Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

[QC]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

Well Techno, I actually self debated that one. Are you sure it's f'ed?

 

[technostingray]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

Well Techno, I actually self debated that one. Are you sure it's f'ed?

First of all I am not sure what f'ed means. I don't know if it is incorrect. It is just a gut reaction. Don't you think it reads better the way I proposed - grammertickley correct or not? Perhaps some of those better versed will come to our aid. I am better versed on errors of number and tense than infinitives and modifiers. The media doesn't adhere to the classic rules as well as it once did.

 

[QC]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

F'ed is QC, iboats slang for "technoed up" . . . Agree on your observations. I concluded that it sounded a little pretentious the other way. That's how anal my level of internal debate is. . .

 

[jtexas]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

The Government protects Native American religious sites and practices. Why is this OK?


...in furtherance of Federal treaties...

asked and answered

 

[QC]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

Can we have a Treaty that is unconstitutional? Ya know, I ask this stuff as discussion, not to fight, but it still seems like precedence to me . . .

 

[PW2]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

The Government protects Native American religious sites and practices. Why is this OK? Is this "telling (you) which god (you) need to believe in"? Is this the Government "endorsing one brand over another"?

FWIW, this just occurred to me this morning. I am sure it is not what I think it is, or wait, maybe it is . . .

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites, 1996 24 May
Executive Order 13007--Indian Sacred Sites

May 24, 1996
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, in furtherance of Federal treaties, and in order to protect and preserve Indian religious practices, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Accommodation of Sacred Sites.

(a) In managing Federal lands, each executive branch agency with statutory or administrative responsibility for the management of Federal lands shall, to the extent practicable, permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent with essential agency functions, (1) accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and (2) avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. Where appropriate, agencies shall maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites.

It is impossible to completely extricate all aspects of religion from laws and treaties of this nation, nor would it be desirable to do so.

That is why we have courts, so we can determine where the line is, and when is that line crossed and not crossed. Personally, I see no conflict with a Federal treaty protecting Native heritage sites, and the seperation clause.

But that's me, and perhaps others would disagree, and that's why we have courts---and why the legislative branch should stay out of the court's business.

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

The Government protects Native American religious sites and practices. Why is this OK? Is this "telling (you) which god (you) need to believe in"? Is this the Government "endorsing one brand over another"?

FWIW, this just occurred to me this morning. I am sure it is not what I think it is, or wait, maybe it is . . .

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites, 1996 24 May
Executive Order 13007--Indian Sacred Sites

May 24, 1996
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, in furtherance of Federal treaties, and in order to protect and preserve Indian religious practices, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Accommodation of Sacred Sites.

(a) In managing Federal lands, each executive branch agency with statutory or administrative responsibility for the management of Federal lands shall, to the extent practicable, permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent with essential agency functions, (1) accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and (2) avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. Where appropriate, agencies shall maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites.

It is impossible to completely extricate all aspects of religion from laws and treaties of this nation, nor would it be desirable to do so.

That is why we have courts, so we can determine where the line is, and when is that line crossed and not crossed. Personally, I see no conflict with a Federal treaty protecting Native heritage sites, and the seperation clause.

But that's me, and perhaps others would disagree, and that's why we have courts---and why the legislative branch should stay out of the court's business.

So you the courts to make the laws now? I thought that is what the legislative branch was for.

 

[QC]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

It is impossible to completely extricate all aspects of religion from laws and treaties of this nation, nor would it be desirable to do so.

But it is OK, in fact, desirable to remove all religious symbols from public view?

Personally, I see no conflict with a Federal treaty protecting Native heritage sites, and the seperation clause.

Do you simply add in what you want, and then chastise others for ignoring what they want? Seems like a contradiction to me. I am not interested in simply picking apart your argument as I believe in leaving the branches to do what they were intended to do as well. Don't you need a literal interpretation to do just that? No new words, and no removals either? I think that is what the Judicial Branch is supposed to do . . .

BTW, my pasted note includes protection of "religious ceremonies" as well as sites. That omission from your reply seems like a convenient edit to me.

 

[jtexas]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

So you the courts to make the laws now? I thought that is what the legislative branch was for.

The courts make laws. It's how our legal system was designed. It's called stare decisis, or "precedent"; a court interprets a law to fit a particular set of circumstances, that interpretation becomes law for future cases where the circumstances are the same. It's a centuries-old concept.

 

[technostingray]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

The courts make laws. It's how our legal system was designed. It's called stare decisis, or "precedent"; a court interprets a law to fit a particular set of circumstances, that interpretation becomes law for future cases where the circumstances are the same. It's a centuries-old concept.

Sorry jtex, laws are enacted. The courts interpret the law and decisions become precedents which become part of the law. Civil law and criminal law are quite different in thier application but precedents apply equally as in the Miranda decision....

 

[jtexas]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

Semantics. precedent is "law of the land", courts are "making law".......the term for a law that is enacted by a legislature is "statute". As in "statutory law". Then, at the federal level there are "regulations" issued by governmental agencies, such as for example the Treasury Department which issues "Treasury Regs" to interpret the Internal Revenue Code (technically, "United States Statutes, Title 26"), which are sort of psuedo-law, or in other words, presumed law until challenged in court. A court of what? Court of Law.

This has been my experience, but I'm no lawyer, so if I'm mistaken please let me know.

thanks.

 

[technostingray]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

I am no lawyer but your are definitely wrong, you would make a good lawyer but probably a poor judge.

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

Well Techno, I actually self debated that one. Are you sure it's f'ed?

Confucius Say: Man who debate self.....
Is truly a master debater! d

 

[technostingray]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

Well Techno, I actually self debated that one. Are you sure it's f'ed?

Confucius Say: Man who debate self.....
Is truly a master debater! d

Atta boy Wino, flaunt that stupidity.

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

So you the courts to make the laws now? I thought that is what the legislative branch was for.

The courts make laws. It's how our legal system was designed. It's called stare decisis, or "precedent"; a court interprets a law to fit a particular set of circumstances, that interpretation becomes law for future cases where the circumstances are the same. It's a centuries-old concept.

I think you may be wrong, maybe. I am no lawyer, but I did stay at a Holidan Inn Express.....

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blinstst.htm#26

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Legislative_branch

 

[jtexas]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

Congress makes "Laws", but not all law comes from congress. Not something you want to confuse citizenship candidates with.

here's some good reading material on how "the law" gets made:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
an excerpt:

Common law as opposed to statutory law and regulatory law: The first connotation differentiates the authority that promulgated a particular proposition of law. For example, in most areas of law in most jurisdictions in the United States, there are "statutes" enacted by a legislature, "regulations" promulgated by executive branch agencies pursuant to a delegation of rule-making authority from a legislature, and "common law" decisions issued by courts (or quasi-judicial tribunals within agencies). This first connotation can be further differentiated, into (a) laws that arise purely from the common law without express statutory authority, for example, most of the criminal law, contract law, and procedural law before the 20th century, and (b) decisions that discuss and decide the fine boundaries and distinctions in statutes and regulations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis


not sure if you were aware that you cited from the "Simple English Wikipedia" - here is description of the "Simple Wikipedia:

Simple English uses fewer words and easier grammar than the original English Wikipedia. This is not its only difference. It is for people with different needs: students, children, and adults with learning difficulties.

source: simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_English_Wikipedia

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

Congress makes "Laws", but not all law comes from congress. Not something you want to confuse citizenship candidates with.

here's some good reading material on how "the law" gets made:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
an excerpt:

Common law as opposed to statutory law and regulatory law: The first connotation differentiates the authority that promulgated a particular proposition of law. For example, in most areas of law in most jurisdictions in the United States, there are "statutes" enacted by a legislature, "regulations" promulgated by executive branch agencies pursuant to a delegation of rule-making authority from a legislature, and "common law" decisions issued by courts (or quasi-judicial tribunals within agencies). This first connotation can be further differentiated, into (a) laws that arise purely from the common law without express statutory authority, for example, most of the criminal law, contract law, and procedural law before the 20th century, and (b) decisions that discuss and decide the fine boundaries and distinctions in statutes and regulations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis


not sure if you were aware that you cited from the "Simple English Wikipedia" - here is description of the "Simple Wikipedia:

Simple English uses fewer words and easier grammar than the original English Wikipedia. This is not its only difference. It is for people with different needs: students, children, and adults with learning difficulties.

source: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_English_Wikipedia

I knew where I got the quote. It was for my pupose, as well as others who aren't quite as well versed or educated as some. Besides, I hate all those big, funny looking words. d

Could you give me some examples of those laws that you linked to? I'm not trying to argue, just want to learn.

 

[technostingray]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

I can find you a bigger shovel if you like.

 

[jtexas]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

here's a good analysis from the University of Texas of case law related to the statute that prohibits the carrying of weapons.

http://www.utsystem.edu/pol/weapons.html

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006

here's a good analysis from the University of Texas of case law related to the statute that prohibits the carrying of weapons.

http://www.utsystem.edu/pol/weapons.html

Guess I'm still confused, because the last paragraph starts with: "The law on unlawful carrying arms is intended to be specific", so what makes that a statute and not a law, passed by the state legislation?