- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Unconstitutional
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:29 am to Lg
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:29 am to Lg
quote:
Which isn't in the Constitution. Congress shall make no law.
Yes it is. 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment. Everson v. Board of Education in 1947 interpreted the constitution and held that the 14th Amendment did apply to the Establishment Clause as well.
1
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:33 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Were the INDIVIDUAL players forced to put a cross on their helmet or "in their INDIVIDUAL capacity" did they choose to put a cross on their helmet?
Irrelevant. The public entity that owns the rights to that equipment cannot favor/promote religion over non-religion. Allowing religious symbols on equipment that they own and which portrays their logo violates the Establishment Clause.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:37 am to Lg
Since when are individuals allowed to put whatever they want on a uniform? What's next? Iron Maiden stickers?
Can a couple of fellows on the o-line decide to go with this sticker instead?
Can a couple of fellows on the o-line decide to go with this sticker instead?
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 10:42 am
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:39 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
1st Amendment and 14th Amendment.
What is the title of the 1st Amendment? And verbatim what does it say? I could care less about what activist judges interpret it to say. What does it say?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:40 am to Lg
quote:
Who in their right mind would get offended by a cross on a football helmet?
quote:
Apparently an atheist lawyer who saw it on t.v.
Fail.
Obviously, he isn't in his right mind.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:42 am to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
Since when are individuals allowed to put whatever they want on a uniform? What's next?
Have you ever seen a little black sticker on a helmet with a number in it? What about a patch on a jersey with some initials?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:44 am to Lg
quote:
What is the title of the 1st Amendment? And verbatim what does it say? I could care less about what activist judges interpret it to say. What does it say?
The 14th Amendment has every bit as much legitimacy as the 1st Amendment. You can't pick and choose which Amendments are a part of the constitution. They all are. And every part of the constitution is interpreted by judges. They aren't suddenly "activists" just when they rule something you disagree with lol.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:45 am to Mickey Goldmill
Are you afraid to tell me what it says? What does the 14th Amendment say?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:47 am to Lg
quote:
Have you ever seen a little black sticker on a helmet with a number in it? What about a patch on a jersey with some initials?
Of course, but they had to be granted permission for that from their school.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:51 am to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
Since when are individuals allowed to put whatever they want on a uniform? What's next? Iron Maiden stickers?
This is really the crux of the issue. And it not any as clear as FunBunch is pretending it is.
Clearly students can wear a cross. Clearly a public institution cannot have a cross as a regular part of a uniform.
Clearly a school can let students express their sympathy for a fallen student through non-religious expressions (say with an armband).
But could a school allow an expression of grieving (pluses, which they already said they will allow) while explicitly banning a christian symbol?
It would be one thing if they said: "No symbols on your uniform. Period."
The other issue is if the voluntary crosses place a substantial burden on atheists. This could get into the facts of the matter such as how long were the crosses to be worn? A few games vs all season? Could make a difference.
As a public school I understand why they acquiesced, but I don't think it's that cut and dry.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:51 am to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
Of course, but they had to be granted permission for that from their school.
You do realize that they were granted permission by the school and had them on their helmets for 2 weeks before they were told to take them off. I just wonder if every player on the team are believers. If not, wouldn't you think the opposition to it would have came from a teammate or maybe it just didn't offend them to the point of complaining? An atheist lawyer filed the complaint.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:54 am to Lg
quote:
You do realize that they were granted permission by the school and had them on their helmets for 2 weeks before they were told to take them off
Yes I do. You do realize that a state-run institution can't endorse a religion?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:55 am to Mickey Goldmill
Still waiting on you to recite what the 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States says, Mickey. Come on now. Must be pretty easy for a smart man like yourself.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:56 am to Chimlim
quote:
Who in their right mind would get offended by a cross on a football helmet?
Would you get upset if Alabama put a star of david on their helmets? Or how about the crescent moon got placed on the LSU helmet?
Would anyone have any problems? Or is it just because it is the christian symbol?
Seriously, we go through these things every day. Just put their names on a decal without a religious affiliation. No big deal.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:58 am to Lg
1st: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
14th: Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states). In the majority decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote:
Per Wiki: 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 to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.
14th: Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states). In the majority decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote:
Per Wiki: 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 to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:58 am to Lg
1st
14th
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
14th
quote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:58 am to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
You do realize that a state-run institution can't endorse a religion?
Show me the law.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:08 am to Lg
quote:
Show me the law.
Do you understand how common law works? Jurisprudence IS the law.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:09 am to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
In reading both of these Amendments, Arkansas State has violated the 1st Amendment rights of these players. Their freedom of expressing their religion has been prohibited.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:11 am to Lg
quote:
Show me the law.
Look it up. (Hint: It comes from the same place as the law that makes abortion legal)
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News