To To a business wrote on Apr 22, 2008 1:13 PM:
" Previous posts showed that? I wouldn't base my facts on posts on a comment forum. "
To A Business wrote on Apr 21, 2008 8:41 AM:
" How so? Previous posts showed that the crosses presence was both legal and Constitutional. "
A business? wrote on Apr 20, 2008 10:10 AM:
" How in the world is a cross and star on a hill in any way a business? It's not making any money. It's not producing a good or service. It's an advertisement for one of the biggest businesses of all -- religion -- but the village and the Lions weren't partners in business.
They were partners in crime! "
Former Holmen Resident wrote on Apr 20, 2008 6:16 AM:
" While all of the discussion regarding constitutional amendments and such are very educational, I believe they are a bit misplaced. This is a simple issue. The star was built jointly by the village and the lions club years ago. It was a joint venture by two different partners. It is only fair when one partner no longer wants the "business", the other partner may buy the first partner out at whatever price they feel is fair.
It's a simple business issue. The village no longer wants the responsibility or the work of caring for the property the star is on, and they are selling their share of that property to their partner.
Seems to make things very simple to me...
No need for lawyers or constitutional experts or anything of the sort. Just a simple business transfer. "
Truth wrote on Apr 17, 2008 10:19 AM:
" Kenneth, you are finally starting to catch on. I have been saying that since this issue first was being discussed. Despite religious belifes, or political structure or documentation, there is nothing any of us can say or do that will remove this cross or any public religious structures from public view. And also, it doesn't matter if $100 is fair for the best piece of ad land in Holmen. It is what it is, a lot of high-ranking people in the Holmen government obviously want that cross there. And so do I and 99% of the population. "
To 9:31am wrote on Apr 17, 2008 10:15 AM:
" My understanding is this was simply done to spare the taxpayers of having to pay for the lighting of the cross. The village could have kept the property, fought any lawsuit(for free-with Matt Staver of Liberty Council defending them), and won. "
Is $100 fair wrote on Apr 17, 2008 9:31 AM:
" Does anyone actually think that $100 is a fair price for the best piece of advertising space in Holmen? "
Kenneth Krause wrote on Apr 17, 2008 8:28 AM:
" Robert, I would definitely agree that we are at an impasse. Since it is my contention the Supreme Court rulings are in error, to use them as part of your "proof" doesn't address the issue.
In one of your earlier posts, you quoted the exact wording of the Constitution. That is what we must examine, as opposed to Supreme Court rulings that are in error. And Robert, no matter how you look at it, there is simply nothing that prevents religious symbols from being displayed in public, even that of the dominant religion.
As it happens, my personal view is that taxpayers should not be required to pay for the lighting of the cross. But, that is a personal opinion which is not addressed by the Constitution. "
DJ: wrote on Apr 17, 2008 8:20 AM:
" btw... do you mean riff-raff, or just those who can only afford $40,000-$50,000 homes or can't spell? "
DJ: wrote on Apr 17, 2008 8:16 AM:
" Aahh yes, that "black is white/white is black group", our beloved atheists. Once again rearing their empty heads to prove the point that "no god" is their religion when in fact they do prove the point that there must be God, why else to protest so loud and long? You know the types, along with fiscally responsible Democrats, hyphenated americans who actually came from somewhere else.. "
Truth wrote on Apr 16, 2008 5:40 PM:
" The cross on star hill is all Bush's fault.................................... "
Robert Freedland wrote on Apr 16, 2008 4:56 PM:
" Ken,
I would respectfully submit that we are at an impasse. You feel it is Constitional to place a Christian Cross that is also illuminated on Lent, a Christian Holiday, paid for by public funds on public property in a very visible location in Holmen. (I will avoid assuming whether you actually approve of this or not.) It is my contention that this is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and Supreme Court rulings galore support my view. It is only common sense that placing religious symbols of the dominant religion in our country in public places is consistent with a process of establishing that religion. And that is where I see the violation. "
LOL wrote on Apr 16, 2008 4:47 PM:
" “This has an unfortunate, disparate impact on folks who can only afford a $40-50,000 house; they might not be able to live in this community,” Ryan said."
Yeah, that will be unfortunate... keeping the rift-raft out...
"
Gestapo wrote on Apr 16, 2008 4:44 PM:
" To I smell money... we've been looking for an informant in your area. Please contact us. "
The Supreme Court 's Role wrote on Apr 16, 2008 4:43 PM:
" I always like to use the analogy of an umpire in baseball. They are there to make a decision on the close calls. They are not supposed to make their own rules. We expect that umpires will make some unpopular calls-like calling someone out if they were safe, or calling a ball a strike. But, no one would tolerate the umpire calling a player out after only 2 strikes, or allowing one of the teams 4 outs in an inning. Kenneth Krause is right on. Many cities should and do ignore erroneous Supreme Court rulings, and have prevailed in court when sued for doing so. Go to Liberty Councils website for examples. "
Brian the Logger wrote on Apr 16, 2008 4:36 PM:
" I am sure my dear brother Kenneth would welcome any type of audit. His posts here are a breath of fresh air. He calmly states the facts, and when something is merely his opinion he states this. He is very cordial to those who disagree with him. He has more patience than I would trying to explain things to people. He seems to have done a great job interpreting the Constitution so far. The language of the First Amendment in not at all difficult to understand. "
I smell money wrote on Apr 16, 2008 4:02 PM:
" Does the IRS give rewards for turning in tax scofflaws? Somebody should suggest an audit of Ken Krause as he thinks he can interpet the Constitution. I bet he thinks he doesn't have to pay taxes because it goes against the Constitution. Break out the Bearcat, boys! "
To Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 16, 2008 2:45 PM:
" Except the Constitution, not the Bible, is the basis for our laws. If the Bible was our Constitution, you would have a point. But it isn't. With the Bible, if someone interprets something falsely, I can disagree and follow Biblical principles as I see fit. Same with you. Same with the next guy. But, we all must abide by the Constitution. When the people we trust to interpret the Constitution do so incorrectly, we must consider their interpretation irrelevant. Look at it like if the Bible was our Constitution, and the people we trusted to interpret it decided to add an 11th Commandment. Or a book after Revelations. Or decided a law was the same as a symbol. "
Bravo!!! wrote on Apr 16, 2008 2:32 PM:
" Hey, Did anyone catch Obama's so called elitist remarks a few days ago about you people clinging to your guns and religion? (chuckle) "
Kenneth Krause wrote on Apr 16, 2008 2:28 PM:
" Robert, you are totally misunderstanding my point. I refer you to my 9:57 am post in which I discussed the establishment clause. I didn't say only a law by Congress would be in violation. I pointed out any law(state or otherwise) would be in violation. I do not question this at all. You are correct-the 14th Amendment is clear.
Where the Supreme Court is in error is in stating a religious symbol on public property(in this case the cross on star hill) is in violation of the Constitution. Again, I point out that it clearly is not in violation, with respect to the 1st, 14th, or any other part of the Constitution. There is no law establishing religion-federal, state, or otherwise.
"
Bravo!! wrote on Apr 16, 2008 2:24 PM:
" Hey, Did anyone catch Obama's so called elitist remarks a few days ago about you people clinging to your guns and religion? (chuckle) "
To: Midwest atheist wrote on Apr 16, 2008 2:16 PM:
" Great point! "
Robert Freedland wrote on Apr 16, 2008 1:59 PM:
" I am so sorry to let all of you know that indeed citizenship preceded the 14th Amendment.
In fact, the first citizenship law (as best as I can ascertain) for the United States was passed by Congress on March 26, 1790 (http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage)
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the staes wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of the court, that he is a person of good character...." "
Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 16, 2008 1:54 PM:
" For those of you who think there is no room for different interpretations of the constitution, and you are right while Supreme Court Justices are wrong, here's another document for you to consider: The Bible. Here is a book that was also written for the layman, and lays out very clear mandates and punishments. Therefore we should execute homosexuals, adulterors, disobediant children, and those who work on the Sabbath. It is right there, easy to read, and obvious. No interpretation needed. Case closed. If you disagree then you are wrong, and you go against god's word. "
Robert Freedland wrote on Apr 16, 2008 1:42 PM:
" Ken,
Regarding the 1st Amendment and the comments about 'only laws that Congress might make' would be prohibited, this is simply an inaccurate statement. If we look at Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0310_0296_ZS.html)
the United States Supreme Court decided that it was clear that since the 14th Amendment that the 1st Amendment applied as well to the states:
"1. The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. P. 303.
2. The enactment by a State of any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof is forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 303."
This is really not seriously questioned.
"
Has it ever occurred to you? wrote on Apr 16, 2008 12:54 PM:
" The United States did not have any citizens prior to the 14th Amendment. All people living in the Union where citizens of their respective state. The Constitution and the Federal Government was a contract setup between the states and the states' citizens (a.k.a. the people). The federal government was a government to regulate and resolve disputes between states. It was setup very similar to how the European Union is setup today. While called we may have called them states, they were essentially countries called by another name. "
Clarification from Kenneth Krause wrote on Apr 16, 2008 9:57 AM:
" My post at 9:06am was not addressing Robert Freedland(although he is articulate in stating his position) or to myself, obviously. I was responding to the post in 2 parts to Robert Freedland. Anyway, Robert, I must totally disagree regarding the cross in Holmen being a "no-brainer" as far as the Establishment Clause. I would argue it is a "no brainer" in that it obviously DOESN'T violate the establishment clause. The establishment clause states that there shall be no law respecting an establishment of religion. There is no such law. The presence of the cross is not a law. I am not taking a position one way or the other whether the cross is a good idea. But, it is not unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruling was clearly in error. "
Kenneth Krause wrote on Apr 16, 2008 9:06 AM:
" Well said. I would add that there are separation of powers in the 3 branches of Government. The Supreme Court is not supposed to add things to the Constitution or make law, but rather interpret existing law. When they do overstep, it is our duty to reign them in. This is why many communities ignore the rulings, and they do end up prevailing when sued. See 4/14 9:19am post. It is unfortunate that Holmen chose not to do this. "
Robert Freedland wrote on Apr 16, 2008 9:02 AM:
" Ken,
Thanks for the kind words. We may or may not agree with Supreme Court rulings, and may indeed think they are right or wrong, but the fact stands that they are the law of the land.
Insofar as the cross in Holmen, this is clearly a violation of the First Amendment. This is a symbol supported by the public that is lit up as a Cross on Lent. This is a no-brainer insofar as an 'Establishment' issue.
The Supreme Court has wisely allowed displays of multiple religious celebrations in one place. But a Cross is clearly associated with the Christian religion and cannot be justified in its location. "
John wrote on Apr 16, 2008 8:55 AM:
" By "legal" I simply mean "allowed to happen/exist".
With time people just assume the status quo is correct. "
John wrote on Apr 16, 2008 8:53 AM:
" Just because something is "legal" does not mean it is Constitutional. Just because OSHA has been in operation for years and any challenges against it's Constitutionality haven't gone anywhere doesn't mean it is Constitutional. Just because someone is found "not guilty" does not mean they are innocent. "
Kenneth Krause wrote on Apr 16, 2008 8:30 AM:
" Robert Freedland is very knowledgeable about the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings. There is one point he doesn't grasp, and it is not so much a point regarding the Constitution itself as it is logic regarding court rulings. If the Supreme Court rules that a cross on public property violates the Constitution, and later the Supreme Court with different judges rules that a cross on public property does not violate the Constitution, one of those rulings is obviously wrong. Not just different, but wrong. So, in order for us to see if something truly violates the Constitution, we need to go to the Constitution itself. Not to Supreme Court rulings, which can be wrong. And, despite what some think SHOULD be the case, the presence of religious symbols on public property does not violate the Constitution. The rulings that say it does are in error. "
Davidinlse wrote on Apr 16, 2008 7:47 AM:
" I could really care less, but why did they not offer the land for sale for the best price? Seems if they are looking out for the Holmen taxpayers, they should have posted the land for sale and sought the best price. But then again, they are trying to skirt the real issue, and from what I see of the way they handled the entire situation, they only opened the town up for more legal action against them. "
Robert Freedland wrote on Apr 15, 2008 11:16 PM:
" The 13th Amendment (on nobility) failed to receive full approval. As noted in the same article: "Twelve states ultimately ratified TONA, not enough to make it part of the Constitution under Article V of the Constitution.(51)"
"Although Virginia did not reply to Adams' inquiry, its own legislative journals record that the state rejected TONA on February 14, 1811.(53)"
Some have suggested since lawyers are called Esquire, that the Amendment would have prohibited them from holding office.
"When TONA was submitted to the states in 1810, 17 states were members of the Union; 13 ratifications were required to make the amendment part of the Constitution.(120) But Louisiana was admitted to the Union on April 30, 1812; the number of state ratifications required to make TONA part of the Constitution thus rose to 14. Prior to that date TONA had received only 11 ratifications,(121) so it was never a single ratification short of immortality. New Hampshire ratified TONA on December 12, 1812,(122) again placing the amendment within two states of becoming part of the Constitution. But Indiana was admitted to the Union on December 11, 1816, and was followed by Mississippi on December 10, 1817 and Illinois on December 3, 1818, with no further ratifications emerging. By 1819, therefore, the threshold was 16 ratifications, and TONA fell four states short. If Virginia ratified at any time, it did not matter, but by 1819 it was far too late." "
Robert Freedland wrote on Apr 15, 2008 11:12 PM:
" The "missing 13th Amendment" is an interesting story. It was designed to 'prohibit titles of nobility'. Approved by the Senate by 19 to 5 vote on April 27, 1810, in the following form:
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain, any title of nobility, or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept any present, pension, office or emolument, of any kind whatever, from any Emperor, King, Prince or foreign Power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.(35)"
See: http://www.thirdamendment.com/missing.html "
Again... wrote on Apr 15, 2008 9:15 PM:
" "What is legal may change as laws and rulings change."
Correct, what is LEGAL might change depending on laws and rulings. But the laws and rulings can still be unconstitutional.
Remember, legality does not equal morality. What is legal may not be moral. What is illegal might be moral. What is immoral might be legal. And what is moral might be illegal. For everyone's sake I hope we all choose morality over legality...
This nation of legalities scares me. "
To Robert Freedland wrote on Apr 15, 2008 9:10 PM:
" "We are a nation of laws. What is legal may change as laws and rulings change."
From you say it doesn't sound like we are a nation of laws. It sounds like we are a nation of laws and rulings.
"That doesn't make one interpretation of the law wrong but merely different."
Now you are just aiming for your own foot. So my interpretation of the laws and Constitution aren't wrong when they aren't the same as the Supreme Court's, they are just different!
The Constitution does not change. It's interpretations by the Supreme Court might. The Supreme Court's rulings/decisions can in fact be WRONG. Their is an absolute truth. Sorry if you have not found it. "
To Robert Freedland wrote on Apr 15, 2008 8:58 PM:
" What do you know about the "missing 13th amendment"? Will/does your civic lesson cover it? "
To Robert Freedland wrote on Apr 15, 2008 8:53 PM:
" Thank you,
"We are NOT citizens of Wisconsin but rather citizens of the United States of America."
Read the 14th Amendment.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
"
Robert Freedland wrote on Apr 15, 2008 6:48 PM:
" I would encourage all students to learn to think for themselves. To understand the reason behind the various amendments to the Constitution. The thinking that goes on with each Supreme Court Decision. And to respect the law of the land which is our Constitution and for many years, the Decisions of the United States Supreme Court.
I believe that most Americans believe that in our country, every citizen should be considered equal in the eyes of the law, and should enjoy the freedoms and rights and obligations that his or her neighbor also enjoys. And that we all respect and appreciate our differences and worthiness of each of us. "
Robert Freedland wrote on Apr 15, 2008 6:46 PM:
" cont.
For any of you students out there, look up County of Allegheny et al. v. ACLU, Greater Pittsburgh (1989). In this decision, it was decided that a creche by itself was illegal.
As the Supreme Court noted:
"The government may acknowledge Christmas as a cultural phenomenon, but under the First Amendment it may not observe it as a Christian holy day by suggesting that people praise God for the birth of Jesus."
Same with the Cross which as you may recall has been illuminated during Lent, a very Christian holiday.
Thus the sale. "
Robert Freedland wrote on Apr 15, 2008 6:42 PM:
" Continuing our civics class,
We are a nation of laws. What is legal may change as laws and rulings change. That doesn't make one interpretation of the law wrong but merely different. We are inhabitants of various states. We are NOT citizens of Wisconsin but rather citizens of the United States of America.
Regarding the Cross in Holmen. The city government quickly moved to sell the Cross not because they didn't like it, but rather because they didn't have a legal leg to stand on. It is in clear violation of existing law which includes Supreme Court DECISIONS not merely "opinions".
"
Ha ha wrote on Apr 15, 2008 5:26 PM:
" It's funny when people agree with their own posts. "
To To Robert Freedland wrote on Apr 15, 2008 5:01 PM:
" Excellent posts. Robert Freedland should not be encouraging our youngsters to just accept all opinions as factual. He even touches on it himself. Supreme Court decisions can and do change with appointments. The Constitution does not change. Something is either in violation of the Constitution, or it is not. It is a logical fallacy to say "Well, this act violates the Constitution right now, but next year it may not violate the Constitution." If both the Constitution and the act in question remain constant, yet the Supreme Court opinion changed, that means the Supreme Court was in error AT LEAST ONE OF THE TIMES. This is a logical fact. And to make that determination as to which time, we do need to look at the Constitution itself. "
Oh and... wrote on Apr 15, 2008 4:57 PM:
" If you revoke your United States citizenship then you don't have to pay Social Security or Federal Income Taxes. But it's very difficult to do. The hardest part is convincing a jury. When most people don't know about it (for a reason...) it's hard for them to understand. It's sort of like jury nullification... "
Have you ever realized that... wrote on Apr 15, 2008 4:55 PM:
" citizens of the United States don't have Constitutional rights! They have civil rights. Civil rights are really just a clever name for privileges. Civil rights can be given and taken away. That's how Congress is able to pass so many laws these days. The laws they pass pertain to the citizens of the United States. And according to the 14th amendment the State's can't infringe on citizens of the United States privileges (that's why/how disability "rights" are enforced). You are also a citizen of the state you where born in. Most people don't realize that. (You have dual citizenship... if you look good and hard you can find how to revoke your United States citizenship.) "
Um... wrote on Apr 15, 2008 4:49 PM:
" 14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Where does it say Wisconsin can't declare a state religion? Declaring a state religion does not harm anyone. Forcing someone to observe or be a part of a religion does... that would be unconstitutional.
I see citizens of the United States protected... "
It all makes sense now! wrote on Apr 15, 2008 4:39 PM:
" So that's why Bush can just say and do what he pleases! He can write and say whatever he believes and wants to follow in executive orders because it's not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says so! His sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution is an oath to his own beliefs. Imagine how many fewer federal laws we would have if that amendment waiting to be voted on passed. The one where any law passed by Congress would need to be accompanied by a brief of where in the Constitution Congress is granted the authority to pass such law. "
To Robert Freedland(part 2) wrote on Apr 15, 2008 4:27 PM:
" Robert, court opinions can be wrong, which is why they are called opinions. If a poster had alleged that the presence of the cross violated an opinion of the Supreme Court, they would have received no argument from me. But, they alleged that it violated the Constitution when it clearly does not. That can be seen from your very own post supplying the exact text of the Constitution. So, for all students and civic-minded people out there: The Constitution does not prohibit the public display of religious symbols. And there are some Supreme Court decisions that are in error. And, we must always remain vigilant and "reign the courts in" when they overstep their authority and make law as opposed to simply interpreting them. Thanks for listening. "
To Robert Freedland wrote on Apr 15, 2008 4:21 PM:
" I don't disagree with most of what you state. In fact, before I read your post, I was going to point out to the "um" poster that the 14th Amendment protects people from their fundamental rights being impaired by the states. You even go on to supply the text of the First Amendment, which I commend you for. Most people whose personal agendass mirror your are afraid to do so. Robert, in a nutshell, the Constitution prohibits Congress and (as we have seen from your lesson)States and local Governments from making a law establishing religion. The Village of Holmen made no such law, so they were not in violation. "
Yay, Bob wrote on Apr 15, 2008 3:57 PM:
" Dude, your constitutional kung fu wails on the other guys, who just say, "Duh, where does it say in the Constitution that the government can't put up and pay for a lighted cross on public property?" You're my hero! Please say some more of that smart stuff. "
Robert Freedland wrote on Apr 15, 2008 3:28 PM:
" Continuing my Civics lesson: Since Marbury v. Madison (1803), the United States Supreme Court has had the right of judicial review. That ruling established the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and that the Supreme court was the ultimate authority of the Constitution.
Since that time, we are free to examine and debate the Constitution but the rulings of the Supreme Court define the law in the United States. We can disagree with the rulings and hope that future appointments will change those rulings, but until such time, they remain the 'law of the land'.
I hope some students are reading. "
Robert Freedland wrote on Apr 15, 2008 3:23 PM:
" For the record, here is the text of the First Amendment that I believe has been misstated several times here.
"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."
It is not simply a freedom of religion, it is also a freedom from religion. The 1st Amendment has that layer of complexity. There is a prohibition of what Government can do...the from religion part, and a guarantee of the rights of the people..the freedom of..part.
"
Robert Freedland wrote on Apr 15, 2008 3:19 PM:
" In "Jones v. City of Opelika, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)" the United States Supreme Court observed "It is only in recent years that the freedoms of the First Amendment have been recognized as among the fundamental personal rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states. 11 Until then these liberties were not deemed to be guarded from state action by the Federal Constitution. 12"
So at least in 1943, it was a relatively new concept that per the 14th Amendment, the 1st
Amendment applied to the States. After 65 years, I would have thought that information would have reached Holmen. "
Robert Freedland wrote on Apr 15, 2008 3:00 PM:
" Once again we find that the blogs are full of misinformation. I hope there aren't any young people reading who might be so miseducated. Whatever the impact of the 1st Amendment, since the passage of the 14th Amendment, as held in Everson v. Board of Education, the restrictions and directives apply to protect all liberties whether the question is at the federal, state, or local level.
We can argue about the impact and requirements of the 1st Amendment...and I am sure there will be plenty of discussion....but let's stick to the facts on jurisdiction....o.k.? "
Re 1:52?? wrote on Apr 15, 2008 2:50 PM:
" What am I missing? Who said this was needed to find their way to God? "
To To whomever wrote on Apr 15, 2008 2:24 PM:
" Who said anything about needing? "
To: whomever wrote on Apr 15, 2008 1:52 PM:
" Seek the truth. You shouldn't need lit symbols to find your path to God. "
Um... wrote on Apr 15, 2008 1:13 PM:
" Voice of reason wrote on Apr 15, 2008 11:55 AM:
" No one alleged anything went against a supreme court opinion. The allegation was that it violated the Constitution. I hardly think it is unreasonable to look at what the Constitution actually says to resolve the dispute. The language of the First Amendment is clear. "
You are correct. The language is clear. "CONGRESS shall make no LAW respecting an establishment of religion," Additionally, I don't read anywhere about LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES or state legislatures. I believe the tenth amendment reserves all rights not enumerated in the Constitution to the states. Therefore if the state of California wants to be communist they can. If the state of Wisconsin wants to proclaim Catholicism as the state religion, they can... "
Voice of reason wrote on Apr 15, 2008 11:55 AM:
" No one alleged anything went against a supreme court opinion. The allegation was that it violated the Constitution. I hardly think it is unreasonable to look at what the Constitution actually says to resolve the dispute. The language of the First Amendment is clear. "
Planet Stasiak to Oh Ok wrote on Apr 15, 2008 11:06 AM:
" You are pretty comical. The only thing you are able to offer up to support your position are the opinions of others. That means nothing when the allegation is that these opinions are wrong. You refuse to even look at what the Constitution says, clinging hopelessly to these other false opinions. Of course the Constitution is what you need! That is what this whole discussion is about. And you have the audacity to call others posting here idiots. Whatever. "
To 10:43am wrote on Apr 15, 2008 11:00 AM:
" The uneducated and uninformed tend to resort to name calling when they are proven wrong, so I won't fault you for that remark. See 10:36am post. Your position simply isn't supported by the facts. "
Question wrote on Apr 15, 2008 10:57 AM:
" So, would any of you have had a problem if the village had handled it as the 4/14 9:19am poster suggested? "
To Oh Ok wrote on Apr 15, 2008 10:55 AM:
" It would appear that you are the idiot, as you don't even think you are qualified to interpret the Constitution. The Constitution was purposelly written for laymen to understand. Anyone can interpret it. You should try it sometime, instead of just relying on others opinions. Those opinions can be and have been wrong. "
Oh OK wrote on Apr 15, 2008 10:43 AM:
" So everything we need to know is right there in the Constitution, and any old so-and-so is qualified to interpret what that means, ignoring two-plus centuries of legal opinions?
Are you some kind of idiot? "
To 9:50am wrote on Apr 15, 2008 10:36 AM:
" Well, this isn't foolproof, but a pretty good rule of thumb. When one side avoids discussing specifically what the Constitution says, they are probably in error. On the other hand, when the other side has no problem quoting the Constitution when making their point, they are probably correct. notme at 4/14 1:55pm quoted the part of the Constitution that this cross allegedly violates. I see no violation. Unless you or someone can point it out to me, I have no choice but to assume I am correct. "
To Oh Ok wrote on Apr 15, 2008 10:24 AM:
" You would dig out your copy of the Constitution(or google it online). Take it and compare it to the law, policy, Supreme Court opinion in question. Voila! You don't even need a law degree.
"
Oh, OK wrote on Apr 15, 2008 9:50 AM:
" How do you decide when the Supreme Court is making a legitimate interpretation of the Constitution and existing legislation and when it is "making law"?
Are you some kind of lawyer? "
To 9:25am wrote on Apr 15, 2008 9:36 AM:
" I don't care what your position is on this or any issue, but I find it bizarre that you can't see the value of having separation of powers between the 3 branches of Government. Why would you want appointed judges to have the power to make up new laws? That is not how it is. You sort of hit the nail on the head-they are supposed to interpret the Constitution and how laws fit into it. Sometimes they are correct in their interpretation. Sometimes they are incorrect. To see which it is in any particular case-you need to go to the Constitution itself. "
To Oh, ok wrote on Apr 15, 2008 9:29 AM:
" No, I am not an anarchist. You totally misunderstand. I am saying that the courts sometimes overstep their authority. They attempt to make laws rather than interpret laws. It is the role of the legislature(our elected representatives) to make laws. "
Oh, OK wrote on Apr 15, 2008 9:25 AM:
" So when the Supreme Court rules on the Washington, D.C., handgun ban or anything else, that just doesn't really matter? Why do you think they created a Supreme Court anyway? To interpret the Constitution and how laws fit into it. In case you haven't noticed, the role of the presidency has evolved since the country was founded, too, and just because you don't agree with how the Supreme Court rules or how the president rules, that doesn't mean you can ignore them.
Are you some kind of anarchist? "
To 4:05pm wrote on Apr 15, 2008 9:04 AM:
" It doesn't matter whether it would be "okay" with me or you or anyone else. It matters what the Constitution actually says if you are alleging a Constitutional violation. So far, you haven't done so. No need to bother citing Supreme Court decisions. I am aware of them, but they only offer their opinion. It is not their role to make new laws but rather to interpret existing laws. So, please share specifically-USING THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF-what and where the violation is. Thank you. "
To Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 15, 2008 8:26 AM:
" You still haven't responded as to what part specifically of the First Amendment this violates. Southeast Atheist may or may not be a parody, but if you look at your two posts, they do read somewhat the same way. You both allege violations of the First Amendment. Yet, when you are asked to cite the specific text, you are unable to do so. Instead, you just repeatedly insist it is a violation. "
I think not wrote on Apr 15, 2008 8:22 AM:
" Some of our laws were made to protect people from the tyranny of the majority. It's "majority rules" in some aspects of our society, but not all. "
Of religion wrote on Apr 15, 2008 7:34 AM:
" It is freedom "of" religion not "from" religion. Would you expect to move into a community of Mormons and not be exposed to the Mormon religion. Come on.., you move into a community of christians you are going to be exposed to christian thought and deeds.. Same as if you moved into a community of Atheists..
I am sick and tired of the majority buckling to the needs of the minority.. Democracy does not work that way. The laws are made to be interpreted by the majority.. "
Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 14, 2008 4:05 PM:
" Southeast Atheist is a troll who thinks he is clever by representing a false caricature of atheism. As far as the first amendment goes, displays like this are continually struck down- it is why the supreme court has ruled that a government can't have a Nativity scene alone on public property. Why is it so hard for you Christians to see this from the other perspective? Would it be okay with you if your community lit up a giant display with a star and crescent during Ramadan, to the exclusion of all other faiths? Government is to remain neutral in these matters, it is the only way it can remain impartial and fair to all. "
Southeast Atheist wrote on Apr 14, 2008 2:37 PM:
" You are lying! You are hiding part of what it says-I just know it! That is what the Freedom From Religion Foundation and my free thinker group tells me. Why should I believe you over them? "
Please wrote on Apr 14, 2008 2:35 PM:
" These are all the same arguements we heard last month. Some people agree some people don't. Please, let's move on, there is nothing we can do to change anything. I'm sure there are more important things going on in the area. "
To 10:17am wrote on Apr 14, 2008 2:33 PM:
" You are probably right, except one thing. The discussion isn't so much about religion as it is about the Constitution and what it actually says and what some people wish it said(see Southeast Atheist post). "
To notme wrote on Apr 14, 2008 2:31 PM:
" Did you see the letter from Justin Ahrens in the LaCrosse Tribune Friday? I believe that was meant to be satirical, as are the posts from midwest and southeast atheist. "
notme wrote on Apr 14, 2008 1:55 PM:
" Dear Southeast Atheist:
[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.]
I see nothing in the text about religious symbols on public land, and I DID look it up! "
Truth wrote on Apr 14, 2008 10:17 AM:
" Ohhh boy...here we go again. Now you all don't have to keep searching for the article from last month to carry out your religious bantering.
Again, I would like to state the simple truth and remove all the questions from this argument. In about 3-6 months, the star/cross will remain, people will forget, life will go on and we will have the star/cross shining bright for many more years. That is what it all comes down to, religion aside. "
Regarding First Post wrote on Apr 14, 2008 9:38 AM:
" MA, the city is trying to accomodate those taxpayers who don't wish to pay for the cross to be lit. They did what many other communities have done. Courts have upheld this action as being an acceptable solution. Having said that, I will echo the thoughts of another poster. The alternative(not selling the land and letting the cross remain) would have likely resulted in a lawsuit which the city would have won, and it would have cost them nothing. Go to Liberty Councils website and read about similar cases they have successfully defended at no charge. "
Southeast Atheist wrote on Apr 14, 2008 9:23 AM:
" Where did Christians ever get the idea that the First Amendment allows them to publicly express their faith? Well, us free thinkers will put a stop to that. The First Amendment clearly states "no religious symbols on public land". Look it up! "
Here is what should have happened wrote on Apr 14, 2008 9:19 AM:
" The village should have just held their ground and said "No, sorry Mr Barnes, the cross stays." Then if a lawsuit was filed, they should have gotten Matt Staver of Liberty Council to defend them. If other cases like this are any indication, he would have done so at no charge, and won. The reason Holmen and LaCrosse(with the 10 Commandments) back down is because they give in to bullying. In cases where the city stands up and fights and forces the court to address what the law and First Amendment ACTUALLY state, they win almost every time. "
To Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 14, 2008 9:04 AM:
" Please clarify yourself. Specifically, which part of the First Amendment does this violate? "
Jesus wrote on Apr 14, 2008 8:25 AM:
" Damn it must be boring in the little corrupt village of Holmen for this article to still be front page. Get a life and learn a little something from your swinger neighbors. "
notme wrote on Apr 14, 2008 7:25 AM:
" You demand the widest interpretation of the first amendment, demand the ability to "ram their faith (or lack there of) down everyone else's throat," and refuse to stand for the second amendment or Article 1, Section 25 of our state constitution.
Supporting ONLY the rights you agree with is hypocrisy. In fact, your comments sound just like those made recently by the leading democratic candidate. "
Don't worry wrote on Apr 13, 2008 6:46 PM:
" Don't worry. The Lions are morraly right and just always will be. As is the symbol of the cross. As long as the Lions own the star/cross it will be lit to remind us Chistians how lucky we are to have God and Christ in our lives. By the way, we have that right! "
Be careful what you wish for... wrote on Apr 13, 2008 1:50 PM:
" The Christians who want to ram their faith down everyone else's throat better watch out. If the Lions club ever has a shift in membership with different ideas from the board of trustees, they may find themselves looking at a giant Buddah, crescent and star of Islam, or an inverted pentagram.... You may then understand why it wasn't a good idea to put the cross up there in the first place. "
Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 13, 2008 1:45 PM:
" If the village of Holmen thinks that this will avoid a legal conflict, they are wrong. Holding a closed meeting with the Lions group, and not replying to other groups who have also submitted letters of intent to purchase that parcel of land, or others near it, gives plenty of opportunity for litigation. The intent of the Village could not be more clear, and that is to violate the First Amendment by parceling out a tiny piece of land that they would not do for any other group or for any other reason. It is really a disservice to the village of Holmen residents who paid for that entire piece of land for preservation and for a water tower. Now they will have to deal with a third party anytime they may need to do anything with that piece of land near the star/cross. "
Advertisement 
Advertisement 
