According to the rule of law, the law must be clear and understandable to all than just the legal profession.

One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws

I agree with both sentiments wholeheartedly. I’m all for returning to a small, well-defined government, but you have to recognize that we are well over a century removed from such a thing and our leading parties are continuing the trend at a breakneck pace.

As for the rest of your post, I’m not blowing you off, kerwin. I just need to get some work done tonight. I’m sure we’ll have many more opportunities to discuss your strict constructionist viewpoint.

According to the rule of law, the law must be clear and understandable to all than just the legal profession. In the United States the, U.S. Constitution and not a court’s decision is the high law of the land. So what is important is what the U.S. Constitution states and what those who made it law intended it to say and not what the Supreme Court states it says. This is true because only Congress and the legislatures of the states have the legal authority to change or alter the U.S. Constitution.

“You’re welcome to disagree with that interpretation, but don’t act as if the courts are making stuff up as they go along. “ JM

The living constitution theory is a theory that the courts do have the power to make up stuff as they go along. It is based on an unsound interpretation of the Ninth Amendment which may sound reasonable to anyone that is not somewhat informed of what inalienable rights are.

A couple of obvious errors by the federal courts are to assume the words “Congress shall make no law” refers to the “Tangipahoa Parish school board” and not to Congress only. They try to get around that obvious misinterpretation by claiming the “Due process” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes parts of the Bill of Rights apply to the states. The flaw in that “interpretation” is that the same “due process” is in the Fifth Amendment and merely means that a person can not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law and the Fourteenth is applying it to the state while the Fourth applied it to federal government. It does not even mean the same due process as the Federal government uses a different due process for military and for non military.

I can not speak for the others by I see no problem as the sin is what I do and not what someone else does. According to my religion I can observe others worshipping their God as long as I do not participate.

If you know the story of Shadrack, Meshach and Abed-Nego then will know what I am speaking of.

I really don’t believe you, Jay. Your writings on this blog depict you as a fanatical Christian partisan. Whether you have the courage to admit it publicly or not, government-sponsored observance of any religion other than Christianity would enrage you.

Lobo, as usual, has no argument, only a gratuitous insult. There is no monolithic “government” in this country that is uniformly “hostile to God and religion”. The Tangipahoa Parish school board certainly exhibits no such hostility. Where so-called Christians can get government to proselytize for them, they do.

Christians are desperate to utilize the power of a government that is hostile to God and religion, to proselytize for their religion?

Riiight… try putting both oars in the water… you’ll go further.

Why not? Thats exactly what they are doing.

You’re smarter than that. As in any job, there are bad apples, but by and large, our judges are very intelligent and very well-intentioned. The system also has a complex appeals process to minimize the effect of the bad apples.

I’m not particularly well-versed on matters of law, so we can discuss the basic stuff all you want, but if you’re going to challenge the opinions of decades of court cases, you better bring more to the table than “it doesn’t say so in the constitution.”

Please quote in the Whole U.S. Constitution where that limit on the Free Expression of Religion exists.

Yes, I can’t find the part of the Constitution that says Congress shall not prohibit the expression of religion except for public officials.

We all know the bill of rights isn’t particularly specific. We also know that the prevailing interpretation of the establishment clause places clear limits on the actions of public officials in their public capacity.

You’re welcome to disagree with that interpretation, but don’t act as if the courts are making stuff up as they go along.