Moses is one of the figures in the Supreme Court. Of the Ten
Commandments, though, only 2 are included-- the prohibitions on murder and
adultery. The I-X on the front panel is the Bill of Rights, not the Ten
Commandments.
Steve Jamar wrote:
plus
Moses is on the mural in the Supreme
Even if that is true, to only put the Ten C. is historically
inaccurate and to claim it is "historical" is pretextual. Put up a
monument with great law givers from history and Moses gets in there
(not the Ten C. however); but he would be one of many. If you put up
the 10 C alone then you have
Just to make clear where I stand, again. I think the display of the 10 commandments is a violation of the establishment clause. Period.
I was responding to the question about predicting what the Court might do by in part sketching a way in which the Court might do it and justify itself in doing
On Wednesday, March 2, 2005, at 08:39 AM, Paul Finkelman wrote:
Even if that is true, to only put the Ten C. is historically inaccurate and to claim it is historical is pretextual.
Of course it is. But my point was, again, that the Court could well do exactly that no matter how much you
I was at the Pew Forum event. Doug was indeed excellent, as was
Jay Sekulow arguing the other side. My prediction, like Art Spitzer's,
is that Justice O'Connor will vote to uphold one but not both displays
(and Justice Breyer may join her). O'Connor famously does this
kind of splitting
Title: Re: Ten Commandments
If it is going to be historical, perhaps the representation should be as in Exodus 32:15. Written on both sides of two tablets and probably in Hebrew.
Alan
Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong
Serving the Family and Small Business Since 1984
18652 Florida St., Suite
In a message dated 3/1/2005 6:26:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I hesitate to ask this, but does anyone on the list genuinely think that either of the displays in these cases is constututional?
Of course both displays are constitutional.
After listening to oral
Jim-- I don't know what docent you are talking to, but the Court's
historian took me on a personal tour andexplained to me atsome
lengththat the tablets in the front are not the ten commandments, but
rather the "Bill of Rights," by which he meant the first ten amendments, of
course.It is
The bill of rights refers in common and professional parlance to the first 10 amendments, not to amendments 1-12. Mr. Henderson, what were the other two articles? I looked at the webpage and still see only the first 10 amendments. I don't know whether the I-X is the 10 commandments or the bill
Not only that, but if you click on Mr.
Hendersons link, and then Read transcript, followed by
clicking the link to Amendments 11-27, it eventually notes that
Constitutional Amendments 1-10 make up what is known
as The
Bill of Rights.
Amendments 11-27 are listed below.
So Mr.
Congress sent 12 amendments to the
states. 10 were ratified in 1791, 1 was ratified in the 1990s, and 1
remains unratified. So a copy of the Bill of Rights as sent to the states
for ratification would have 1-12. I copy of the engrossed Bill as ratified
would have 1-10.
Douglas Laycock
I think there is a difference between control and having a decent
respect to the opinions of mankind which some of the framers seemed to
think was important in 1776.
Alan Brownstein
UC Davis
At 10:08 PM 3/1/2005 -0800, you wrote:
It's a little hard to predict because I am not familiar with
I don't think that the ECHR would prohibit states-parties from displaying
the 10 Commandments because the ECHR allows state establishments of
religion. If the ECHR is reflective of customary international law, the
Establishment Clause would be evidence of the U.S.' persistent objection to
such
In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:55:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mr. Henderson, what were the other two articles?
Article the First sets the number of representatives to at one for every thirty thousand until there is attained a total of 100 representatives, etc., etc.
Alan:
True. The differnece is that the founders thought they were right and the rest
of the world wrong.
Richard Dougherty
A.E. Brownstein wrote:
I think there is a difference between control and having a decent
respect to the opinions of mankind which some of the framers seemed to
think
Those articles are not part of the bill of rights.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2005, at 02:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:55:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mr. Henderson, what were
the other two articles?
Article the First sets the number of
And consistent with having a decent respect to the opinions of mankind,
it would be appropriate for an American constitutional court to explain why
American constitutional law reaches a different conclusion with regard to
state establishments of religion than do other Western democracies, just
For a narrative and pictorial explanation of the display of the bill of
rights, see
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/tour/frieze-east-from-courtroom-entry.
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get
Or this one.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/eastwestwalls.pdf
Christine Corcos
Associate Professor of Law
Faculty Graduate Studies Program Supervisor
Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University
Associate Professor, Women's and Gender Studies Program
LSU AM
W325 Law Building
1
US law on establishment is decidedly different from that of most of the world. Indeed, most states do not have a prohibition on establishment, just a guarantee of free exercise. I do not think that the US needs to have establishment law as it does to preserve religious freedom, but as it has
In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:45:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't know what docent you are talking to, but the Court's historian took me on a personal tour andexplained to me atsome lengththat the tablets in the front are not the ten commandments, but rather the
In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:45:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't know what docent you are talking to, but the Court's historian took me on a personal tour andexplained to me atsome lengththat the tablets in the front are not the ten commandments, but rather the
Folks: (1) Even if you think a fellow list member's position is nonsense,
don't say it. Say it's mistaken, or unsound, or turns out not to be the case.
It's more persuasive, more conducive to sound discussions, and more likely to
shed heat than light.
(2) This is especially so if your
In a message dated 3/2/2005 1:11:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not only that, but if you click on Mr. Hendersons link, and then Read transcript, followed by clicking the link to Amendments 11-27, it eventually notes that
Constitutional Amendments 1-10 make up what is
Thank you, Gene, for your usual levelheadedness. Jim, I think the
link that was provided to the Supreme Court will make it clear what was intended
by the Court. You, of course, may have your viewpoint.
Marci
___
To post, send message to
In a message dated 3/2/2005 2:45:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Those articles are not part of the bill of rights.
Professor Jamar, I am prepared to read and weigh an argument justifying the assertion. But the bare assertion is not sufficient. I don't dispute Doug
Folks: The question whether the phrase the Biil of Rights should be
understood as referring to the first ten amendments, or the first twelve
proposed amendments, is fascinating. It is not terribly relevant to the law of
government and religion. One could have a great discussion about it,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:45:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't know what docent you are talking to, but
the Court's historian took me on a personal tour andexplained to me
atsome lengththat the tablets in the front are
In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:25:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim, I think the link that was provided to the Supreme Court will make it clear what was intended by the Court.
Well, to the contrary, and I thinkthe discussion of these issues is related to how we
In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:35:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I'm reading Mr. Henderson correctly, he is actually arguing that the artist who carved them is wrong about what they represent? If the artist who carved the frieze isn't the authoritative source on what
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:35:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I'm reading Mr. Henderson correctly, he is actually
arguing that the artist who carved them is wrong about what they
represent? If the artist who carved the
MSNBC has just published a somewhat detailed account of the oral arguments. I link to it here.
RickRick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902Red State Lawblog: www.redstatelaw.blogspot.com"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow
You think that at any time in the 20th century the term Bill of Rights referred to 12 articles instead of the first 10 ratified amendments? Let me see the history to prove that assertion. Your assertion on this list is the first time I have ever heard the US Bill of Rights as other than the
In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:52:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim, to be blunt, you're just not making much sense here. You appear to have spent the last hour arguing that the tablets on the frieze represent the Ten Commandments.
I realize that foolish consistency is
In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:55:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim, you are just wrong on this one in terms of what the "Bill of Rights" means.
Enough already, and no more. The term "Bill of Rights" means precisely whatever Humpty Dumpty says it means. After all, he
Title: Message
Folks: Really,
please, this is not on-topic for the list. I think Jim has acknowledged
that the meaning of the words has changed. I take it that he has not only
taken back the harshness of the language, but has implicitly agreed that it's
not currently a linguistic error to
If the early news reports on today's oral argument are accurate, Justice
Scalia argued that government may memorialize and endorse overtly and
exclusively religious beliefs accepted by a substantial majority of the
polity -- without regard to history or context. Are those reports correct?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:52:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim, to be blunt, you're just not making much sense here.
You appear to have spent the last hour arguing that the tablets on the
frieze represent the Ten
Let me add one thing to my last reply. I would agree that where we have
a very clear understanding of the intent of the framers, we should
certainly refer there first in terms of constitutional interpretation.
I just don't think it's nearly as simple an application as many people
pretend, nor
Out of historical curiosity, when was the phrase "Bill of Rights" first used?
Francisco Forrest Martin
President
Rights International, The Center for International Human Rights Law, Inc.
- Original Message -
From:
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: 3/2/2005 4:24:54 PM
Subject:
Alan:
I think this would be appropriate in a document like the Declaration of
Independence, but not in every court decision that is handed down; doesn't it
suffice to know that we have different laws, and that's why we have different
results? The claim of the
Declaration, though, is a
I am not a supporter of 10 Commandments displays, and the following point,
in my view, does not fundamentally change the proper result in these cases.
But I don't agree with Steve Jamar's claim that it is really just one sect,
protestants, that push to establish state sponsorship or endorsement of
Ok, but I've not seen Catholics or Jews or Muslims pushing for:
prayers starting school
prayers at football games
using religious arguments as superior to positive law
young-earther anti-evolution creationism
creches
I do not recall seeing any Catholics or Jews pushing this as part of their
Well, Allegheny involved a creche donated by a Catholic group,
and a menorah. There was also a Ninth Circuit involving a meonrah
display in a public park; I believe the Chabad people (quite Orthodox
Jews) put it up. I'm not sure what using religious arguments as
superior to positive law
Let
me add to my esteemed colleagues remarks. There is also no
evidence that Catholics, Jews, Muslims, or other religious minorities, have
been making life difficult for yet other religious minorities. Those who
have chronicled the treatment of religious minorities in this country since,
With all due respect, Mark, I don't know if the principles of the
Declaration support the display of the Ten Commandments. But I do agree
that the question is an important one.
-Original Message-
From: Scarberry, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:24 PM
To:
I have read these debates with interest. I was an expert in the
Alabama case and have a forthcoming article in Fordham Law Review that
is cited in some of the briefs. The article should be out very very
soon. I have final page proof, however, and can e-mail it to anyone
interest in reading it.
In response to Steve:
Prayers starting school: It's not much of a live issue now, but when the
original school prayer case came out, a number of Catholic bishops (most
notably Cardinal Spellman of NY) strongly criticized it on the ground that
it would secularize the public schools. On other
To follow up on Eugene's point:
Historically, most of the attempts to obtain public funding of religious
education have been by Catholics. A lot of people (not including me) have
seen such attempts as serious assaults on the religious liberty that is
maintained by strong non-Establishment norms.
Tom-- What is "artificial secularization"? I've never heard
that term before.
Marci
In a message dated 3/2/2005 8:10:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
think
that we avert our eyes to reality if we don't acknowledge
thattraditionalist believers from different
What federal building in Washington has something that would need to be sandblasted off? I spent a decade looking, and didn't find anything.
Ed Darrell
Dallas (now)[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/1/2005 6:26:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I hesitate to
51 matches
Mail list logo
