Us Courts Establish Government As The Official Religion Of United States.

the law they broke is unconstitutional.

please refer to the first amendment and if you have anything that proves the people authorized the courts to violate their right to exercise their religion I would be ANXIOUS to see it since the cases you posted do not reflect that point specifically. Have you read them?

 

sheesh please stop with: How is it a legal argument?

Seriously man, if you do not already know the answer to that you should not be posting in this thread, and I dont mean that to be insulting in any way, its just plain a fact that if you do not understand math you dont jump into a physics argument or people will think you are simply badgering the plaintiff.

It is beyond reasonable doubt based upon a religion now that it has made an incontrovertible choise in religion and has enforced its choice upon the nation.

There is simply no getting around the FACT that homosexuality is and always has been a religious issue.

 

There's only one elephant in the room and it's dribbling shit all over the place!

 

In both the davis case and the klien case it is about these people defending their religion against an over reaching government.

Neither are they trying to force their religion upon another, in fact it is the gay religion that is being forced upon the christians and people in this thread are reversing the blame.

The only reason other people are affected is because of the government being in the middle where it does not belong. So far I see misplaced blame rather than argument disposal.

I would like to see someone come in here using grounded legal premises to prove where the gvmnt got the authority to adjudicate religion, then force it upon people of different religions in contradiction to the organic law and in violation of their rights.

 

Errggh

Im so sick of all this nonsense

Its corporations that rule the world

In one way its always been that way, money, fighting over resources thats ruled the world

Even in times when it seemed religion ruled an empire, that was just the tool to control the masses

And it still happens today, whether for or against the argument, most will just bend over and take it becuase they want to believe there is something more to it all than just death and taxes

 

Yes, corporations rule the wolrd for the most part...just don;t let them take your soul....

 

that the supreme court and the regulatory agencies feel they can break at will because people do not care.

the Kliens and Davis were not represented nor have either been afforded remedy, well if jail and 135,000 dollar fine is remedy, so the idea we are represented is completely bogus.

Yes that is what they taught me in high school too, however try fighting any issue in court on those terms and the eyes open quickly.

the irony of course is that people accept "their opinion as law"

So now you simply defer to GTF out of my country if you dont like it because thats the way it is, despite the fact no one can defent the governments position on their own terms? [counter legal arguments]

everything from 'me' is legal arguments that no one on this board who tried to dispose of in support of the rulings has scratched the surface of.

There are other arguments in law that propose stumbling blocks to my arguments but I am not in the habit of arguing legal matters against myself.

 

unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

 

thanks for agreeing with me since the constitution says religion absolutely must be acknowledged by gvmnt.

AGAIN!

First Amendment - Religion and Expression.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please read it this time!

you dont need me for that "we the gvmnt said so" will suffice.

 

How do you know I am a citizen? Do you think the only legal people here are 'citizens'? ...and that the only way they can live and reside here legally is to become a citizen?

I cant imagine what they could possibly write as an amendment, that makes no sense.

The supreme court and the bureaucracies violated existing law, it needs to be corrected in the courts starting with jury nullification and rules that state all trials are barred from judge as court trials and must be by a minimum mandatory 6 man petit fully impowered jury to try both the facts and the law.

I fully expect its not hard to get lots of people to agree with the american dream version taught to us from high school forward and reinforced by mainstream media because we all have been programmed to repeat those lines without thinking about what they really mean. Carlin had down though, "its called the american dream because you have to be asleep to believe it".

Btw its unlikely that you will get me to trip up by repeatedly hitting me from different angles. The argument is what it is.

Yeh but I am not writing a philosophical dissertation here

 

I'm with MeAgain and on this. Zzap's arguments seem totally confused and unworkable. Before adoption of the U.S. Constitution, we had a long, sorry history of established churches and religious persecution in this country, and before that, over two centuries of religious warfare in Europe, premised on the theocratic principle that God's law (interpreted by rival clerics) trumps human law. Our Bill of Rights is, in my opinion, a major step forward in protecting individual rights against government, especially the First Amendment protections of non-establishment of religion and free exercise. These provisions protect the rights of all religions and non-religion, with some exceptions for human sacrifice and other practices which infringe on the rights of others. But George Bernard Shaw's maxim "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" highlights the reality that the liberty of some must be limited in order to have liberty for others at all. In the case of civil rights, it also became established that private individuals who operate public accommodations or offer services to the public may not legally discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender or religion. Otherwise, minorities would effectively have no rights, since bigoted communities could refuse to provide them with services. This seems to me like a reasonable balance, not judicial tyranny. If fundamentalist Judeo-Christian principles in Leviticus, Corinthians, and Romans were allowed to prevail over rights provided by secular laws, we'd have theocracy, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The rant about government and homosexuality being religions makes no sense, and sounds like the kind of hyperbole we're getting from the 2015 presidential candidates. Maybe that's the problem: too much Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee!

 

that does not mean what you think it means


Despite this background the Court's power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. "It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is," he declared.

 

which gets us right back to proving my point that the supreme court is the dictator of this country.

where are the people in this scheme? They get to vote on the next group of overlords to represent the government on their behalf in congress for issues they never voted on in the first place?

 

You listed cases without citing any arguments within the cases. great way to sound like you have it happening, for all I know you simply cut and pasted it all.