Senate nominee O'Donnell asks whether Constitution prohibits establishment of religion

[The_Dude 1,142]

The wording is quite self explanatory.

Congress = federal government

law = a system or collection of rules.

Nothing there says the federal government is prohibited in participating in any religious activities. It certainly does not say any local government is prohibited.

You really should read up on the Lemon vs. Kurtzman case of 1971......

[Heracles 417]

You really should read up on the Lemon vs. Kurtzman case of 1971......

Perhaps you have not noticed but I am not interested in cases. That is the American way of running a country, not how the rest of the developed world does it. We use the government we elect, common sense and the actual wording of the law. Case law is rightfully utilized for criminal or civil cases, certainly not relied on to operate the country.

As also pointed out many times before, judicial decisions are prone to ideological viewpoints, bias, personal opinion and even being bought out [corrupt]. Thus the reason why pretty-much no other advanced country operates their country based on their decisions. We don't even have a Bill of Rights in AUS, yet are renowned for Human Development, second in the world actually. Furthermore, not once in my 30 years of being there, did I hear anything ever coming down to X v Y cases. Guess which of the two countries has outlawed racism and religious intolerance?

[The_Dude 1,142]

Perhaps you have not noticed but I am not interested in cases. That is the American way of running a country, not how the rest of the developed world does it. We use the government we elect, common sense and the actual wording of the law. Case law is rightfully utilized for criminal or civil cases, certainly not relied on to operate the country.

As also pointed out many times before, judicial decisions are prone to ideological viewpoints, bias, personal opinion and even being bought out [corrupt]. Thus the reason why pretty-much no other advanced country operates their country based on their decisions. We don't even have a Bill of Rights in AUS, yet are renowned for Human Development, second in the world actually. Furthermore, not once in my 30 years of being there, did I hear anything ever coming down to X v Y cases. Guess which of the two countries has outlawed racism and religious intolerance?

Willful ignorance is no excuse BY. Just because you don't like it, doesn't invalidate supreme court case law. I really couldn't give two sh!ts what Australia does or thinks as it's not the focus of this thread. So either come back to the conversation and at least adhere to the parameters of the U.S. government, or piss off and go find some Austraian forum.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No there is, but as I said, it only applies on a Federal level when appealing to the federal government.

What does that even mean? If we don't have first amendment rights in the cities, counties and states we ultimately live in, then we do not have these rights at all. Those rights would be meaningless. Well, unless we happen to be on federal premises. What a load of nonsense!

[^_^ 5,021]

Nonsense is what he does best.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Perhaps you have not noticed but I am not interested in cases. That is the American way of running a country, not how the rest of the developed world does it. We use the government we elect, common sense and the actual wording of the law. Case law is rightfully utilized for criminal or civil cases, certainly not relied on to operate the country.

As also pointed out many times before, judicial decisions are prone to ideological viewpoints, bias, personal opinion and even being bought out [corrupt]. Thus the reason why pretty-much no other advanced country operates their country based on their decisions. We don't even have a Bill of Rights in AUS, yet are renowned for Human Development, second in the world actually. Furthermore, not once in my 30 years of being there, did I hear anything ever coming down to X v Y cases. Guess which of the two countries has outlawed racism and religious intolerance?

Actually, the UK incorporates case law into its (unwritten) constitution, and frequently makes reference to case law in determining how to run the country. Not being argumentative, just making a point of clarification.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Actually, the UK incorporates case law into its (unwritten) constitution, and frequently makes reference to case law in determining how to run the country. Not being argumentative, just making a point of clarification.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Perhaps you have not noticed but I am not interested in cases. That is the American way of running a country, not how the rest of the developed world does it. We use the government we elect, common sense and the actual wording of the law.

Read and Learn: Federal Constitutional Court of Germany

[Heracles 417]

Actually, the UK incorporates case law into its (unwritten) constitution, and frequently makes reference to case law in determining how to run the country. Not being argumentative, just making a point of clarification.

Read and Learn: Federal Constitutional Court of Germany

Come on now. How many decisions in these countries are based on x vs y cases? Where even something like health care will be decided by a federal court.

Nevertheless, even if a court does rule against something like health care. The federal parliament can have an overnight session and democratic vote to override this and enact new laws. Seldom if ever is this the case here.

[Heracles 417]

Willful ignorance is no excuse BY. Just because you don't like it, doesn't invalidate supreme court case law. I really couldn't give two sh!ts what Australia does or thinks as it's not the focus of this thread. So either come back to the conversation and at least adhere to the parameters of the U.S. government, or piss off and go find some Austraian forum.

Don't twist my post. Where did I ask you to give a ######? Pointing out something others do better does not equate to asking you to give a ######. It's simply shoving your face into ######, by illustrating that your liberal approach sucks - Fail. In fact, what have liberals accomplished that has won them world recognition rather than ridicule, rather than being the butt of jokes.

Let's have a look at who shares your system of government.

PS You do not even accept that others dress and behave differently abroad, so this ignorance is quite fitting.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Heracles

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Come on now. How many decisions in these countries are based on x vs y cases? Where even something like health care will be decided by a federal court.

Nevertheless, even if a court does rule against something like health care. The federal parliament can have an overnight session and democratic vote to override this and enact new laws. Seldom if ever is this the case here.

More than you would imagine, but often in not so showy but still crucially important ways (quite a lot of land and administrative law, for example, or certain types of nuisance are non-statutory in nature and bound by decisions rather than black letter law). Often case law will be the law that governs a specific area for quite a while and then get formally codified. However, I do agree with you that the parliamentary system is preferable to that which is in this country, and I much prefer the greater flexibility of the UK Parliament to the sluggishness of Congress.

[Heracles 417]

More than you would imagine, but often in not so showy but still crucially important ways (quite a lot of land and administrative law, for example, or certain types of nuisance are non-statutory in nature and bound by decisions rather than black letter law). Often case law will be the law that governs a specific area for quite a while and then get formally codified. However, I do agree with you that the parliamentary system is preferable to that which is in this country, and I much prefer the greater flexibility of the UK Parliament to the sluggishness of Congress.

Considering Australia's legal system is modeled directly from the UK, with the House of Lords even making decisions up until the 60's, I will have to disagree. The scenarios you are describing are ones where the court does get to rule. However, the House of Lords or High Court does not get to be commander and chief of the country, as they do so frequently here. The parliament does not need to wait nor run their every decision through the judicial system. Our elected federal ministers have the authority to amend and enact laws [democratically] as they deem necessary.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Come on now. How many decisions in these countries are based on x vs y cases? Where even something like health care will be decided by a federal court.

Nevertheless, even if a court does rule against something like health care. The federal parliament can have an overnight session and democratic vote to override this and enact new laws. Seldom if ever is this the case here.

Actually, no. If a law passed by the legislature or executive violates constituional standards or individual rights, the court will strike such law or declare invalid such executive action. It's really not that different from the US system.

Edited to add: Since you cite the health care challenge here, the German Supreme Court has taken up similar issues and slapped the legislature for failing to meet muster. I think they're working on the fifth version of welfare reform now as a result of challenges to and decisions by Germany's highest court.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Actually, the UK incorporates case law into its (unwritten) constitution, and frequently makes reference to case law in determining how to run the country. Not being argumentative, just making a point of clarification.

And just to extend your point, both the US and the UK refer back to common law to make decisions, when not contradicted by written law.

[Heracles 417]

Actually, no. If a law passed by the legislature or executive violates constituional standards or individual rights, the court will strike such law or declare invalid such executive action. It's really not that different from the US system.

So you have plenty of cases from Germany where things like health care is debated on the merits of whether it is Constitutional or not?

That's interesting considering Germany has civil law rather than common law.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Heracles