Slashdot Mirror
Domain: homeofheroes.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to homeofheroes.com.
Comments · 8
-
Re:Sad day
Democrats always have to get past this "we could use the money to feed the poor" mental stumbling block.
"...First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth..."
That statement was not made by a republican. -
Re:Not at all an appropriate decisionContrary to your extremist religious delusions that was not added later by "evul Liburalz" or any such thing. I was surprised to find someone take issue with this small part of your argument. Separation of church and state, as it stands today, is the result of liberals. Just go through the history of the courts and the reactions of conservatives.
The idea of not having prayer in schools even when conducted by the students on free time outside of classes isn't covered. The idea of forcing the schools into not to saying the pledge is a liberal idea and not connected to the constitution. I have no problem with students in state-run schools praying during free time outside of class. I rather liked the idea of having five minutes of silence when students could pray, or simply prepare themselves mentally for the day. I do take issue when students are pressured into praying, or not praying, by the school or school groups. As for the Pledge, I take issue with being forced to pledge allegiance to the Christian nation. The Pledge of Allegiance has an interesting history.Created in 1892, it wasn't until 1954 that "under God" was added. I'd have no problem with the Pledge if this corruption were removed.
Show me one part of the constitution that says the church and state should be separate completely. All you will find is freedom of and from religion Going over your arguments, I'm not sure that church and state should be separate completely. However, all too often, people forget the "freedom from religion" portion of that text, or interpret "freedom of religion" to mean your choice of Christian sect. My state government has often had this problem.
It is more like the liberal delusions were a professor can be fired for pointing out how certain government documents aren't allow to used in class again because references to some god are in it. But I guess when you have to sanitize any and all religious artifacts from the founders and the government documents and such, history would appear to be void of religious influences in government. Kind of like banning books and such. Except this would be heresy in reverse operation. I think it is heresy either way. How can you teach history without teaching religion's influence on it? Personally, I'd love to see a general philosophy class taught in middle school, and have a history class tied to it. I think it would greatly enhance student's understanding of history, as long as the history portion was as factually correct as possible and the philosophy covered relevant material, not just Christianity. -
Re:Dual Responsibility
"The FBI can't just willy-nilly go requesting tax records from the IRS -- they have to have a warrant to do so.
I don't suppose you'd care to offer some evidence to support this negative assertion?"
In the US, citizens have a right to privacy provided by the fourth amendment to the constitution. The government can't just enter our house, open our mail, get a copy of our medical records, or review our tax records. They have to have a reason to do so; a constitutionally valid reason. The only reason the FBI can go through your tax records is in the investigation of a crime.
Here's some evidence for you: one of the impeachment charges to be brought against Nixon was that he reviewed the tax records of his political adversaries*. He wasn't investigating any crime; he was just on a fishing expedition for stuff he could use against his opponents. As president, Nixon was in charge of the IRS, since it is an executive agency, as you say. Here's a question: if Nixon, as the head of the executive branch, wasn't allowed to go snooping through tax records, by what authority would the FBI be able to do so? The answer is only in the investigation of a crime.
"Though people often complain that this is bureaucratic waste and government inefficiency, this actually protects your rights because it is separation of powers.
Unfortunately, no. Both the FBI and the Treasury are Executive branch organizations; there's no Constitutional Separation of Powers involved."
I was very careful not to state that this was a separation of powers ordained by the constitution. All I'm saying is that bureaucratic infighting functions as a separation of powers. In other words, in the strictest sense, yes, both the FBI and the IRS are under the control of the president. If it ever went to court, there would be a decision and one party would have to take orders from the other. But in real life, the FBI doesn't get to tell the IRS what to do.
And in any case, the constitution never mentions "separation of powers", so strictly speaking, there aren't any "Constitutional Separation of Powers" at all.
* "[Nixon] has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
From Here. -
history repeats ..
-
Re:Liars
So your saying the New York post hired those Spanish saboteurs to blow up the Maine?
Remember the Maine!! -
It has changed 3 times
You can read the history of the Pledge of Allegiance at this page
-
Re:As reported on the better site...
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
Actually, the original text was:
And to the republic for which it stands
One nation, indivisible,
With liberty and justice for all
I pledge allegiance to my flag
And to the republic for which it stands
One nation, indivisble,
With liberty and justice for allSource:Home of Heroes
-
Re:please...
There seems to be a hint of a misunderstanding here. They didn't say that the words were inconstitutional, they just said that passing a law to add them was. You can say them if you want to, heck you can even keep using them in your pledge if you want to, but officially, the government cannot insert the the word God, or any statement acknowledging God into any official text, as it clearly violates the first amendment which specifically says "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion...". Thus, congress passing a law that instructs citizens to acknowledge the existance of God (it does have a capital G, indicating that the Christian God is the one being referenced) is clearly a direct violation of the first amendment. This ruling is not crap, and WILL stand up to any appeal or scrutiny. When congress passed the law, which Eisenhower approved on June 14th, 1954 they were in fact violating their oath of office, which is to uphold the constitution. Heres a nice history of the changes the Pledge has gone through.
