About Me

28-year-old author and blogger from Boston, MA.

Recent Posts

Search

Archives

Currently Reading

Five Recently Read

Books On Hold

Books Bought

Three Future Reads

Favorite Reads

My Book

« Media Needs to Bust-a-move on Bustamante | Home | Lies and The Lying Liar Who Told Them: An Objective Look at Al Franken »

Thou Shalt Not Remove

By Matt Margolis | August 20, 2003

Thou Shalt Not Remove

Offended? Tough.

Topics: General |

Related Posts:

30 Responses to “Thou Shalt Not Remove”

Java Says:
August 21st, 2003 at 9:25 am
God shall smite me….
Lance_Steel Says:
August 21st, 2003 at 10:46 am
Freedom of Religion; not freedom from religion.

If you don’t like it, then don’t read it.
LACAstronomer Says:
August 21st, 2003 at 7:27 pm
What is all the contraversy over this stone? Alright, the Ten Commandments are certainly a religious document, but I fail to see how this stone is “congress…mak[ing a] law respecting the establishment of religion.
Eric Sivula Says:
August 21st, 2003 at 10:36 pm
LAC, that is because you are rational person, who has read the Bill of Rights….
JarheadDad Says:
August 21st, 2003 at 11:59 pm
Interesting stuff this! A Fed judge called for the stone’s removal today. More legislation from the bench?

What I find fairly amazing is that our country was founded as a Republic based on Rule of Law. Now, where did this Rule of Law come from? What was the true basis our Founding Fathers used to construct the Rule of Law? Oh yeah, the Ten Commandments! Go figure!

Coming soon to a wallet near you: “In Socialism We Trust!” God? What God?

Constitution? We don need no stinkin’ Constitution! After all, the Constitution is a “living, breathing document that changes with the times” and expressly creates discrimination based on “diversity”. Don’t believe that? Just ask any lib or Sandra Day O’Conner!

Common Sense Is Dead! Long Live Idiocy!
Java Says:
August 22nd, 2003 at 8:31 am
If the 10 Commandments came frm the Koran, there would a 10 Commandments sculpture on every floo,r in every elevator lobby, by every window, in every office.
h Says:
August 22nd, 2003 at 10:22 am
Did you see my womyn, Jeanne Garafalo on CNN yesterday slamming that racist, fascist, Christian-centric, homophobe Jerry Falwell up and down the wall? It was a total slaughter!

Falwell was foolishly defending that racist, religious fanatic judge who illegally has that monument of hate (the ten supposed commandments) ostentatiously displayed in a government office. My womyn just annihilated him up, down, and everything in between. It was great! I was screaming and jumping up and down cheering her on. My womyn exposed him for the citidel of hate he is (even more than Larry Flynt did).

Conservatives are soooooooooooooooooooo easy to crush. They’re all so stupid and mindless anyone who thinks can easily flatten them! Most of them are even stupider (and more racist) than Bush!

Just a little more than a year now - HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Java Says:
August 22nd, 2003 at 10:35 am
Before the previous post get’s deleted, I wonder just how strong this rug-munching feminist anti-male actually believes that crap. So strong infact, she uses the good ole’ h@h.com e-mail address. Grow some balls rug-muncher. Read the constitution for what it is worth, and don’t vote for the socialist nazi Hitlery.
LACAstronomer Says:
August 22nd, 2003 at 2:06 pm
“…that monument of hate (the ten supposed commandments)”-h
This sounds suspiciously like a fake troll to me…
Eric Sivula Says:
August 22nd, 2003 at 6:59 pm
Nope. ‘h’ is a real rectal-cranial inversion troll. He also happens to be a man from Houston who used to troll as a ‘womyn’ from England called Harmonia.

Ignore him, and he might go away.
Um Yeah Says:
August 23rd, 2003 at 1:24 pm
What I find fairly amazing is that our country was founded as a Republic based on Rule of Law. Now, where did this Rule of Law come from? What was the true basis our Founding Fathers used to construct the Rule of Law? Oh yeah, the Ten Commandments! Go figure!

Bullshit, only two commandments have anything to do with law, no killing and no stealing. Oh and I love the irony that they are worshiping a graven image thereby violating one of the commandments.
BTW we were not founded as a theocracy, most the famous founding fathers werent even Christians.
Radical Redneck Says:
August 23rd, 2003 at 9:57 pm
“most the famous founding fathers werent even Christians”

Just when I thought this moron couldn’t possibly get any stupider (I surely thought he had reached the nadir of stupidity) he surpasses his previously idiotic low.

I suppose then the majority of the founding fathers were your beloved Islams then. Right genius?

Surely in your pathetic wet dreams.

What a monumental (pun intended) retard!
Um Yeah Says:
August 23rd, 2003 at 10:44 pm
RR, George Washington , Thomas Jefferson and Ben Frankilin were Deists. Look it up.
java Says:
August 24th, 2003 at 1:13 pm
I don’t see anyone praying to this monument, therefore, it is not a graven image. Teh Golden Calf was a graven image. Not the 10 commandements. If you are so against the word of God and all that stuff, please send all the pieces of paper you own with the words “In God We Trust” on it, and mail them to me. If you are so much against the ten commandments, let’s help you along and take all the mention of the wor dgod away from you. Send me your money, becuase I don’t mind at all.
Clark Says:
August 25th, 2003 at 12:15 am
Yes, the founding fathers were Christians and racists. That is wholly redundant. This supposed judge is a Klan operative in a national scheme of KKK white supremacy to seize power and create a racist nation under cloak of “Christianity”.

The KKK (under George Bush) is currently the most powerful sect of Christianity. Within one year, every “believer” will be wearing a crucifix of a burning cross instead of a Jesus nailed to it!

The Bush family has plotted over 40 years to get to this point (Bush Sr. helped assassinate Kennedy). A fascist US of Klan ideology, run by Bush Sr. Jr. and all their racist henchmen!
Java Says:
August 25th, 2003 at 8:42 am
Clark… LOL. Thanks for filling the rest of my day with laughter….
cannon Says:
August 28th, 2003 at 2:01 am
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” 1st Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” 10th Amendment
Alan Keyes has an excellent article on how the federal government shouldn’t even be involved in a state case like this.

Here is the choice quote: “We have already seen that the actual language of the Constitution does not forbid an establishment of religion. Rather, it forbids Congress to legislate on the subject at all, reserving it entirely to the states.”
TruthInMedia Says:
September 2nd, 2003 at 4:17 pm
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court has an excellent decision on how the federal government should be involved in a state case like this.
Dr. Bimbu Says:
September 2nd, 2003 at 8:12 pm
Um Yeah, Clark, and hipocrite/TruthInMedia, I see your Asshatology studies are going well. Your tinfoil hats should be arriving soon. Keep up the good work comrades!
cannon Says:
September 3rd, 2003 at 1:28 am
Just one small problem Truth. In order for amendments to trump other amendments they must be ratified for that explicit purpose. For example the 21st overriding the 18th. The 14th amendment does not specifically mention religion, ergo it does not cover religion.

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

That is EXPLICIT.
TruthInMedia Says:
September 3rd, 2003 at 3:15 pm
You just made that up. I’ve never even seen the argument that for an amednment to amend a prior amendment, it needs to explicitly mention it. I guess the fourteenth amendment MUST be invalid, then, because noted constitutional scholar cannon has stated as fact that to amend an amendment, it must be explicitly stated, as it was in the 20th (oops, guess not) amendment. Do presidents switch terms when the Electoral College is read by the Senate, or on Jan 20?

Guess that’s it for your argument, then?
cannon Says:
September 4th, 2003 at 2:39 am
Truth truth truth. Or lack there of. Was that noise I heard the sound of a mind closing? Did I hurt your brain by forcing you to think outside your preconceived notions? Whether or not you have seen something before doesn’t matter. “*Sputter* I have never seen that before, therefor it is invalid unless someone else says it before the argument is made!!!”

The difference is that I look for what the Constitution actually says, where as you try to “read the tea leaves to capture the intent.”

Truth, if nothing else, look at it this way. You and your ilk have claimed The Right to Privacy (for example) because surely that is inferred from the 4th Amendments. “The intent of the 4th is surely to allow for abortion on demand because there exists a right to privacy and abortion is all about the privacy of the mother.”

If you want to go down the road of intent then I win, because as a result of the 21st being passed explicitly to repeal the 18th then it is now part of the requirement for Constitutional Law that Amendments must explicitly deal with other parts of the Constitution in order to change anything previous.

In fact the same thing could be said about the 20th with respect to explicitly mentioning the start of a Congressional session to Jan 3rd from the previous first Monday of December as provided by Article 1, Section 4. They could have changed the start of a Congressional session by law, however they chose to do so via Amendment. More precedent for you, if you want to argue Intent.

Now, going back to the argument from my POV. The “privileges or immunities of citizens” ala the 14th are not stated in any way shape or form. Congress, while made up of citizens, is not the citizenry. There are things that Congress can do, that we as citizens can’t do. (For a non-offensive example, how about setting the standards of weights and measures.) Likewise there are things that we as private citizens can do that Congress can’t do. (For example, there is no right of free speech guaranteed in the discourse among private citizens. If you really need the clue-by-four take this blog for example. Matt doesn’t have to let us post. We don’t have the right of free speech here.)

The 1st still only limits the actions of Congress, it does not in any way, shape, or form deal with the actions of private citizens. To put it another way because the 1st doesn’t deal with the privileges or immunities of citizens, the 14th doesn’t refer to the 1st. (Even if you stretch it by using “intent.” You can only stretch things so far before they break.)
TruthInMedia Says:
September 4th, 2003 at 9:08 am
At least you’ve walked away from your meritless claim that amendments need to specifically refer to other amendments to change them. I like how you leave that claim behind, but then try to say that I was referring to anything else. The Fourteenth amendment predated the the 18th and 21st, so if it was the 21st that inshrined the “amendments must refer to others to amend them” (which, by the way, it doesn’t say - you must have inferred it from the penumbras of the amendment), then it doesn’t apply to the fourteenth amendment - as it dosen’t refrence it.

Yes, I’ve heard arguments that the fourteenth amendment didn’t extend the first amendment to the states. The only problem with that argument is that cases from as early as 1940 explicitly extend the first amendment to the states.

The fact that you’re a “Federalist” is just a weakness in your education - apparently, 60 years of jurisprudence failed to break through that thick skull you have.

Yet to see you coming out against that Federal judge ording the Boston Fire Department to do something. When can I expect that?
cannon Says:
September 4th, 2003 at 10:19 am
At least you’ve walked away from your meritless claim that amendments need to specifically refer to other amendments to change them.

Ummm I did? Did you read the same post I wrote?

“Truth, if nothing else, look at it this way.” I see where you confusion is. ‘If nothing else’ Since you were being dense on the first argument I took a different way of hitting the argument. Both ways work for me. I was looking at the argument from an “Intent” angle. (That is the left’s favorite way of looking at things.) I win with that way and I win with my first way.

I still stand by the statement that the Constitution/amendments can only be changed by amendments explicitly stating the change.

The Fourteenth amendment predated the the 18th and 21st, so if it was the 21st that inshrined the “amendments must refer to others to amend them” (which, by the way, it doesn’t say…

Oh really?

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Hmmm seeing as how this is the only case of an amendment being repealed it certainly sets the precedent. After all you want me to look at 60 years of jurisprudence to guide my way.

On one hand you want me to look toward intent and precedent and on the other you say it precendent shouldn’t be considered… which is it?

“… then it doesn’t apply to the fourteenth amendment - as it dosen’t refrence it.”

Oh this is going to be delicious. If the 21st doesn’t set precedent for the 14th because it doesn’t refer to the 14th then the 14th likewise doesn’t refer to the 1st. Which is it?

Oh I get it now. Whatever fits with your worldview is the only correct answer, it is self-evident, correct?
TruthInMedia Says:
September 4th, 2003 at 11:06 am
The fourteenth amendment specifically extends the privileges and immunities granted by the constitution to citizens of the US to each and every one of the states. This explicitly modifies the tenth amendment to the constituion.

My belief is internally consistent - a specific refrence need not be made to amend anything. If a specific refrence is made, that’s fine.

Your position, that a specific refrence need be made, fails on assertion, as the seventeenth amendment rewrites the election of senators without referencing at all the prior mode of election.

Additionally, your position fails on the merits, as if it was ensconced by the 21st amendment only as you argue, it was not in effect at the time of passage of the fourteenth amendment.

At no point have I argued you should look at “intent.” In fact, you are the only person who has ever used the word “intent.”

The precident, set by sixty years of unquestioned jurisprudence is that the first amendment is extended by the fourteenth amendment to apply to the states.

I note that the only source you have used to justify your claim is that the twenty first amendment repealed the eighteenth amendment. Has there been a single court case in the history of the Supreme Court that has ever supported your position in the least? No? You’re just making shit up? Thought so.
TruthInMedia Says:
September 4th, 2003 at 11:11 am
As a final comment, I notice that you cut one crucial sentance from your hackjob of my work.

The Twentyfirst Amendment Never Ever Ever says, anywhere, that amendments must refrence the amended document. You read that into what you consider (unassisted by any other source legal theory, wholy invented by High School Constitutional Scholar cannon), the pneumbras and inferences of the Twentyfirst amendment.

Can you please tell us wherever you got this idea that the Twentyfirst amendment prohibits the fourteenth?
cannon Says:
September 4th, 2003 at 1:07 pm
Hack job, eh? The part I cut had no relationship to the point I was making. (unlike Dowd for instance my point doesn’t hinge on the words snipped.) And it was part of a sentence. If it will make you feel better I will include the part I snipped: “- you {referring to Cannon here} must have inferred it from the penumbras of the amendment)” There better now?

Making shit up? My my my, did I touch a raw nerve there Truth? I get it, nothing can be valid unless the great Truth has seen it multiple places. Talk about being a sheep. “Baaaa unless someone else says something first I am not allowed to think.” Hey Wright Brothers, everyone knows you can’t have heavier than air aircraft because no one has done it before!

” Additionally, your position fails on the merits, as if it was ensconced by the 21st amendment only as you argue, it was not in effect at the time of passage of the fourteenth amendment.”

Ok fine (you are digging yourself in a bigger hole here) once again I will point out that if you claim the 21st has no effect on the 14th because the 14th came before the 21st then extend your logic to the 14th not having an effect on the 1st. The 14th was not in effect when the 1st was ratified.

“At no point have I argued you should look at “intent.” In fact, you are the only person who has ever used the word “intent.”"

That’s what this whole debate is about. Your side is claiming that the 14th trumps the 1st because of “privileges or immunities of citizens”. Ok then what explicitly are the privileges or immunities? Hmmm? The only way you can name this is by guess what they intended to mean.

“Can you please tell us wherever you got this idea that the Twentyfirst amendment prohibits the fourteenth?”

I never said that, the 21st has no effect on the 14th. What I did say was 14th has no effect on 1st.

” I note that the only source you have used to justify your claim is that the twenty first amendment repealed the eighteenth amendment.”

You are right, there are no other examples, which is why certain people are only counted as 3/5th a person for deciding House representation…

Oh that’s right another explicit change. Damn how’d that slip in? That’s two examples. I could give 27 examples if you would like. One for each and every amendment if you want me to.

“The Twentyfirst Amendment Never Ever Ever says, anywhere, that amendments must refrence the amended document. You read that into what you consider (personal attack snipped - no bearing on the debate. Snipped to save some space, oh can’t do that because Truth will have a cow that I hacked his words. I guess I should go ahead and include it. Wow this is taking a lot of space.) inferences of the Twentyfirst amendment.”

The 14th Never ever ever says, anywhere, that privileges or immunities refer in anyway to the 1st. You read that into the 14th to justify your worldview.

Your right, you are not saying intent. You are just proceeding as if it is an accepted fact. I am just calling it what it is.
TruthInMedia Says:
September 4th, 2003 at 2:34 pm
You must not be aware of the Incorporation Doctrine.

The Supreme Court explained the incorporation doctrine, in the landmark case of Gideon v Wainwright (1963) 372 U.S. 335. The Gideon Court described the Fourteenth Amendment as embracing those “fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions.”

“This Court has looked to the fundamental nature of original Bill of Rights guarantees to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes them obligatory on the States. Explicitly recognized to be of this “fundamental nature” and therefore made immune from state invasion by the Fourteenth, or some part of it, are the First Amendment’s freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, association, and petition for redress of grievances. For the same reason, though not always in precisely the same terminology, the Court has made obligatory on the States the Fifth Amendment’s command that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Eighth’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.”

Untill Gideon v. Wainwright is overturned, your argument that the Fourteenth Amendement does not ensconce the First is just that - your argument, not the law of the land.

Little confused. The language in Amendment 24 regarding apportionment doesn’t explicitly state that “Article 1 Section 2 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 is repealed.” Does that mean that Article 1 Section 2 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 is still in effect, or was it repealed?

Again, you’r argument is that Amendments have no effect on prior work unless the prior work is specifically mentioned, and that this stems from the 21th amendment. I do not believe this is true. Part of the reason I do not believe this is true is because it would mean that the 21st amendment would have an effect on the 14th amendment, but it cannot effect, by your interpretation of the 21st amendment, the 14th amendement. At no point do *I* subscribe to the arguement presented above (the one you have now tried to pin me to 3 times, failing each time.)

However, you seem to have finally, I hope, walked away from the claim that to effect a prior amendment you must explicitly refrence it, and have moved fully into the stadard federalist “the way things should be” argument that the fourteenth amendment doesn’t apply to various things. Of course, the way things should be isn’t the way things are, so your arguments are merely hopes that Federalists will disband the Incorporation Doctrine. If you want to make the argument that this would be a good thing, feel free. I’d prefer that states not have the right to limit freedom of speech, but if you Conservatives really want to give state governments the power to regulate ideas, go right ahead and argue that.

I’m not the person, by the way, who read the first as incorporated into the fourteenth. You’ve confused me with 60 years of jurisprudence.
cannon Says:
September 5th, 2003 at 12:47 am
Ok Truth going with your thoughts. “Whaa you can’t do that, it goes against 60 years of legal thought!!!” Ok if it does, your point is exactly what? “Oh I am sorry that E=MC2 won’t work. It goes against 200 years of Newtonian physics, you heretic.”

In order to save Matt’s Bandwith, I have moved this over to my blog.
cannon Says:
September 5th, 2003 at 12:48 am
Oops I guess I should put the link here.