lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

I am constantly amazed by the supreme courts inability to understand such a simple document. I realize that lawyers complicate things, beyond all reason, to keep us yokels coming to them for help, but the Constitution belongs to US not them.
The SC says prayer at school violates the rights of those who don't pray. The Constitution guarantees the right of freedom of religious expression, not the lack thereof, so that ruling was unconstitutional. Then the SC says that employers, who don't believe in contraception, don't have to provide it to employees who DO believe in it. That's inconsistent with the prayer ruling.
They're even considering removing " under God " from the pledge of allegiance and " in God we trust " from money. The Constitution does not guarantee the LACK of freedom of expression. The Constitution was formulated to provide protection from the very thing the SC is doing. Gov telling us what we may or may not do with our bodies and our souls. The Constitution guarantees that if you want to pray - pray, if you don't want to - don't. Believe in a different God - ok, don't believe in any God - ok
When the SC starts misunderstanding a simple document like the Constitution, we're in big trouble.

Artemis

Makes you wonder how such a simple concept can be so misunderstood.

cold iron Loc: White House

We have three branches of government, congress, Judaical (SC) and the President (executive)..
Congress writes the laws, not the SC, there job is to test it to see if it is constitutional, that's all. But now they are making law(s) .... As of late we are v****g people into government that have little knowledge of the constitution and they are confirming judges that have little love for Democracy or freedom. At times 3 of them advocate C*******t belief's. All are woman.

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I question the NEED for a US Supreme Court re the US Constitution. I'll bet every one of us can read the Constitution and UNDERSTAND what it says. It says what it means. There is no NEED for "interpretation", a word used to describe the process of CHANGING the meaning.

I strongly suggest everyone read up on "common law", the law OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE. It is law that is seen as just by one's peers, not by some lawyer or some judge, but by one's peers. A great website was provided by another poster, RETW, today on this site: http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Amen , ah, I mean Yes!

AvJoe

The constitution provides for the separation of church and state. This is to prevent a "church state" from evolving and goes back to the very purpose of the bill of rights. What the supreme court has said is that by having or promoting an organized religion within the confines of government violates the concept. What the states have attempted to do (in conjunction with certain ultra-conservative groups) is to blur that line. A recent example is a school district which objected to a student dressing as Jesus Christ for Halloween. he was told to remove the costume but when it was found he was just dressing like some one he idolized he was allowed to wear the costume.

Expression of ideas, including religious ones need be protected but in certain environments such as a school, it infringes on those who do not believe a certain way. So where is the "line"? The Supreme Court has struggled with this idea of these two conflicting rights for almost as long as this Republic has existed. I believe a fair and equitable solution must be struck or we will tear the country apart trying to resolve the problem.

Sadly. the Supreme Court has not been willing to clearly define Where these rights, when in conflict. which supersedes the other or how (which I doubt will ever happen) the rights can coexist peacefully.

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The US Constitution does not provide for the "separation of church and state". That has been written and it has caused a lot of trouble. What the Constitution actually provides for is that GOVERNMENT WILL STAY OUTSIDE OF RELIGIOUS ISSUES. Our federal government has no authority to say ANYTHING about religion because doing so infringes on religious freedom. If our legislators, mostly lawyers, knew the first thing about the US Constitution, they'd KNOW that any law they write about religion is INFRINGEMENT.

Things of this nature should more rightly be taken to a common court.

Floyd Brown Loc: Milwaukee WI

Very interesting.

RussD

I think you need remedial civics.
First off, did you forget about the separation of church an state?

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The US Constitution has nowhere in it the term: "separation of church and state". What it conveys is that the government cannot dictate one's religion. For government to interfere in religious issues is verboten, according to the US Constitution.
"Shall not infringe" means HANDS OFF, nothing more.
in·fringe

verb (used with object)
1.
to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or t***sgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
verb (used without object)
2.
to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.
Origin:
1525–35; < Latin infringere to break, weaken, equivalent to in- in-2 + -fringere, combining form of frangere to break

PS. You can read, can't you?

Submariner

Exactly where in Article III does the Constitution enumerate the power of Judicial Review to ANY federal court, including the Supremes?