Rachel Maddow on Religious Test in NC

[Drego]

Alright I'll give you this much. By the time I got to number 3 (the atheists)you had me laughing out loud! Very cool!

Thank you.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Drego

[ninjadude]

100% are trying to limit the actual legal rights of other individuals!

That would only be true if we lived in a dictatorship or kingship. As such, not so much. Laws are passed or legal challenges to enforce existing law. You, of course, have the legal right to be represented and spout your "views". That does not mean that, after you lose, you have limited legal rights. It means you didn't like the result.

[The Silver Thong]

Global warming activists 100% are trying to limit the actual legal rights of other individuals! They continually are trying to dictate how we all should live. what we should drive, how we build our homes, how many children we should have, what businesses succeed or fail, etc.... on and on and on the greenies want to tell us all how to live in every aspect of our lives.

The same is with left-wing progressive gay rights activists. They bring lawsuit after lawsuit telling people that they have to accept their behavior. They attack our schools with their agenda. In my state many public parks and rest stops have become attacked by homosexuals who prey on the public. It is sick! Even our homosexual ex-Governor (McGreevy) was roming for homosexual reasons in the public bathrooms of the state. Who knows how many children he molested. That is a violation of the peoples actual legal rights. He should be behind bars!

It is the same with the atheists. They bring lawsuit after lawsuit to try and ruin everyone's Christmas. Or to attack the religious expression of others. They attack children in our public schools if they express religon. It is sick how hard these people work to try and intimidate people from expressing religious views in public. They are very anti-freedom.

Trueyou please answer this honestly as it will give your position a platform. How do you come by these convictions?

Drego, nice try but go bang head on wall for five min and come back LOL Good job mate as we all see what you mean.

[preacherman76]

I remember this one from my days in Elections.

A state law does NOT supercede a federal law.

Supremacy Clause - just for fun.

Nibs

The federal government wont allow it to, but it most certainly should. Not trying to defend this law, but frankly its none of the federal governments biz. The federal constititution was meant only to define the powers and restrictions of the federal government. The states are not subject to its restrictions. It clearly says powers not specificly granted to the federal government, belong to the state, and that states people. This is why we need to start from scratch. The federal government has way over reached thier powers, in just about every situation concievable.

[ninjadude]

The federal government wont allow it to, but it most certainly should. Not trying to defend this law, but frankly its none of the federal governments biz. The federal constititution was meant only to define the powers and restrictions of the federal government. The states are not subject to its restrictions. It clearly says powers not specificly granted to the federal government, belong to the state, and that states people. This is why we need to start from scratch. The federal government has way over reached thier powers, in just about every situation concievable.

You can certainly have this opinion. But 200+ years of jurisprudence and law say otherwise. The federal constitution is not a static document. Nor was it meant to exist in a vacuum. The federal government does have these powers today. The states are subject to the federal goverment today. It is how it is. There is no starting from "scratch" as you well know. The people of the US decided over the centuries that the government you seem to want (as crafted in 1783) is not exactly what they wanted for more modern times and changed it.