NationStates Jolt Archive

Judge orders S.C. to stop making "I Believe" license plates (http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20081211/NEWS/81211025/1001)

A federal judge on Thursday temporarily stopped the state from making and issuing "I Believe" religious license plates, granting a request from a group that had argued the plates showed an unconstitutional preference for Christianity.

U.S. District Court Judge Cameron McGowan Currie issued the preliminary injuction after finding that the statute creating the plate violated the constitutional establishment clause forbidding government from establishing a religion.

The license plate, approved by the Legislature, contains a stained glass emblem with a cross on it and the words "I Believe" on top. No plates have been distributed, though hundreds have been ordered.

"I am extremely disappointed in the court’s ruling, and feel the ‘I Believe’ license tag is completely constitutional," state Attorney General Henry McMaster said. "I will strongly urge and recommend that the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department of Corrections immediately appeal this decision to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals."

Currie found that for the purposes of an injunction, the law creating the plate didn’t have a secular purpose, didn’t have a primarily secular effect and entangled religion and government. To avoid an injunction, she said, the statute would have had to have passed all three parts of that legal test.

"I find it unlikely the act satisfies even one of these," she said.

Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a lawsuit earlier this year against DMV and the prison system, which makes all license plates, on behalf of some religious leaders and the Hindu American Foundation who claimed their First Amendment rights were infringed by the plates.

Lawmakers voted unanimously for the plates, and some said they wouldn’t vote for plates for minority faiths, Americans United argued.

Currie ordered that the state cease any production of the plates, stop taking any orders for them and provide for an alternative plate for those who have already paid for the plates until the lawsuit is decided.

Kevin Hall, a lawyer who argued the case for DMV, said officials would review the case to decide whether to appeal Currie’s ruling. "This is the first step in what likely will be a long-term process," he said afterward.

The ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina granting the preliminary injunction against the "I Believe" license plates may be found here (5 page, pdf). (http://www.scd.uscourts.gov/DOCS/I_Believe_Order.pdf)

Note: this is just a preliminary injunction, so the case may ultimately be decided differently. Still, based on what I've read the issue seems a pretty straight-forward application of the First Amendment.

I'm sure someone on these forums will disagree or shed new light on the matter.

I think the plates would be fine provided the state issue all religions plates at no extra cost to the ordered. that being Said I want a inverted pentagram with the words Hail Satan written on them.

Still, based on what I've read the issue seems a pretty straight-forward application of the First Amendment.It does seem pretty straight-forward. Nothing unusual about it, that I can see with my un-trained eyes. :p

I think the plates would be fine provided the state issue all religions plates at no extra cost to the ordered. that being Said I want a inverted pentagram with the words Hail Satan written on them.

IIRC, that was the judgment made about the "In God We Trust" plates. They had to let a humanist group get "In Reason We Trust" plates.

Or RAmen. :)

IIRC, that was the judgment made about the "In God We Trust" plates. They had to let a humanist group get "In Reason We Trust" plates.

That one I can see an argument for, it being the national motto and all.

That one I can see an argument for, it being the national motto and all.

i just want to drive around with satanic plates. whats wrong with that.

Americans United Applauds Federal Court Ruling Against South Carolina's 'Christian' License Plate. (http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=our_efforts_2008_sc_plates)
Federal Judge Blocks Issuance Of 'I Believe' Automobile Tag Featuring Cross And Stained-Glass Church Window

A federal judge today ruled that the state of South Carolina may not issue a special “Christian” license plate featuring a cross, a stained-glass window and the words “I Believe.”

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which sponsored the litigation to stop issuance of the plate, hailed the decision.

“The ‘I Believe’ license plate is a clear example of government favoritism toward one religion,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “The court drove home an important point: South Carolina officials have no business meddling in religious matters.”

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie today issued a preliminary injunction forbidding the state to issue or manufacture the plates. She also ordered the state to inform people who requested the plates that they will not be available and to remove information about the plates from the state Web site. Currie will release a written opinion on Monday.

Americans United brought the Summers v. Adams legal challenge on behalf of four local clergy the Rev. Dr. Thomas A. Summers, Rabbi Sanford T. Marcus, the Rev. Dr. Robert M. Knight and the Rev. Dr. Neal Jones as well as the Hindu American Foundation and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

In legal briefs, AU asserted that the “I Believe” license plate was unlike other specialty tags offered by the state. The measure authorizing the special plates was passed unanimously by both houses of the legislature, with the active support of Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer.

Americans United also pointed out that some legislators openly admitted that they would not vote for similar plates for minority faiths.

Asked by a reporter if he would support a license plate for Islam, Rep. Bill Sandifer replied, “Absolutely and positively no…. I would not because of my personal belief, and because I believe that wouldn’t be the wish of the majority of the constituency in this house district.”

Said AU Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan, “The ‘I Believe’ license plate sends the message that South Carolina has a favored religion. That’s one message the state is not permitted to transmit.”

Khan argued the case in Columbia before Judge Currie, assisted by AU Madison Fellow Elizabeth J. Stevens. Aaron J. Kozloski of Capitol Counsel, a Columbia, S.C. law firm, served as local counsel.


Read the Motion For Preliminary Injunction (http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/Mem._of_P_A_ISO_Motion_for_Preliminary_Injunction_FILED.pdf?docID=3441) (pdf)
Read the Lawsuit Complaint (http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/8-1-08_Summers_v._Adams_First_Amended_Complaint__Filed_w.pdf?docID=3461) (pdf)
Watch AU's Barry Lynn Debate the Issue on FOX News (http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=press_videos_viewer#license_plates) (video)
Read a Longer Story (http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=cs_&page=NewsArticle&id=9945)

That one I can see an argument for, it being the national motto and all.

The phrase itself may have been ruled constitutional, but the state still can't indicate preference for one religious viewpoint over another.

The Constitution only limits the Federal Government-I believe the state of South Carolina is not bound by Freedom of Religeon, though the Federal government is.

As long as they're optional and don't specify any particular religion I don't see a problem with them.

The Constitution only limits the Federal Government-I believe the state of South Carolina is not bound by Freedom of Religeon, though the Federal government is.The states are bound as well. What TCT said below. V

The Constitution only limits the Federal Government-I believe the state of South Carolina is not bound by Freedom of Religeon, though the Federal government is.

Um. The First Amendment applies to the states through incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)); Cantwell v. Connecticut (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=310&page=296), 310 U.S. 296 (1940) (free exercise of religion applies to states); Everson v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=330&page=1), 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (establishment clause applies to states).

EDIT: Just in case you think this is a liberal trick, here is an article on incorporation from the National Rifle Association (http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=23).

The Constitution only limits the Federal Government-I believe the state of South Carolina is not bound by Freedom of Religeon, though the Federal government is.

Fourteenth Amendment.

Edit: I have been preempted.

Hey, Indiana doesn't seem to be having any issues with this plate, which says, "In God We Trust"

http://www.in.gov/bmv/images/InGodWeTrust.jpg

It doesn't offer any other religious themed plates for free. Just the standard one, and an Abe Lincoln one.

well what if the left the over-the-top stained glass cross thing out and just had "i believe" without any religious symbol on it.

that would be OK wouldnt it?

Well yes, if it just said "I believe than it could mean anything. I believe in Barak Obama, I believe in the Grateful Dead, anything, it's really the cross that makes it religious.

I want to get a George Carlin commemorative licence plate issued that says, "Simon Says Go Fuck Yourself". In a few years, I'll recommend that for a postage stamp. *nod*

If they only had the "I believe" part left then someone coulkd combine that with the vanity plate "GODSEVIL"... :D

Well yes, if it just said "I believe than it could mean anything. I believe in Barak Obama, I believe in the Grateful Dead, anything, it's really the cross that makes it religious.

NO! it would obviously mean I believe in greed and death.

NO! it would obviously mean I believe in greed and death.

Greed and Death, Grateful Dead, same thing!

Greed and Death, Grateful Dead, same thing!

greed and death = god the universe everything.

greed and death = god the universe everything.

So, talk to a deadhead, and they will tell you Jerry Garcia is God, the Universe and everything.

So, talk to a deadhead, and they will tell you Jerry Garcia is God, the Universe and everything.

they are just stupid drugged out hippies. I am god the universe everything for the mostly sober man.

License plates created by the state should not support any one religion, and these clearly do.

If they wish to affirm their faith on their bumper (tacky in my opinion anyhow), let them get a custom plate holder or bumper sticker made by a private company.

License plates created by the state should not support any one religion, and these clearly do.

If they wish to affirm their faith on their bumper (tacky in my opinion anyhow), let them get a custom plate holder or bumper sticker made by a private company.

Well, first of all, In God We Trust, is not very specific to one religion, just faith in general, and second of all, it's optional, there are others avaliable.

Ooh! A plate that says, "My God has a bigger dick than your God!"

Well, first of all, In God We Trust, is not very specific to one religion, just faith in general, and second of all, it's optional, there are others avaliable.

In God we trust money?

Actually it's not.

Teddy Roosevelt tried to stop it since he thought it was an affront to God but the Christians went berserk so he grudgingly allowed it.

In God we trust money?

No, license plates.

Well, first of all, In God We Trust, is not very specific to one religion, just faith in general, and second of all, it's optional, there are others avaliable.

Everyone knows that it refers to the Judeo-Christian god. A Muslim might say it too, but a Buddhist, Hindu or a pagan probably wouldn't. The state can't endorse Abrahamic monotheism over polytheism, or religion over irreligion. The only reason "in God we trust" is considered constitutional is because it's "ceremonial deism" that has lost its meaning through rote repetition.

License plates created by the state should not support any one religion, and these clearly do.

If they wish to affirm their faith on their bumper (tacky in my opinion anyhow), let them get a custom plate holder or bumper sticker made by a private company.

Agreed. Although I wouldn't mind having a plate with a pentacle on it...

Personally, I do not see a problem with these number plates; if there is a standard number plate available, and also the I Believe one, then I am alright with it.

I think the plates would be fine provided the state issue all religions plates at no extra cost to the ordered. that being Said I want a inverted pentagram with the words Hail Satan written on them.

I would go for something more Huxley-style: "Praise thy Ford".

Also, why would one personalise his number plate? He's got THE WHOLE CAR to paint "I believe" or "I like mud" on it!

Btw, here in Italy (and I think, in most of the EU), it wouldn't be allowed. Number plates are to kept plain and standard: they also must be read with ease even by computer-steered systems (like for speed traps, areas with limited access to traffic etc).

Does it just say "I believe"?

How does that signify Christianity?

I believe could mean anything. "I believe in Allah", "I believe in Obama", "I believe in the free market" and even "I believe that the USA is the light on the hill"

Seriously what the hell is the judge talking about?

Does it just say "I believe"?

How does that signify Christianity?

I believe could mean anything. "I believe in Allah", "I believe in Obama", "I believe in the free market" and even "I believe that the USA is the light on the hill"

Seriously what the hell is the judge talking about?
The stained glass cross, perhaps?

Does it just say "I believe"?

How does that signify Christianity?

I believe could mean anything. "I believe in Allah", "I believe in Obama", "I believe in the free market" and even "I believe that the USA is the light on the hill"

Seriously what the hell is the judge talking about?

It's the symbol of the Cross that queers it.

Personally, I'd like an "I Don't Believe" licence plate.

Hey, Indiana doesn't seem to be having any issues with this plate, which says, "In God We Trust"

http://www.in.gov/bmv/images/InGodWeTrust.jpg

It doesn't offer any other religious themed plates for free. Just the standard one, and an Abe Lincoln one.

One could in theory argue that it assumes everyone believes in the Abrahamic God. It excludes those who are polytheistic and those who question the whole concept together. At least the background on the plate is tasteful. Nothing wrong with stars and stripes on an American plate.

Does it just say "I believe"?

How does that signify Christianity?

I believe could mean anything. "I believe in Allah", "I believe in Obama", "I believe in the free market" and even "I believe that the USA is the light on the hill"

Seriously what the hell is the judge talking about?

The very prominent cross adorning a stain-glass window-shaped object. It's a strongly Christian image. No other religion uses a cross as its symbol.

The phrase of "I Believe" if it stood alone would not have caused issue. It is as you've said, open to different meanings. It's the symbol on the left that gives the motto meaning.

Here are a couple of Canadian examples - in Ontario, our plates have the motto: "yours to discover"; Quebec has "Je me souveins" (translated as "I remember"). Both plates are white with blue lettering. In Ontario, you can get a personalized plate that includes a symbol, but it's at an extra cost. Without any symbol, both mottos are open to general interpretation.

The judge was most likely taking aim at the image that was put on the plate more than what was written.

There is no reason for the government to offer anything other than standard plates anyway. My legal responsibility is displayed with a standard, state issued license plate, My faith (actually my lack thereof) is displayed with an inverted pentagram plate (like the xtian fish plates) on my trunk.

The Constitution only limits the Federal Government-I believe the state of South Carolina is not bound by Freedom of Religeon, though the Federal government is.

This was true until 1868 with the passage of the 14th Amendment. You're a little behind on the times my friend... :)

I think there's a good argument for both sides. On the pro-license plate side, the money is not going to support the church, it is going to support the state. And while it is clearly a Christian plate (there is a Christian cross), the purpose behind separation of church and state as the founders saw it was to stop the state from sponsoring any one religion over another - thus creating a state religion a la Britain and the Church of England.

However, in this day and age, with untold evolution of the Constitution itself, separation of church and state has evolved as well. I think personally that fiscal support and ideological support are one in the same and that the license plate violates the colloquial interpretations we have of the Constitutions.

We had a debate about this topic in my Am Govt course. And there's a political scientist who believes we've taken separation of church and state too far in this country, if anyone wants to hear about his arguments too.

i just want to drive around with satanic plates. whats wrong with that.

Nothing

The phrase itself may have been ruled constitutional, but the state still can't indicate preference for one religious viewpoint over another.

Judging from the conditions mentioned in the OP I'd see an argument that displaying the national motto has a primarily secular purpose in showing patriotism or whatever.

I consider it silly that it's somehow allowed as the national motto given separation of Church and State, but there you are.

Hey, Indiana doesn't seem to be having any issues with this plate, which says, "In God We Trust"

http://www.in.gov/bmv/images/InGodWeTrust.jpg

It doesn't offer any other religious themed plates for free. Just the standard one, and an Abe Lincoln one.

We have a vinyl sign maker here at work. I've considered replacing God with Darwin.

Americans United Applauds Federal Court Ruling Against South Carolina's 'Christian' License Plate. (http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=our_efforts_2008_sc_plates)
Federal Judge Blocks Issuance Of 'I Believe' Automobile Tag Featuring Cross And Stained-Glass Church Window

<snip>

Americans United also pointed out that some legislators openly admitted that they would not vote for similar plates for minority faiths.

Asked by a reporter if he would support a license plate for Islam, Rep. Bill Sandifer replied, “Absolutely and positively no…. I would not because of my personal belief, and because I believe that wouldn’t be the wish of the majority of the constituency in this house district.”

Said AU Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan, “The ‘I Believe’ license plate sends the message that South Carolina has a favored religion. That’s one message the state is not permitted to transmit.”

<snip>


That right there ^^ cinches the whole argument for me. Clearly, not only is the state government deliberately endorsing one religion in violation of the First Amendment, but they are doing so in a knowingly and deliberately discriminatory manner.

I would go for something more Huxley-style: "Praise thy Ford".

Also, why would one personalise his number plate? He's got THE WHOLE CAR to paint "I believe" or "I like mud" on it!

Btw, here in Italy (and I think, in most of the EU), it wouldn't be allowed. Number plates are to kept plain and standard: they also must be read with ease even by computer-steered systems (like for speed traps, areas with limited access to traffic etc).

Because, when you customize you car it is annoying to have the plate not match.

Because, when you customize you car it is annoying to have the plate not match.

:hail:

The Constitution only limits the Federal Government-I believe the state of South Carolina is not bound by Freedom of Religeon, though the Federal government is.

. . . . .

no

i want a plate with only the words "i believe" and a sillowette of those little grey aliens in both upper corners.

or no words, and all the symbols of all the major religeons accross the top, all of exactly the same size and proprtions, including budism, taoism, hindu, shinto, and baha'i

Does it just say "I believe"?

How does that signify Christianity?

I believe could mean anything. "I believe in Allah", "I believe in Obama", "I believe in the free market" and even "I believe that the USA is the light on the hill"

Seriously what the hell is the judge talking about?

At some point you might want to start reading the threads you post in:rolleyes:

always the same fucking thing....

If they got an Islam license it would be like painting a bull's eye on your car. You have the right to be pulled over for "spot checks", "traffic violations", "parking violations", just cuz we feel like pissing you off.

There is no reason for the government to offer anything other than standard plates anyway.

There are reasons. Making more money or funneling money to a particular cause, for instance.

For instance, my plates encourage pet owners to spay/neuter their pets. Some of the extra money I paid for it goes to actually provide funds to humane societies and the like to do so.

There are reasons. Making more money or funneling money to a particular cause, for instance.

For instance, my plates encourage pet owners to spay/neuter their pets. Some of the extra money I paid for it goes to actually provide funds to humane societies and the like to do so.

Then why not just donate the money directly to the cause? They would get all of it that way.

Edit: At least your plate is a secular one. Meh, I am far too lazy/cheap to get a customized plate.

Then why not just donate the money directly to the cause? They would get all of it that way.

He still has to have a license plate.

Then why not just donate the money directly to the cause? They would get all of it that way.

Because this way my car is also a traveling advertisement for the cause. *nodnod*

Edit: At least your plate is a secular one. Meh, I am far too lazy/cheap to get a customized plate.

Yeah. I have no idea how many such plates GA does, but I don't know of any that aren't secular. They have them for football teams and the like too.

He still has to have a license plate.

True, but they get by with standardized plates in Europe. Of course we Americans wouldn't want to be seen as imitating those backwards Europeans.:tongue:

Because this way my car is also a traveling advertisement for the cause. *nodnod*



Yeah. I have no idea how many such plates GA does, but I don't know of any that aren't secular. They have them for football teams and the like too.

Good point.

Besides if you want to honor the All Mighty you can do what just about every other Christian does hang a cross from your rear view mirror or get a fish symbol.

When the Confederate states were let back in the Union, South Carolina, the state with the highest violent crime rate in the country, should have been excluded. Someone might want to tell these folks that consistently trying to circumvent fundamental American principles, such as the seperation of church and state, is not patriotic.

In addition to its “I Believe” license plates, as of last July, the South Carolina legislature had passed, and the governor had signed, a bill allowing the posting of the Ten Commandments and The Lord’s Prayer in public buildings. I don't know what's happened since then.

Now there is something of a catch here. They have to be included in a display with other designated "historical documents" such as the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta and Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream” address.

Including them with more secular documents is intended to allow the bill to pass constitutional scrutiny. So do you think this is fooling anyone? Let’s see what folks from South Carolina are saying (complete with the original spelling and grammar) about the bill on the Carolinas CW station blog shall we.

“Its about time! It should have never been taken down to start with! Maybe now we can get prayer back in schools! Its time for people to wake up and see that this country is NOTHING with out Jesus Christ!” - Chance

Doesn’t looked like Chance has any doubt that what matters is the RELIGIOUS significance of the documents does it?

“i think this is great ever body needs to see the ten commandment in the schools and buildings again it should had not been took down i am glad the house senate past the bill amen” – Travis

You figure Travis is happy that documents of such “historical significance” are being recognized? You think Travis has an IQ above 85? I'd have to say I doubt it on both questions.

“This is the 'bible belt' and I would suggest that individuals that don’t believe in God and the 10 Commandments find another place to call 'home'. It is time to bring the Commandments and prayer back into school.” – Wanda

Wanda certainly appears be interpreting the objective here as religious doesn’t she? God, and not history, appears to be what she considers the focus of the legislation.

“I am so happy to hear that God is back in school, God should never have been taken out, where there are so many precious lives.” – Tommie

Uh-huh. Gee Tommie and here I thought God was always everywhere?

Clearly even the trailer park set sees the motivation behind this legislature as getting God, Jesus and the Ten Commandments back into their rightful place in the public forum. Any of the historical documents they are to be displayed with are recognized to be no more than window dressing to try and get around the law and are pretty much not even worth mentioning.

To my mind this is another example of the dishonesty of Christians. Look, if you think it’s right to have religious displays in public buildings and public schools, then have the courage and honesty to admit that’s what you’re trying to do rather than engage in a subterfuge that any idiot can see through.

The last time I looked, everyone was still entitled to their own opinion. If you have an opinion about something, feel free to express it.

If you believe you're right, then you shouldn’t have to lie about your motives. If you feel the need to lie about your motives, then you must know that what you’re doing is wrong.

Allow me to provide one more quote.

“I believe that any philosophy that feels the needs to engage in misleading or dishonest conduct in order to promote itself or its beliefs is by definition a false philosophy unworthy of respect or adherence.” - Alencon

Not my words but kind of sums up how I feel.

I don't think Jesus or his apostles or the early Christians needed to have any kind of "signs" to show they were believers. It was obvious by their WAY OF LIFE.

I see many people in cars with "fish" and "Jesus" stickers etc. giving people the finger while driving, playing loud music and acting in other ways inappropriate for Christian people. Let your way of life show you are a Christian, that is was Jesus said and did.

When the Confederate states were let back in the Union, South Carolina, the state with the highest violent crime rate in the country, should have been excluded. Someone might want to tell these folks that consistently trying to circumvent fundamental American principles, such as the seperation of church and state, is not patriotic.

In addition to its “I Believe” license plates, as of last July, the South Carolina legislature had passed, and the governor had signed, a bill allowing the posting of the Ten Commandments and The Lord’s Prayer in public buildings. I don't know what's happened since then.

Now there is something of a catch here. They have to be included in a display with other designated "historical documents" such as the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta and Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream” address.

Including them with more secular documents is intended to allow the bill to pass constitutional scrutiny. So do you think this is fooling anyone? Let’s see what folks from South Carolina are saying (complete with the original spelling and grammar) about the bill on the Carolinas CW station blog shall we.

“Its about time! It should have never been taken down to start with! Maybe now we can get prayer back in schools! Its time for people to wake up and see that this country is NOTHING with out Jesus Christ!” - Chance

Doesn’t looked like Chance has any doubt that what matters is the RELIGIOUS significance of the documents does it?

“i think this is great ever body needs to see the ten commandment in the schools and buildings again it should had not been took down i am glad the house senate past the bill amen” – Travis

You figure Travis is happy that documents of such “historical significance” are being recognized? You think Travis has an IQ above 85? I'd have to say I doubt it on both questions.

“This is the 'bible belt' and I would suggest that individuals that don’t believe in God and the 10 Commandments find another place to call 'home'. It is time to bring the Commandments and prayer back into school.” – Wanda

Wanda certainly appears be interpreting the objective here as religious doesn’t she? God, and not history, appears to be what she considers the focus of the legislation.

“I am so happy to hear that God is back in school, God should never have been taken out, where there are so many precious lives.” – Tommie

Uh-huh. Gee Tommie and here I thought God was always everywhere?

Clearly even the trailer park set sees the motivation behind this legislature as getting God, Jesus and the Ten Commandments back into their rightful place in the public forum. Any of the historical documents they are to be displayed with are recognized to be no more than window dressing to try and get around the law and are pretty much not even worth mentioning.

To my mind this is another example of the dishonesty of Christians. Look, if you think it’s right to have religious displays in public buildings and public schools, then have the courage and honesty to admit that’s what you’re trying to do rather than engage in a subterfuge that any idiot can see through.

The last time I looked, everyone was still entitled to their own opinion. If you have an opinion about something, feel free to express it.

If you believe you're right, then you shouldn’t have to lie about your motives. If you feel the need to lie about your motives, then you must know that what you’re doing is wrong.

Allow me to provide one more quote.

“I believe that any philosophy that feels the needs to engage in misleading or dishonest conduct in order to promote itself or its beliefs is by definition a false philosophy unworthy of respect or adherence.” - Alencon


I like you. You should stay.

Not my words but kind of sums up how I feel.

I don't think Jesus or his apostles or the early Christians needed to have any kind of "signs" to show they were believers. It was obvious by their WAY OF LIFE.

I see many people in cars with "fish" and "Jesus" stickers etc. giving people the finger while driving, playing loud music and acting in other ways inappropriate for Christian people. Let your way of life show you are a Christian, that is was Jesus said and did.

Exactly...

I agree with Hebalobia. You post is too long to quote. The only thing I think is unfortunate is that the courts had to step in the first place. At the end of the day what does it really matter.

We waste so much time on issue like these when we could finding the cure for cancer or feeding the poor, or getting homeless off the streets. All of which are the way more "Christian" thing to do.

These are 10 old rules which are pretty much in one form or another are in all religions. They are kind of a common bond between Islam, Christian, and Jewish faiths. In one form or another they are in Buddhism as well.

From his post SC is clearly drawing battle line and You are in for fight.

"This is the 'bible belt' and I would suggest that individuals that don't believe in God and the 10 Commandments find another place to call 'home'. It is time to bring the Commandments and prayer back into school." – Wanda


Really Wanda and what if a Million Muslims decide to call your bluff then what would you do? This straight out of the Klu Klux Klan text book!

Fun fact: Virginia has the highest per capita amount of vanity plates in the nation!

I'm going to play devil's advocate for this thread since I don't think any of us are out-and-out supporters of the license plates in SC. First of all, Hebalobia, you make some good points but I don't think suggesting that South Carolina should be discluded from the union is one of them. I'm going to use the same line of reasoning here I use to argue that we shouldn't give statehood to northern VA and Puerto Rico - what would our flag look like with some number other than 50 stars? Now THAT would be a travesty.

However, back to my original point. The state Congress of SC put this plate into commission yes? Well, that is the very same Congress that was lawfully elected by the people of South Carolina. You might not agree with what they have to say, but these are the people who speak for the citizens of that state. If the voters of SC disagree with their Congress's stance on this issue then come next election they can vote them out of office and elect people who will overturn this law. If they agree, however, then this license plate represents the will of the people. If I might draw an analogy, there are many people who think that Barack Obama shouldn't be President, for a whole host of reasons. But! no one can say that he wasn't dutifully elected to his office. This is democracy, whether you like it or not. Judicial activism (the one involving courts overturning laws, not legislating from the bench) is established by precident in Marbury v. Madison, it is not written into the Constitution, and it is still up for grabs whether its a good or bad thing. Should judges like this (since he is a federal judge, he was appointed to his post by the President and confirmed by the Senate, not the voters of SC) be allowed to declare laws passed by, essentially, the people, unlawful?

This is the same argument for Prop 8 over in California. Sure, people are homophobic and it is ridiculous that we as a nation deny a bloc of people certain rights just because God-knows-what reasons. But we do, democratically, so you can't argue. All you can do is advertise and try and change people's minds.

However, back to my original point. The state Congress of SC put this plate into commission yes? Well, that is the very same Congress that was lawfully elected by the people of South Carolina. You might not agree with what they have to say, but these are the people who speak for the citizens of that state.

wellllllll

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


This is democracy, whether you like it or not.

A constitutional democracy.

Judicial activism (the one involving courts overturning laws, not legislating from the bench) is established by precident in Marbury v. Madison, it is not written into the Constitution, and it is still up for grabs whether its a good or bad thing.

Nonsense

Should judges like this (since he is a federal judge, he was appointed to his post by the President and confirmed by the Senate, not the voters of SC) be allowed to declare laws passed by, essentially, the people, unlawful?

Yes. Because that's how our country works.

This is the same argument for Prop 8 over in California. Sure, people are homophobic and it is ridiculous that we as a nation deny a bloc of people certain rights just because God-knows-what reasons. But we do, democratically, so you can't argue.

Sure we can argue. We can argue that things like racial segregation, entanglement with religion, and denial of fundamental rights are contrary to the supreme law of the land and, as such, are illegal.

And not only can we argue, but we can, and do, win. This is a constitutional democracy, and our constitution is supreme.

I don't like it when people reply to things with a single word. Nonsense? What does nonsense mean? Do I need to start citing sources? Taken from Wikipedia (the compendium of all human knowledge): "Marbury v. Madison is a landmark case in United States law. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution."

You should read my original post. I'm going to paraphrase: the Constitution has evolved over time in our minds and in our laws, but the actual document stays the same. Amendment 1 (the one dealing with religion) says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Its called the establishment clause. It has generally been interpreted in two ways: 1. that Congress won't make any laws establishing a national religion, and 2. that Congress won't make any laws showing preferential treatment of one religion over another or the support of a religion with no secular purpose. And in our minds this can certainly be said to prohibit this license plate. However, let's look at it from the founder's point of view. They were writing this document with an eye on England. England had a national church, established as I'm sure we all know by Henry VIII so he could get a divorce or some equally ridiculous reason. The founders were worried that a national religion could be established in the States as well, so they prohibited that from taking place.

This license plate hardly qualifies under those lofty goals. The revenue from this plate does not go towards SC's Christian churches, it goes towards the state of SC itself. The only "support" given is ideological, and even then it isn't the government of SC throwing their arms around Christianity - its just a license plate.

I guess my point is who really cares? You don't have to get one, just like you don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance (except in Texas, where you get executed if you don't), and you don't have to swear on a Bible (again, except in Texas, same rules). We're a nation of freedoms, and the freedom not to profess your love of God in a gaudy, personalized, vanity plate is one of those. The important thing to remember is that the government is not forcing religion on anyone, it is simply making it available to those who want it.

Yes. Because that's how our country works.
You go from saying we're a democracy to saying that the will of the people can and should be readily overturned by a single man appointed because the President said he should be. I just think the two are at odds.

What gets me is that people get all up in arms about license plates when Bush's faith-based initiatives get no attention at all. He is giving money to religious organizations. And he doesn't even try and hide it or pretend its equal!

Also, for the record, I am against the license plates because they are clearly support by the government of SC of one religion over the others, which is unconstitutional. But that isn't the only side.

it's really kinda cute that you presume to tell me what the Constitution of the United States says.

The important thing to remember is that the government is not forcing religion on anyone, it is simply making it available to those who want it.

As long as they're christian. Therein lies the problem

You go from saying we're a democracy to saying that the will of the people can and should be readily overturned
He said we are a constitutional democracy. We do not have a system where the majority can do anything it wishes. The rights of a minority, even a minority of one, are protected against the will of the majority. The majority can only enact laws which are consistent with the constitution.

You go from saying we're a democracy to saying that the will of the people can and should be readily overturned by a single man appointed because the President said he should be. I just think the two are at odds.

I don't think it's so much that you "think the two are at odds" as much as it is that you "don't know what the phrase constitutional democracy means"

I'm flattered you think so, but we just met. Looks aren't everything you know.

Which part of my explanation of the Constitution did you find so offensive? If you wish to detail your arguments with me, I'd love to hear them. But you can't really just throw something out there and leave it alone. Your assertion gets lonely without any argument to keep it company. Besides, the part on the Constitution was just information. I was trying to help people who don't know as much about arcane things like that as you and I do. Not everyone is a Constitutional scholar like you and I.

Why is that a problem? If Flying Spaghetti Monster-ists want a license plate, they should petition their state Senator. Yes, the Christian license plate is for Christians, no surprise there. The law doesn't prohibit other religions from getting license plates as well, but they have to do it just like the Christians did - through democracy.

Another problem you have, if you'll excuse my saying so: you keep making personal attacks on me. Make attacks on my argument! I can only speak for myself when I say I am a well-educated individual, but I certainly think you are as well. I know what the words "constitutional" and "democracy" mean and I know what it means when you put them together. All of these things you are saying makes it sound like you're simply taking sentences from my posts and criticizing them. Instead, please read the entire post and criticize the argument - take a holistic approach to your criticisms.

Why is that a problem? If Flying Spaghetti Monster-ists want a license plate, they should petition their state Senator. Yes, the Christian license plate is for Christians, no surprise there. The law doesn't prohibit other religions from getting license plates as well, but they have to do it just like the Christians did - through democracy.


This is the problem. The Senate said they would not approve of a license plate for another religion.

I know what the words "constitutional" and "democracy" mean and I know what it means when you put them together.
No, you obviously don't.

This is the problem. The Senate said they would not approve of a license plate for another religion.

From what I read, a Senator said that, but the Senate did not. I know that's nitpicking on my part, but I did say I was playing devil's advocate.

Tmutarakhan, make an argument and I will reply. I didn't call you stupid, and when you call me stupid I'm just going to ignore you. That's a absolutely ridiculous thing to say to anyone.

Actually, I will say one thing. It has nothing to do with your ... statements. But I think where we disagree is where the importance of the phrase (of whose meaning I am unaware) "constitutional democracy" lies. Is it on the "constitutional" or the "democracy"?

The constitution is a framework a guide for working out problems. At one time slavery was legal until the will of the people and several wars were won and finally it now illegal and in the constitution.

The constitution is a living breathing document it suppose to reflect the majority of the will of the people. Clearly not all the people or the majority of SC but the rest of apparently outnumber them.

Why is that a problem? If Flying Spaghetti Monster-ists want a license plate, they should petition their state Senator. Yes, the Christian license plate is for Christians, no surprise there. The law doesn't prohibit other religions from getting license plates as well, but they have to do it just like the Christians did - through democracy.

I guess you missed the part where the state Senate explicitly stated they would not do so.

And if your argument is "well then the people can elect senators that will!" then I'm sorry, but that argument fails. A violation of the constitution can not be made all better by saying "well, you can just elect people who won't violate the constitution!" To say such defeats the fundamental, and undeniable purpose of the constitution, to provide the supreme law of the land, that no government official, none of them may violate. A remedy to a constitutional violation is not "well, then next time just elect people who won't violate it!" it is to strip the offense from the law.

To do otherwise would be to defeat the fundamental purpose of the supremacy clause, which is, that since the constitution is supreme, we don't need to elect senators who will "fix" violations, as the violation is void the moment it's put into law. To suggest otherwise strips the supremace clause of all power and purpose.

I know what the words "constitutional" and "democracy" mean and I know what it means when you put them together.

No, no I don't think you do. If you did, you wouldn't try to make such a nonsensical argument that is not only factually incorrect on its face, but flies against the fundamental history of our nation, which is that we are not, were not, and were never intended to be, a pure democracy, and that "the will of the people" was ALWAYS intended to be tempered by constitutional limitations. Thus an appeal to "the will of the people" is meritless. As such, anyone who attempts to use such a fallacy in order to try to justify a violation of our constitution is either woefully ignorant of our history and laws, or simply doesn't care.

It's been an argument that has been tried, and failed, to justify segregation, restrictions on abortion, and discrimination.

It failed then, and it fails now.

As far as "the will of the people" versus so-called "activist judges" is concerned, this is not an easy question and will probably be fought over in democracies for as long as democracies exist.

Keep in mind that the courts have a responsibility to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Back in the 1950's and 1960's some states would have gleefully stripped all civil rights from blacks if the Federal Courts had not extended the protection of the 14th Amendment which states:

"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."

No state can deny the rights of any citizen nor fail to extend the equal protection of the law. In other word you cannot establish a hierarchy of citizenship where certain citizens have more legal privledges than others.

The problem is defining exactly what that means. Denying blacks the right to vote violates this principle; school sponsored prayer violates this principle as well as the 1st Amendment; granting special privledges to one religion MAY violate this principle in addition to the 1st Amendment; denying gay couples equal legal protection MAY violate this principle; denying gay couples the right to marry MAY violate this principle.

So-called activist judges are simply interpreting what violates the principle of equal protection and what doesn't. The "will of the people" is supreme UNLESS the majority attempts to curtail the rights of a minority as defined by the Constitution of the United States or the individual State Constitution.

The constitution is a living breathing document it suppose to reflect the majority of the will of the people.

No, it's not. The fact that it takes a supermajority of state legislatures, and not a simple majority vote, to amend it, makes that quite clear.

From what I read, a Senator said that, but the Senate did not. I know that's nitpicking on my part, but I did say I was playing devil's advocate.

It doesn't matter whether they explicitly refused or not. THey conferred a benefit to one faith and excluded others from receiving that same benefit.

That's promotion of one over the rest.

But I think where we disagree is where the importance of the phrase (of whose meaning I am unaware) "constitutional democracy" lies. Is it on the "constitutional" or the "democracy"?

why would you assume that one word is more important than the other? It's a form of democracy guided by a constitution.

Meanwhile you keep imploring others to "make an argument" but you haven't made one yourself. Just a failed fallacy of "but what about the majority??" that has been trotted out far too often in our nation's history to justify attrocity.

Tmutarakhan, make an argument and I will reply.I will repeat my argument, to which you did not reply:
"We do not have a system where the majority can do anything it wishes. The rights of a minority, even a minority of one, are protected against the will of the majority. The majority can only enact laws which are consistent with the constitution."
I didn't call you stupid, and when you call me stupid I'm just going to ignore you. That's a absolutely ridiculous thing to say to anyone.

I didn't call you "stupid". I did say that you do not understand what "constitutional democracy" means, and I stand by that statement.

I see many people in cars with "fish" and "Jesus" stickers etc. giving people the finger while driving, playing loud music and acting in other ways inappropriate for Christian people. Let your way of life show you are a Christian, that is was Jesus said and did.

Loud music is un-Christian? What if you're belting out hymns?

These are 10 old rules which are pretty much in one form or another are in all religions. They are kind of a common bond between Islam, Christian, and Jewish faiths. In one form or another they are in Buddhism as well.

Well, except for the purely religious ones. I don't think Buddhism has prohibitions against worshiping other gods before Yahweh or making graven idols or anything like that.


I'm going to play devil's advocate for this thread since I don't think any of us are out-and-out supporters of the license plates in SC.

Wee!

However, back to my original point. The state Congress of SC put this plate into commission yes? Well, that is the very same Congress that was lawfully elected by the people of South Carolina. You might not agree with what they have to say, but these are the people who speak for the citizens of that state. If the voters of SC disagree with their Congress's stance on this issue then come next election they can vote them out of office and elect people who will overturn this law. If they agree, however, then this license plate represents the will of the people.

Segregation laws also represented the will of the people.

There is a reason that the Constitution limits government action.

If I might draw an analogy, there are many people who think that Barack Obama shouldn't be President, for a whole host of reasons. But! no one can say that he wasn't dutifully elected to his office.

Of course, there's nothing in the Constitution - the basis of our governmental system - to keep Obama from being president. He meets the Constitutional requirements (unless you listen to a few crazies), so there's no need to invoke it.

This is democracy, whether you like it or not.

Not pure democracy, however, which - as the saying goes - is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Our governmental system is democratic, but it is tempered by constitutional limitations.

Judicial activism (the one involving courts overturning laws, not legislating from the bench) is established by precident in Marbury v. Madison, it is not written into the Constitution, and it is still up for grabs whether its a good or bad thing. Should judges like this (since he is a federal judge, he was appointed to his post by the President and confirmed by the Senate, not the voters of SC) be allowed to declare laws passed by, essentially, the people, unlawful?

If those laws violate the Constitution? Absolutely.

If there is no mechanism by which the Constitution can be enforced, why have one at all?

This is the same argument for Prop 8 over in California. Sure, people are homophobic and it is ridiculous that we as a nation deny a bloc of people certain rights just because God-knows-what reasons. But we do, democratically, so you can't argue. All you can do is advertise and try and change people's minds.

One absolutely can argue. The government is not permitted to deny equal protection to a subset of the population, no matter how many people vote in favor of doing so.

Let's face we are talking about people who watch too much leave it to Beaver and long for the good old days. It seems on the surface like such a minor issue. The absence of a symbol is a symbol.

What don't you Love Jesus enough to put him on your car?

or maybe

That guy does not have an "I Believe" he must be one those filthy (xyz fill in the slur ) here. It also allows me to hire people who only have "I believe" on the license. It allows me to refuse people to move into my building that do not have " I believe" on their car.

Let's face we are talking about people who watch too much leave it to Beaver and long for the good old days. It seems on the surface like such a minor issue. The absence of a symbol is a symbol.

What don't you Love Jesus enough to put him on your car?

or maybe

That guy does not have an "I Believe" he must be one those filthy (xyz fill in the slur ) here. It also allows me to hire people who only have "I believe" on the license. It allows me to refuse people to move into my building that do not have " I believe" on their car.It's not so much about putting Love Jesus on your car, but about an official state document (of sorts) having a similar message printed on it.

Judicial activism (the one involving courts overturning laws, not legislating from the bench) is established by precident in Marbury v. Madison, it is not written into the Constitution, and it is still up for grabs whether its a good or bad thing. Should judges like this (since he is a federal judge, he was appointed to his post by the President and confirmed by the Senate, not the voters of SC) be allowed to declare laws passed by, essentially, the people, unlawful?

This is utter nonsense that has been refuted before, so I'm going to repeat myself.

There is a difference between saying that the words "judicial review" don't occur in the Constitution and saying the concept isn't in the Constitution.

Please excuse the repetiveness below, but I've taken this from some prior posts of mine:

1. Judicial review is the very essence of the existence of the Supreme Court and is clearly provided for in our Constitution. See generally Article III (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/) and Article VI (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/) of the U.S. Constitution. This is spelled out at length in Marbury v. Madison (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=5&invol=137), 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) and, perhaps more importantly, in The Federalist #78 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm).

2. Where exactly in the Constitution is judicial review found?

Well, let's quickly note that Artice VI (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/) tells us that: "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

Let us also note that Article I (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/) and Article II (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/) fail to give final power to interpret the Constitution to either the executive or legislative branch.

So, let's now turn to Article III (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/), Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ..."

I think it inherent in the idea of judicial power that the Court has the power to interpret law. As Justice Marshall declared in Marbury (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=5&invol=137), "It is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." That this was intended by the Founders to be so read is confirmed by Federalist #78 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm): "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."

One also can look to the overall scheme of the Constitution, particularly the setting up of checks and balances. The judicial power to interpret law is the judiciary's primary check on the other branches. Without it, the system of checks and balances fails.

Regardless, in Article III (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/), Section 2, we are informed: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution ..."

Thus, any doubt that the Court has the power in both Law and Equity to rule on cases involving the meaning of the Constitution is removed. Such cases are emphatically within the judicial Power.

Finally, in Article III (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/), Section 2, we learn: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. "

Thus, the judicial power includes the jurisdiction over both fact and law questions in cases arising under the Constitution. Again, the Court has the power to interpret law, including the Supreme Law of the Land.

3. Where did the concept of judicial review come from? Judicial review did not spring full-blown from the brain of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury. The concept had been long known. The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. Judicial review in the English common law originated at least as early as Dr. Bonham's Case (http://plaza.ufl.edu/edale/Dr%20Bonham's%20Case.htm) in 1610. Judicial review was utilized in a much more limited form by Privy Council review of colonial legislation and its validity under the colonial charters. In 1761 James Otis, in the Writs of Assistance Case (http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/writs.htm) in Boston, argued that British officers had no power under the law to use search warrants that did not stipulate the object of the search. Otis based his challenge to the underlying act of Parliament on Bonham's Case, the English Constitution, and the principle of “natural equity.” John Adams subsequently adopted this reasoning to defend the rights of Americans by appeal to a law superior to parliamentary enactment. And there were several instances known to the Founders of state court invalidation of state legislation as inconsistent with state constitutions.

Practically all of the Founders who expressed an opinion on the issue in the Constitutional Convention appear to have assumed and welcomed the existence of court review of the constitutionality of legislation, and I have already noted the power of judicial review was explicity set forth in The Federalist Papers (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html). Similar statements affirming the power of judicial review were made by Founders duing the state ratifying conventions. In enacting the Judiciary Act of 1789 (http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm), Congress explicitly made provision for the exercise of the power, and in other debates questions of constitutionality and of judicial review were prominent.

And, as I have also noted, in the 200 years since Marbury the power of judicial review has been accepted and further expounded. If it were truly a mere power-grab, it could have long ago been nullified. Objections to judicial review motivated by a dislike for a specific line of caselaw are both historically inaccurate and rather tedious. (In writing this brief overview of some of the history of judicial review, I've relied on numerous sources beyond the original sources linked above. I wouldn't claim to have known all of the above off the top of my head. :))

4. Is judicial review valid? Another case you might check out that confirms the Court's power of judicial review is the unanimous decision in Cooper v. Aaron (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=358&invol=1), 358 U.S. 1 (1958):

As this case reaches us it raises questions of the highest importance to the maintenance of our federal system of government. It necessarily involves a claim by the Governor and Legislature of a State that there is no duty on state officials to obey federal court orders resting on this Court's considered interpretation of the United States Constitution. Specifically it involves actions by the Governor and Legislature of Arkansas upon the premise that they are not bound by our holding in Brown v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=347&invol=483), 347 U.S. 483. That holding was that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids States to use their governmental powers to bar children on racial grounds from attending schools where there is state participation through any arrangement, management, funds or property. We are urged to uphold a suspension of the Little Rock School Board's plan to do away with segregated public schools in Little Rock until state laws and efforts to upset and nullify our holding in Brown v. Board of Education have been further challenged and tested in the courts. We reject these contentions.
. . .
However, we should answer the premise of the actions of the Governor and Legislature that they are not bound by our holding in the Brown case. It is necessary only to recall some basic constitutional propositions which are settled doctrine.

Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation," declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, "to support this Constitution." Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers' "anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State . . . ." Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 524.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: "If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . ." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136. A Governor who asserts a power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases . . . ." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 397 -398.



5. More on the history of judicial review. I've already established that judicial review was not a new idea and had existed under common law. Here is more from Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Powers of the Federal Court 1801-1835, 49 U. Chi. L. Rev. 646, 655-656 (1982):

The Privy Council had occasionally applied the ultra vires principle to set aside legislative acts contravening municipal and colonial charters. State courts had set aside state statutes under constitutions no more explicit about judicial review than the federal. The Supreme Court itself had measured a state law against a state constitution in Cooper v. Telfair, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 14 (1800), and had struck down another under the supremacy clause in Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796); in both cases the power of judicial review was expressly affirmed. Even Acts of Congress had been struck down by federal circuit courts, and the Supreme Court had reviewed the constitutionality of a federal statute in Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171 (1796). Justice James Iredell had expressly asserted this power both in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793), and in Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798), and [Justice] Chase had acknowledged it in Cooper. In the [Consitutional] Convention, moreover, both proponents and opponents fo the proposed Council of Revision had recognized that the courts would review the validity of congresssional legislation, and Alexander Hamilton had proclaimed the same doctrine in The Federalist.

6. Also, I'll note the following from A. Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch 15-16 (1965):

[It] is as clear as such matters can be that the Framers of the Constitution specifically expected that the federal courts would assume a power -- of whatever exact dimensions --to pass on the constitutionality of actions of the Congress and the President, as well as of the several states. Moreover, not even a colorable showing of decisive historical evidence to the contrary can be made. Nor can it be maintained that the language of the Constitution is compelling the other way.


7. On the question of judicial vs. legislative supremacy, Hamilton explains in Federalist #78 (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_78.html):

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.



Again, the above is from several prior posts of mine on the subject. Feel free to show where I am wrong.

My posts are too long. Funny because I tend to be a quiet guy. I'll keep this short. :$

Here's the bottom line, the "will of the majority" is supreme UNLESS its will is to curtail a right of the minority. In that case the courts are the bastion of last resort to protect that minority from the "tyranny of the majority."

That's what the 14th Amendment says AND one role of the courts in our government of "checks and balances."

Fun fact: Virginia has the highest per capita amount of vanity plates in the nation!

I'm going to play devil's advocate for this thread since I don't think any of us are out-and-out supporters of the license plates in SC. First of all, Hebalobia, you make some good points but I don't think suggesting that South Carolina should be discluded from the union is one of them. I'm going to use the same line of reasoning here I use to argue that we shouldn't give statehood to northern VA and Puerto Rico - what would our flag look like with some number other than 50 stars? Now THAT would be a travesty.

However, back to my original point. The state Congress of SC put this plate into commission yes? Well, that is the very same Congress that was lawfully elected by the people of South Carolina. You might not agree with what they have to say, but these are the people who speak for the citizens of that state. If the voters of SC disagree with their Congress's stance on this issue then come next election they can vote them out of office and elect people who will overturn this law. If they agree, however, then this license plate represents the will of the people. If I might draw an analogy, there are many people who think that Barack Obama shouldn't be President, for a whole host of reasons. But! no one can say that he wasn't dutifully elected to his office. This is democracy, whether you like it or not. Judicial activism (the one involving courts overturning laws, not legislating from the bench) is established by precident in Marbury v. Madison, it is not written into the Constitution, and it is still up for grabs whether its a good or bad thing. Should judges like this (since he is a federal judge, he was appointed to his post by the President and confirmed by the Senate, not the voters of SC) be allowed to declare laws passed by, essentially, the people, unlawful?

This is the same argument for Prop 8 over in California. Sure, people are homophobic and it is ridiculous that we as a nation deny a bloc of people certain rights just because God-knows-what reasons. But we do, democratically, so you can't argue. All you can do is advertise and try and change people's minds.

There is a rather substantial difference between a pure democracy and our Constitutional Republic.

You do not appear to understand the concepts of rights or equal protection under the law.

These are not matters for popular vote.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

Why is that a problem? If Flying Spaghetti Monster-ists want a license plate, they should petition their state Senator. Yes, the Christian license plate is for Christians, no surprise there. The law doesn't prohibit other religions from getting license plates as well, but they have to do it just like the Christians did - through democracy.

And this is the problem. It essentially means that only the majority religion will get recognized. In other words, the government gives preferential treatment to one religion above others.

If you honestly think the state legislature would approve a Muslim or Wiccan or FSM license plate, I'd have to call you dangerously naive.

Now, if the law basically allowed someone of any faith to have a license plate which celebrated (including the absence of such), it would be much less of a problem.

Actually, I will say one thing. It has nothing to do with your ... statements. But I think where we disagree is where the importance of the phrase (of whose meaning I am unaware) "constitutional democracy" lies. Is it on the "constitutional" or the "democracy"?

Can't it be on both? The "democracy" part means that the people have a say in their government through voting. The "constitutional" part means, among other things, that they are limited in what they can do with that power.

The constitution is a living breathing document it suppose to reflect the majority of the will of the people. Clearly not all the people or the majority of SC but the rest of apparently outnumber them.

Actually, the Constitution, was quite clearly meant to restrict the power given to the will of the people - by keeping certain things outside the realm of government.


The problem is defining exactly what that means. Denying blacks the right to vote violates this principle; school sponsored prayer violates this principle as well as the 1st Amendment; granting special privledges to one religion MAY violate this principle in addition to the 1st Amendment; denying gay couples equal legal protection MAY violate this principle; denying gay couples the right to marry MAY violate this principle.

No "MAY" about it. Unless you're going to claim that gay people are not people, denying them equal protection DOES violate the principle.

So-called activist judges are simply interpreting what violates the principle of equal protection and what doesn't. The "will of the people" is supreme UNLESS the majority attempts to curtail the rights of a minority as defined by the Constitution of the United States or the individual State Constitution.

This is true, in the sense of what the judges are doing.

My posts are too long. Funny because I tend to be a quiet guy. I'll keep this short. :$

Here's the bottom line, the "will of the majority" is supreme UNLESS its will is to curtail a right of the minority. In that case the courts are the bastion of last resort to protect that minority from the "tyranny of the majority."

Actually, it's that the will of the majority is supreme unless it violates the Constitution (state or federal). Many possible violations of the Constitution involve violating specific individual rights, but there are other possible violations as well.

This was true until 1868 with the passage of the 14th Amendment. You're a little behind on the times my friend... :)

I think there's a good argument for both sides. On the pro-license plate side, the money is not going to support the church, it is going to support the state. And while it is clearly a Christian plate (there is a Christian cross), the purpose behind separation of church and state as the founders saw it was to stop the state from sponsoring any one religion over another - thus creating a state religion a la Britain and the Church of England.

However, in this day and age, with untold evolution of the Constitution itself, separation of church and state has evolved as well. I think personally that fiscal support and ideological support are one in the same and that the license plate violates the colloquial interpretations we have of the Constitutions.

We had a debate about this topic in my Am Govt course. And there's a political scientist who believes we've taken separation of church and state too far in this country, if anyone wants to hear about his arguments too.

Meh. Feel free to share what this one political scientist claimed, but be prepared to be challenged.

1. As to the meaning of the First Amendment, see Everson v. Board of Education (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#16), 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

2. Lest anyone think that the above is some recent (1947:confused:) invention of a liberal Supreme Court, in 1878, the US Supreme Court explained in Reynolds v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/98/145.html ), 98 US 145 (1878), the history of the First Amendment and the involvement of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. The Court then said (emphasis added):

Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.

3. Further, although the particular phrase from Jefferson's letter of a "wall of separation of Church and State" is commonly cited, the concept and the language of separation of Church and State was commonly used by other Founding Fathers. James Madison, in particularly, repeatedly referred to and advocated a "perfect separation" of Church and State. Here are just a few examples (emphasis added):

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

To come a little bit to Virginia defense. What if you hire a judge with express purpose of overturning roe. v. wade. Eventually they will find something they can over turn it on.

Or for whatever reason Mr. Bush wanted to punish SC there putting judges in that expressly go against wishes and the majority of a whole state.

I think we are all in agreement it is bad idea but for reasons that outside the law more in the application of that law.

What I don't understand is when one law can trump another. You can argue this case the exact opposite way and find support.

If you ask me the difference is better lawyers or more lucky ones were on the winning side. Not implying this is over.

What I don't understand is when one law can trump another.
The US Constitution trumps anything. Federal legislation, if constitutional, trumps anything in state law. Within the states, the state constitution trumps state legislation.

So why is illegal for gay marriage in CA but is okay in CT?

So why is illegal for gay marriage in CA but is okay in CT?Because there's nothing in the constitution on gay marriage perhaps?

Or for whatever reason Mr. Bush wanted to punish SC there putting judges in that expressly go against wishes and the majority of a whole state.And the will of the state is going to be denied every time it seeks to support one religion over another.

So why is illegal for gay marriage in CA but is okay in CT?...Non-sequitur? o_0;

From what I read, a Senator said that, but the Senate did not. I know that's nitpicking on my part, but I did say I was playing devil's advocate.

Actually, according to the second article posted by the OP, one senator was quoted saying that, but the state senate voted for this issue unanimously, suggesting that most of them think as the quoted sample person does.

Actually, according to the second article posted by the OP, one senator was quoted saying that, but the state senate voted for this issue unanimously, suggesting that most of them think as the quoted sample person does.

Exactically! :wink:

Also, more on this from the plaintiff's brief in support of the preliminary injunction:

Both before and after its passage, the bill provoked extensive public comment from state
officials. In an Associated Press account disseminated May 13, 2008, State Senator J. Yancey
McGill, one of the bill’s sponsors, declared that he “welcome[d] any religion tags.” (Ex. 8, Jim
Davenport, SC lawmakers have religion on minds, in bills, The Associated Press, May 13, 2008.)
Yet when asked about Wicca, McGill retorted, “Well, that’s not what I consider to be a religion.”
(Id.) When queried about Buddhism, McGill hedged: “I’d have to look at the individual
situation. But I’m telling you, I firmly believe in this tag.” (Id.) In his personal blog, State
Senator Kevin L. Bryant expressed similar ambivalence: “I guess I’d have to admit I could
support a plate for the Jewish community, yet would be very uncomfortable with a plate for
scientology.” (Ex. 9, Kevin L. Bryant, i believe we’re going to court, in Blog From the
Backbench (June 20, 2008), http://kevinbryant.com/2008/06/.) During a June 24, 2008,
interview with a local journalist, State Representative Bill Sandifer proved more blunt: he would
“[a]bsolutely and positively no[t]” support a bill creating a license plate expressing belief in
Islam. (Ex. 10, Andrew Moore, Group Fighting Against Christian License Plate, Upstate Today,
June 24, 2008, http://www.upstatetoday.com/news/2008/jun/24/group-fighting-against-christian-license-plates/.)
He continued: “I can’t tell you what 169 of my colleagues would do. But I would not [support
such a bill] because of my personal belief, and because I believe that wouldn’t be the wish of the
majority of the constituency in this house district.” (Id.)

In an Associated Press interview on June 12, 2008, Lieutenant Governor R. André Bauer
dismissed doubts about the plate’s legality, opining that “[p]eople who support Judeo-Christian
values are ever under fire now. . . . It’s like they expect folks who are believers just to roll over
because they’re scared of the ACLU.” (Ex. 11, Seanna Adcox, SC first to get ‘I Believe’ license
plates, The Associated Press, June 12, 2008; see also Ex. 24, Official Website of Lieutenant
Governor R. André Bauer, http://ltgov.sc.gov/ (last visited Nov. 11, 2008) (stating his “proud and
unrelenting” support for the plate, making clear that the plate advances a Christian message,
declaring that the plate “reflects core values” of the state, and poking fun at “freethinkers” with
contrary beliefs).)

So why is illegal for gay marriage in CA but is okay in CT?

Completely irrelevant, but I'll answer anyway.

Although marriage is a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution and denial of marriage on the grounds of gender or sexual orientation violate the Equal Protection Clause, the federal courts have not yet so ruled. Given the current make-up of SCOTUS, it is unlikely they will so rule anytime soon --despite the weight of precedent.

Nonetheless, states have constitutions too. And several state courts have held that banning same-sex marriage violates their respective state constitutions. In some states, like CA, opponents of same-sex marriage have responded to this "threat" by changing the state constitution. (We have yet to learn whether they will be successful legally in CA.)

Exactically! :wink:

Also, more on this from the plaintiff's brief in support of the preliminary injunction:

Both before and after its passage, the bill provoked extensive public comment from state
officials. In an Associated Press account disseminated May 13, 2008, State Senator J. Yancey
McGill, one of the bill’s sponsors, declared that he “welcome[d] any religion tags.” (Ex. 8, Jim
Davenport, SC lawmakers have religion on minds, in bills, The Associated Press, May 13, 2008.)
Yet when asked about Wicca, McGill retorted, “Well, that’s not what I consider to be a religion.”
(Id.) When queried about Buddhism, McGill hedged: “I’d have to look at the individual
situation. But I’m telling you, I firmly believe in this tag.” (Id.) In his personal blog, State
Senator Kevin L. Bryant expressed similar ambivalence: “I guess I’d have to admit I could
support a plate for the Jewish community, yet would be very uncomfortable with a plate for
scientology.” (Ex. 9, Kevin L. Bryant, i believe we’re going to court, in Blog From the
Backbench (June 20, 2008), http://kevinbryant.com/2008/06/.) During a June 24, 2008,
interview with a local journalist, State Representative Bill Sandifer proved more blunt: he would
“[a]bsolutely and positively no[t]” support a bill creating a license plate expressing belief in
Islam. (Ex. 10, Andrew Moore, Group Fighting Against Christian License Plate, Upstate Today,
June 24, 2008, http://www.upstatetoday.com/news/2008/jun/24/group-fighting-against-christian-license-plates/.)
He continued: “I can’t tell you what 169 of my colleagues would do. But I would not [support
such a bill] because of my personal belief, and because I believe that wouldn’t be the wish of the
majority of the constituency in this house district.” (Id.)

In an Associated Press interview on June 12, 2008, Lieutenant Governor R. André Bauer
dismissed doubts about the plate’s legality, opining that “[p]eople who support Judeo-Christian
values are ever under fire now. . . . It’s like they expect folks who are believers just to roll over
because they’re scared of the ACLU.” (Ex. 11, Seanna Adcox, SC first to get ‘I Believe’ license
plates, The Associated Press, June 12, 2008; see also Ex. 24, Official Website of Lieutenant
Governor R. André Bauer, http://ltgov.sc.gov/ (last visited Nov. 11, 2008) (stating his “proud and
unrelenting” support for the plate, making clear that the plate advances a Christian message,
declaring that the plate “reflects core values” of the state, and poking fun at “freethinkers” with
contrary beliefs).)
Yep, seems like SC needs to be reminded -- again -- what country they're located in.

Amending the California Constitution by voter initiative requires a simple majority to be enacted.[4] A constitutional amendment passed by the electorate takes effect the day after the election.[4] On the evening of November 4 the "Yes on 8" campaign issued a statement by Ron Prentice, the chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, saying "The people of California stood up for traditional marriage and reclaimed this great institution."[5] The organizers of the "No on Prop 8" campaign issued a statement on November 6 saying "Tuesday's vote was deeply disappointing to all who believe in equal treatment under the law."[6]

So why not pull the same act again and amend the SC state constitution to allow religious license plates?

Amending the California Constitution by voter initiative requires a simple majority to be enacted.[4] A constitutional amendment passed by the electorate takes effect the day after the election.[4] On the evening of November 4 the "Yes on 8" campaign issued a statement by Ron Prentice, the chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, saying "The people of California stood up for traditional marriage and reclaimed this great institution."[5] The organizers of the "No on Prop 8" campaign issued a statement on November 6 saying "Tuesday's vote was deeply disappointing to all who believe in equal treatment under the law."[6]

So why not pull the same act again and amend the SC state constitution to allow religious license plates?

Because it is the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that is violated by the religious license plates. :headbang:

And, before you suggest it, amending the U.S. Constitution is not as easy as amending the California Constitution. (And, note, it is now before the California Supreme Court whether Prop. 8 will actually amend the Cal. Const. or not.)

So why is illegal for gay marriage in CA but is okay in CT?

Bigotry?

So why not pull the same act again and amend the SC state constitution to allow religious license plates?

because this involves the first and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which is significantly harder to amend than California's "50% +1" method. To the point where I don't think you're going to find a majority of 3/5 of the state legislatures in favor of eliminating the first amendment.

Very interesting I guess we will have to see how it plays out. I have no vested interest in either just promoting discussion.

We were taught the "Lemon test" in gradeschool when the morning prayer was eliminated. Maybe that's old law, but it made enough sense to me even at that age. Nothing simple survives, I guess. :p

We were taught the "Lemon test" in gradeschool when the morning prayer was eliminated. Maybe that's old law, but it made enough sense to me even at that age. Nothing simple survives, I guess. :p

:confused:

The District Court in this case applied the Lemon test. The "I Believe" Act didn't just violate one of the three prongs (which is sufficient for a constitutional violation) -- it violated all three prongs.

EDIT: For those not familiar with it, the Lemon test comes from Lemon v. Kurtzman (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/403/602.html), 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Thepurpose of the Lemon test is to determine when a law has the effect of establishing religion. The test has served as the foundation for many of the Court's post-1971 establishment clause rulings. As articulated by Chief Justice Burger, the test has three parts -- all of which a statute must pass:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose;

second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion;

finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

Separation of Church and State should be adhered to in ALL cases, in ANYTHING having to do with Government...

*nods*

:confused:

The District Court in this case applied the Lemon test. The "I Believe" Act didn't just violate one of the three prongs (which is sufficient for a constitutional violation) -- it violated all three prongs.[/INDENT]

Woah, so they did. :tongue: The language was even there almost verbatim, staring at me in paragraph five, but I missed it, assuming I was out of date. I guess my habit of remembering "simpler times" was way off base here. Good to know.

Woah, so they did. :tongue: The language was even there almost verbatim, staring at me in paragraph five, but I missed it, assuming I was out of date. I guess my habit of remembering "simpler times" was way off base here. Good to know.

No worries. You get extra credit for even knowing what the Lemon test was. :wink:

I want to get a George Carlin commemorative licence plate issued that says, "Simon Says Go Fuck Yourself". In a few years, I'll recommend that for a postage stamp. *nod*

Or Carlin's Commandments:

1. Thou shalt always be honest and faithful, especially to the provider of thy nookie.

2. Thou shalt try really hard not to kill anyone, even if they pray to a different sky-dwelling, invisible avenger than you do.

3. Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.

Or Carlin's Commandments:

1. Thou shalt always be honest and faithful, especially to the provider of thy nookie.

2. Thou shalt try really hard not to kill anyone, even if they pray to a different sky-dwelling, invisible avenger than you do.

3. Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.

Yay! :D

Now, if the law basically allowed someone of any faith to have a license plate which celebrated (including the absence of such), it would be much less of a problem.

The law does allow that, though. It is legal for anyone to put a religious sticker on her/his car.

What worries me more than the "equal availability" of different religious license plates is the issue of why the state is involved in the first place. This is the "excessive entanglement" prong of the Lemon test. There's absolutely no need for the state to take this step.

So why is illegal for gay marriage in CA but is okay in CT?

Because California's process for introducing ballot initiatives and amending the state constitution is 17 kinds of messed up.

So why not pull the same act again and amend the SC state constitution to allow religious license plates?

Because that would go to SCOTUS, as the gay marriage ban eventually will, but much more quickly, probably.

No "MAY" about it. Unless you're going to claim that gay people are not people, denying them equal protection DOES violate the principle.


I agee with you but I was trying not to open that can of worms here which is why I said "MAY."

Besides, the Supreme Court has not yet made that decision so one cannot definitively say that denying gays the right to marry violates the principle of equal protection under the law YET. However I expect that decision within the next 10 years.

In the meantime, New Jersey is on track to legalize gay marriage through legislative action in 2009 and it would be the first state to do so.

That should shake up the religious right.

The law does allow that, though. It is legal for anyone to put a religious sticker on her/his car.

Religious sticker != religious license plate.

What worries me more than the "equal availability" of different religious license plates is the issue of why the state is involved in the first place. This is the "excessive entanglement" prong of the Lemon test. There's absolutely no need for the state to take this step.

No, there isn't.

Because California's process for introducing ballot initiatives and amending the state constitution is 17 kinds of messed up.

And there's the difference between amendments and revisions and all that weirdness.


Besides, the Supreme Court has not yet made that decision so one cannot definitively say that denying gays the right to marry violates the principle of equal protection under the law YET. However I expect that decision within the next 10 years.

One can certainly say it. The Supreme Court may be the authoritative legal institution on this, but one need not have a decision from them in hand to examine the law.

And even if the Supreme Court ever declares otherwise, I will continue to assert that denial of equal protection to all citizens is unconstitutional. =)

In the meantime, New Jersey is on track to legalize gay marriage through legislative action in 2009 and it would be the first state to do so.

That should shake up the religious right.

They'll find some way to blame it on "activist judges". hehe

Well this isn't very 'let the slaves have their religion'. Or maybe it is. I can't figure it out.

Either way it's a nonsensical waste of time. As long as religions get tax breaks, I really can't find it in me to care about this sort of thing one way or another. It's just more of the petty nonsensical crap that people distract themselves with while really bad shit is going on.

I'm sort of glad that there is going to be an economic collapse. It is the enema that society sorely needs.

because this involves the first and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which is significantly harder to amend than California's "50% +1" method. To the point where I don't think you're going to find a majority of 3/5 of the state legislatures in favor of eliminating the first amendment.You mean 3/4, which is a significantly larger fraction.