong.

Jefferson’s letter indicates that he believed that the SCOTUS was acting correctly by establishing the “separation of Church and State”. That the court was correctly interpreting the design of the founders. That means their 1st Amendments are not judicial activism, but rather the proper exercise of their function.

Hugh? What is your definition of judicial activism?

Judicial activists think of the Constitution as a living document that must be updated to the times. Judicial activism is not principles based. It is rules-based and it is ambulatory; it is truth with a small “t” and it moves around a lot!

Interpretive fidelity — This dimension takes into account the degree to which constitutional provisions are interpreted contrary to the clear intentions of their drafters, or the clear implications of the language used in the provision.

 

[CPA2]

Yes, when have you (or anyone else!) ever been prevented from praying?

I seen people say Grace in School lunchrooms, I’ve seen kids meet on campus to read the bible together. No one has ever interfered with their right to do so.

Who was it that said “as long as we have tests, we’ll have prayer in schools”?

The only cases I’ve ever seen have prevented government mandated prayer (like this proclamation).

I challenge you to find me one example of someone being prevented from freely exercising his or her religion in his capacity as a private citizen.

Why are you guys so fixated on demanding that your particular religious preferences be mandated for others by the government?

As far as praying in public, didn’t Jesus say:

usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew6.htm

If I were president, my first public act would to to hold public prayer in the nearest government school.

 

[CPA2]

Jury nullification is when a jury acquits a person of a crime, even though it is clear he committed the crime. Juries have the right to evaluate both the facts and the law in a court case. Jury nullification does not change the law. Jurors just refuse to apply the law in a particular case. Unfortunately, the courts do not agree with my thesis. Today the courts say that juries merely have the right to judge the facts. Only the judge has the right to interpret the law (Hoffman, Smith and Willis). I contend that this trend is contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers.