Merlyn_LeRoy

Limits it against abridging other citizens' rights; what does a "right" mean if other people can just vote to take it away?

Merlyn, you forget my friend that legislatures are the purest form of the people's will. I DON'T forget; that's why I think it's important to have a constitution that limits what the legislature can do.

How do we know when majority rule applies and when it doesn't? Well, the constitution does spell out how laws are made, and most are passed by a simple majority. However, it also limits the government's powers, which is where the courts need to decide if legislation improperly infringes on rights and is invalid. And, do you trust the American people to make wise decisions in legislatures through their elected representatives? About as much as I trust them to make wise choices in the makeup of the judicial and executive branches.

Well, you keep saying states have rights, when the constitution doesn't say they have rights, only powers. Usually, it's not a big deal to use the phrase "states' rights" when talking about a state's powers, but if you're talking about a citizen's rights vs. a state's "rights" (as we were), it's incorrect, because it's really a citizen's rights vs. a state's powers. This is not a trivial distinction, because if two actual rights conflict, one or both is likely to be limited so both can coexist, so if a court considered a citizen's right vs. a genuine state's right, the court might find that the state's right takes precidence, and limit the citizen's right. But the courts will address it as a citizen's rights vs. a state's powers, where it's much harder for the state to prevail. That's one reason why it's an important distinction.

Well, this is getting tedious, even by my standards. I have no great desire to explain why civil rights should not be abridgable by a mere majority vote -- suffice to say that restriction is part of the current US government. As for Madison et al. referring to states having rights, when it came to writing the actual constitution, they never referred to states having rights, only powers. Only people are described as having rights. And, if anything, I think the court hasn't gone far enough in incorporation of the 14th.

Our limited federal republic was created by force? Yes. We used to be a British colony. It seems that you do not favor majority rule? Not when 51% has the power to enslave the other 49%. But we don't have that. The tyranny of the majority was something the authors of the constitution sought to avoid. All the early statesman that talked of states rights? Were they all delusional? The constitution does not give states "rights". They were, at best, using sloppy terminology. So if you deal with reality, where does reality start? Before Engel v. Vitale, did you believe in prayer in schools? You don't seem to grasp the difference between: 1) stating what the law is (or what the supreme court says it is); and 2) agreeing with the law 1 & 2 are two entirely different things. You're conflating them. There's no connection. For example, I think the court erred in Dale v. BSA. The BSA's decades-long practice of chartering units to public schools was enough in my opinion to make it a public accommodation. However, the court ruled that the BSA is a private organization. You'll note that I call the BSA a private organization. Because, legally, it is, regardless of my opinion on the wisdom or accuracy of that status.

It is a shame that you don't believe in democracy. I prefer the system we have now, which does not permit 51% to vote away the rights of 49% with mere legislation. How else did we create our "limited federal republic". As I hear, it involved the use of force. Were the constitutions of the antebellum Southern states not republican though they included slavery? They had the power to institute slavery back then; they don't now. Yes, they were part of our limited federal republic. Part of the problem is that they didn't have universal citizenship back then. The gays were citizens and entitled to the protections of them. The slaves were not. But haven't you been saying that states still have the "right" (your term; I would use "power") to impose slavery by vote? Colorado tried to remove some rights from gays by vote, and the supreme court ruled that they couldn't do so. just because something is not explicitly labeled as such in the constitution does not mean it is not so. But STATES do not have rights. Individuals have rights. You keep saying states have rights - they don't. The constitution does not list any "rights" for states. They talk about powers, which are different. your extreme reliance on the Supreme Court is problematic. I deal with reality. Would you have supported the rights of states to segregate schools post-Plessy? States don't have rights. However, after Plessy (and before Brown v. bd of ed), states certainly had the power to enforce official segregation. That's dealing with reality. I prefer to deal with the reality of the aspirations of the American people. When they voice their desires through their elected representatives in the state legislatures. That is how a republic works too. That's true. However, since we don't have a democracy, but a limited federal republic, people's rights can't just be voted away by 51% of the voting public.

TheScout writes: Well thats democracy, isn't it? Yes. And we don't have a democracy, we have a limited federal republic with rights that can't be infringed by a popular vote. Or do you just believe in democracy when it comes with results you like? I don't believe in democracy; I prefer what we have now. You know that in the United States such a case never came up. So? Colorado tried to insure that gays had fewer rights by a vote, and the supreme court ruled against it in Romer v. Evans. Not the same as slavery, but similar in that a majority attempted to reduce the rights of a minority, and failed. You said, in regard to places with state religions that "It doesn't mean it's egalitarian regarding other religions, either." Yet I would say both countries mentioned are pretty much egalitarian even it regards to religion. And how would you describe Iran, El Salvador, and Pakistan as regarding their state religions? State religions can be very repressive. So about the 5th Amendment, are you saying I do not have the right to not be held for a crime without an indictment? The 5th amendment states what powers the government has to hold you; it does not have the power to hold you without an indictment. The 5th is stated in terms of what powers the state has, not in what rights citizens have. While the 5th could have been written in terms of what rights citizens have, the authors decided to write it in terms of what powers the government has instead -- that's what it doesn't use the term "right" in the text, because the government doesn't have rights. That's what I keep trying to explain to you. Remember Merlyn, just because the Supreme Court says something, does not mean it is true. What does "true" even mean regarding an interpretation of a law? The people who wrote the law may not all agree on what it means, the people who voted for the law may not agree on what it means, the people enforcing the law may not agree on what it means, and the judges interpreting the law may not agree on what it means, so whose interpretation is the "true" one? There really isn't one. What we have now gives the supreme court the final say in interpretation of the constitution. That's reality. I prefer to deal with reality. You can build your states-rights castles in the air, but I'm not going to live there, because it's in your imagination.

TheScout writes: The right of the state comes into play when people try to deny the people of the state the power to enact certain measures, which is the right of the people of that state, and hence the state itself to do. Earlier, you indicated that states should have the right to have slavery; so how does 51% voting to enslave the other 49% preserve the rights of those 49%? you said that places with state churches are not egalitarian. Where did I say that? Oh, I didn't. Don't lie and say I said something that I didn't say. I meant to say the 5th does not inculde the word 'right.' Correct. Because in the case of the 5th amendment, the constitution is talking about what the government can do, not what citizens can do. "No person shall be held..." -- that's a restriction on the government's power to arrest and hold citizens. "..unless..." -- it goes on to state under what conditions the government can do so. "..except in cases..." -- an exception to the earlier "unless", again this is addressing what the government can do. The government can't put people in double jeopardy, the government does not have the power to make you testify against yourself. The 5th amendment is talking about how the power of the government is restricted, which is why it doesn't use the term "rights". It doesn't refer to what the government may or may not decide to do, but what the government SHALL do -- the government is required to act in the ways specified, because the 5th isn't talking about individual rights, it's talking about how the government can and cannot act. Your apparent elitism regarding US politics is indeed quite unfortunate. Well, if being against slavery and hanging Quakers is elitism, I'm pretty damn elite.

TheScout writes: What is your problem with the idea that states have rights? Because rights can't be infringed; saying that a state has "rights" implies that the state has some power that cannot be restricted or removed. Under the constitution, states only have powers granted to it, which implies that any of them may be removed. I much prefer the power of states always being subject to the will of the people. That is a right that each state has. Just because the constitution doesn't call it a right doesn't mean it is not so. Look, words mean things. "Rights" are different from "powers". You can't arbitrarily interchange them. They imply different things in when & how they can be changed or limited. You know, the 4th Amendment does not include the word 'right' either. Does that mean its guarentees are not rights? You mean the 4th amendment that starts "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"? For one fairly well-known example, there is no "right to vote" in the US. Felons can be barred from voting. If it was a right, they probably couldn't lose it. I would also venture to say that Denmark and Norway are pretty darn egalitarian despite having state churches. (Self Correction- Sweden no longer has a state church) So what? Iran's state religion is pretty horrible. In any case, whether it's a good idea or not has no bearing on whether it's constitutional or not. It hasn't been constitutional for states to have a state religion for quite a while now. Lastly, your reliance on it is a shame that every argument you make about the constitution flows from the rulings of a court. Yeah, it's much better to rely on non-lawyers on the internets, who can't find the word "right" in the 4th amendment. Why is it that you can hardly ever explain your views through what the peoople want as decided by their elected representatives in legislatures? For one thing, I like dealing with reality, and under US law, the courts interpret the laws. That's why I think the 14th amendment applies the 1st to the states. And, as far as reality goes, it does. You can rant and rail against it, but until the supreme court reverses it or a later amendment changes things, it's true that the 14th actually DOES apply the first to the states.

TheScout writes: Merlyn, states don't have rights? Please. What about the 10th 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." Seems like the States have the right to exercise quite a few powers there. No, they HAVE powers granted to them by the people. Now compare the 9th amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Notice how the 9th amendment talks about rights that the people have, while the 10th talks about powers that the states (or the people) may have. They also have rights stemming from the federal constitution. The right to appoint presidential electors. No, states do not have the right to appoint electors. If they did, wouldn't they be able to exercise this right as often as they pleased for an election? The right to equal representation in the Senate. The right to elect a certain number of reprentatives to the House. Again, the constitution does not term them "rights". It is obvious the states would not approve an amendment if they thought it so limited their own powers. I'll stick with the supreme court, thanks, not with what you find "obvious". I state religion does not mean a state is dysfuntional. It doesn't mean it's egalitarian regarding other religions, either. The Denmark, Norway, and Sweden all have established churches and are regarded as among the most tolerant nations in the world. Iran, El Salvador, and Pakistan all have state religions, too. Beavah writes: Merlyn, if I'm hearin' yeh right, you're sayin' that the Boy Scouts receivin' reduced rent in return for giving the city a free building is the same thing as Stormtroopers comin' for your family. No, you aren't hearing me right. And from what I've read about the Philly building, that isn't what the deal was. What I'm saying is you can't DISMISS lesser infringements by simply pointing to much worse hypothetical infringments and saying "so shut up about your [insert lesser infringement here]". I stole $5 fron you? Well, don't have me arrested, bank robbers steal much more! Don't complain about getting punched in the nose, do you know how many people were killed at Virginia Tech? It's a completely invalid and nonsensical "argument". Every impingement on your "rights" is "serious", eh? I'm certainly not going to allow YOU to decide which infringements on MY rights are unimportant. You can decide which infringements on YOUR rights you'll ignore, and I'll decide the same for me. Imagine a world in which every time the neighbor's kid cut across our yard I filed for trespass (gotta protect every one of my property rights!!). Well, you could do that, and there are probably some people who do. Some things hurt neighborliness or society if they are pursued with too much vigor. Would that include a private organization going to court for the right to exclude gays and atheists?(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

States don't have rights, only individuals have rights. As you mention a bit later, states have powers. I don't agree that the supreme court just "made it up"; the congressional debate at the time shows that they intended first amendment rights to be among the immunities covered by the 14th. If anything, the supreme court didn't get around to interpreting the 14th amendment the way congress intended until decades later. And I suppose states like Massachusetts turned out fine once they stopped hanging Quakers, but I kinda think they don't have that power now.

It's not my incorporation doctrine, it's the supreme court's. And Justice Black said the Slaughterhouse cases did not involve a right directly enumerated in the constitution. Are there people in this thread who think states ought to have official state religions, or at least have the power to do so?

Well Ed, if schools had regular classes on, say, political/religious quackery, creationism might get talked ABOUT in such a class, but that's still distinct from teaching creationism per se. As of now, people who advocate creationism in public schools want it taught as science, and they're losing on those grounds. As for schoolteachers not being able to teach religion in class, see my earlier reply to PeteM, or look up actual court cases like McCollum v. Board of Education, Engel v. Vitale, Abington Township School District v. Schempp, or McClean v. Arkansas

The 14th amendment incorporates first amendment protections against infringement by state governments; before then, states (and state public schools) could have official religions and use public money to promote them. They can't now, and public schoolteachers, when teaching in public schools are state actors, and cannot promote religion, as that would violate the students' first amendment rights (which now also apply to state governments via the 14th amendment).

I accept your apology. Beavah writes: For mild and incidental things, I suggest that understanding and tolerance are good choices But I disagree that official support of religious discrimination is "incidental"; I consider pretty much any such situation as rather serious. I can't see how the rent for a buildin' in Philly really affects your life at all mate, let alone "rides roughshod" over your rights. I meant it as "my rights" in the sense of every individual's rights. Atheists in Philadelphia should not have their city support an organization that denegrates them. I see many actions of government as just an expression of the society. YES! And one thing the government is prohibited from "expressing" is the idea that one group is inferior because of their religious views, by favoring a group that allows everyone except that denegrated group. If you had an Atheists youth program that was serving 40,000 young people in the city of Philadelphia, of course I'd support a reduced rent for your group. I would not, unless this reduced rent was equally available to every similar group regardless of who they admit or exclude. Note that the deal the BSA has with Philly is not equally available to any and all groups.

Hunt, when I first started posting here (back when public schools still chartered thousands of packs & troops), hardly anyone posting in my thread about public school charters even acceded that there was any kind of problem with public schools discriminating against atheists by chartering BSA units. I like to think I've changed a few minds on this matter. Plus, I like a good argument, and I paid for the full half-hour.

Hunt, what both you and Beavah did was NOT a misunderstanding, because both of you made statements about my supposed political positions before we had had a discussion on that issue. It could only be a misunderstanding if I said something that was misinterpreted. What both of you DID do was to just assume you already knew what my position was (without actually asking me, and, since I had not discussed it, my position was not apparent) and then stated it as if it was my position. In my book, that's lying. And no, labelling a lie as a lie is not impolite in my book, either. Distinguishing between a misunderstanding and a lie can be important. In both cases, it looks to me like each of you are assuming that I not only defend the rights of atheists, but that I am actually against the rights of theists, which is not at all true.

Kids CAN pray in public schools, Ed. Why don't you already know this? Creationism can't be taught because it isn't science, it's religious dogma masquerading as science. As for teaching the bible or koran, you can teach about them in e.g. a comparative religion course. Teachers can't indoctrinate students in a religion, of course. (fixed typo)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Venividi, my response to Beavah was because he made up a position that he apparently assumed I held and stated that I actually held that position. He didn't even say "I assume Merlyn would draw the line over religious expression in schools," or, even better (though with more delay) ASK me my position on religious expression in schools. Now, I would be somewhat irritated if someone did this and successfully guessed my actual position, but Beavah got it wrong. Hunt did something similar a while back, and I reacted in the same way. If someone doesn't ask me about a position on an issue that we haven't discussed and simply makes up something and states it as my position, it isn't a misunderstanding, it isn't making an assumption, it's someone lying about what I actually think. There are all kinds of ways to have good arguments with valid logic, and have discussions over differing opinions, but making up crap about someone isn't one of them. One part of having a civil society is to not make up crap about other people.

Beavah lies: So yah, Merlyn and company draw the line over religious expression in schools. No, I don't, and I certainly don't think it's "civilized" for you to make up positions I don't hold and dishonestly ascribe them to me. We can try to emulate Iraq, where the "other side" of Sunni/Shia/Kurd is "wrong"/evil/out to get me. And where the government doesn't support religious equality. Is that the kind of legacy we want to leave our children? No. A country in tatters, that can only be held together by a dictator of some sort? I think it takes courage and compassion to recognize that a decoration or a reduced rent or a reflection offered at a football game ain't the same as Stormtroopers come to get your family. Ah, so as long as I can come up with a more extreme abridgement of civil rights, lesser civil rights abridgements are "OK"? Are you sure you want to go down that road? But that's how we build a civil society, by showing respect in the public square. Are you saying the only way to "show respect" is to show favoritism to the majority at the expense of the minority? Is reduced rent so important to you that you're willing to ride roughshod over my rights? Wow, that's really sticking your neck out. Inconveniencing YOUR particular group is showing it disrespect, but inconveniencing others who are NOT in your group is not only acceptable, it's nearly required so as to not inconvenience your group. Yes, yes, I agree both you and Hunt are much more polite and tolerant when it comes to ignoring the rights of atheists.

Hunt, you still seem to think that official, government-supported discrimination against atheists can, should, or ought to be ignored if it inconveniences the Boy Scouts. I fight for equal rights for atheists, and I don't compromise on civil rights. You can be a doormat when your rights are infringed if you like; I won't. And if you keep trying to dismiss my concern about atheists' rights by whining, that won't even slow me down. If you don't want fanatics like me going loggerheads against the fanatics who run the BSA, you never should have allowed fanatics to take over the BSA in the first place.

Well Hunt, I'm sure some members of whites-only groups and Restricted clubs get miffed when people only see their exclusion of non-whites or Jews instead of all the wonderful, positive things they do for white people or goyim, respectively. And what's wrong with treating the BSA the same way they treat others? Sounds like the golden rule to me. The BSA gave Darrell Lambert a week to become a theist, why should Philadelphia give the C of L council more time than that to change?

I'd say the government should cut the BSA the same slack that the BSA cuts for gays and atheists - i.e., about none. However, in this case, the CoL council has known about it for about four years already, even though they say they're always getting "blindsided".

Well Gonzo1, I think you're selfish, rude, and woefully ignorant. Happy now?(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)