Comments on: Constitution Party Unhappy With High Court http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/06/29/constitution-party-not-happy-with-supreme-court/ Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:10:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: Eaglet http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/06/29/constitution-party-not-happy-with-supreme-court/#comment-149 Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:42:53 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/06/29/constitution-party-not-happy-with-supreme-court/#comment-149 Mikey, I agree with your point from a legal perspective. If the Constitution were really defending the first amendment, they would defend the freedom of exercise of religion of those who want to display the Ten Commandments. I am grateful for the Constitution Party reminding us that the Bill of Rights is still the supreme law of the land. Many in all 3 branches of the federal government seem to ignore this. Mikey,

I agree with your point from a legal perspective. If the Constitution were really defending the first amendment, they would defend the freedom of exercise of religion of those who want to display the Ten Commandments.

I am grateful for the Constitution Party reminding us that the Bill of Rights is still the supreme law of the land. Many in all 3 branches of the federal government seem to ignore this.

]]> by: Mikey http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/06/29/constitution-party-not-happy-with-supreme-court/#comment-148 Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:56:41 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/06/29/constitution-party-not-happy-with-supreme-court/#comment-148 Sorry for the rant. Sorry for the rant.

]]> by: Mikey http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/06/29/constitution-party-not-happy-with-supreme-court/#comment-147 Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:55:30 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/06/29/constitution-party-not-happy-with-supreme-court/#comment-147 It's a well written piece, but it glosses over one key point. This isn't a biblical issue. It's an interpretation issue. The concept of "separation of Church and State" as we all know comes from a letter from Jefferson to a church, and not in any official legislative or judicial documentation. The Supreme Court however used it as their argument a century ago (don't have the dates with me here at the moment . . . sorry) to put a wedge between politics and the free practice of religion. This is in violation of the First Amendment. No where in the amendment does it say that politicians cannot openly express their views on religion or religious icons be displayed on public land. All it says is that it will not endorse one religion as a national religion. However, the extremists have turned this around to strip ALL religion from politics and the public, and it's very sad to see politicians be so soft on trying to set the record straight. It’s a well written piece, but it glosses over one key point. This isn’t a biblical issue. It’s an interpretation issue. The concept of “separation of Church and State” as we all know comes from a letter from Jefferson to a church, and not in any official legislative or judicial documentation. The Supreme Court however used it as their argument a century ago (don’t have the dates with me here at the moment . . . sorry) to put a wedge between politics and the free practice of religion. This is in violation of the First Amendment. No where in the amendment does it say that politicians cannot openly express their views on religion or religious icons be displayed on public land. All it says is that it will not endorse one religion as a national religion. However, the extremists have turned this around to strip ALL religion from politics and the public, and it’s very sad to see politicians be so soft on trying to set the record straight.

]]> by: Joe http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/06/29/constitution-party-not-happy-with-supreme-court/#comment-143 Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:12:02 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/06/29/constitution-party-not-happy-with-supreme-court/#comment-143 I think this is a great press release and I am glad to see Bill explaining that civil law needs to be conformed to biblical law. I think this is a great press release and I am glad to see Bill explaining that civil law needs to be conformed to biblical law.

]]>