----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Klemetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I don't think it would be because it sounds treasonous or something like
that. When one
governing body goes against the orders of a higher court, then that first
body is violating
the constitution by that action. If the people or these government bodies
want to add religious
symbols, they can amend the constitution to allow it, not defy the
interpretation of it by the
body that the constitution designates.
Under the criteria you are setting forth, any government that assisted
escaping slaves post-Dred Scott was guilty of treason or something like it.
After all, to paraphrase what you have said, "If the people or these
government bodies want to aid escaping slaves, they can amend the
constitution to allow it, not the defy the interpretation of it by the body
that the constitution designates." It might well be illegal, and they might
engage in it as an act of civil disobedience (which has a long history) but
it can hardly qualify as anything akin to treason.
Brad Pardee
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
