On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 22:12:11 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

They are close to religion these days. And the constitution stated the
government would not get involved in the practice of religion. So the
religious have just as much right to influence law as a union does. Maybe
a better right than a government union.

The constitution just says congress shall make no law establishing a
national religion.
It doesn't say anything about tolerating religion, if fact it says we
have the right free exercise of religion.
It also says nothing about state or local government.
Why can't we just read the words and understand what they say?

On 4/9/18 11:38 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 22:12:11 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

They are close to religion these days. And the constitution stated the
government would not get involved in the practice of religion. So the
religious have just as much right to influence law as a union does. Maybe
a better right than a government union.

The constitution just says congress shall make no law establishing a
national religion.
It doesn't say anything about tolerating religion, if fact it says we
have the right free exercise of religion.
It also says nothing about state or local government.
Why can't we just read the words and understand what they say?



Oh. *You* think the constitution and bill of rights aren't interpreted.
I get it.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:32:57 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/9/18 11:38 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 22:12:11 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

They are close to religion these days. And the constitution stated the
government would not get involved in the practice of religion. So the
religious have just as much right to influence law as a union does. Maybe
a better right than a government union.

The constitution just says congress shall make no law establishing a
national religion.
It doesn't say anything about tolerating religion, if fact it says we
have the right free exercise of religion.
It also says nothing about state or local government.
Why can't we just read the words and understand what they say?



Oh. *You* think the constitution and bill of rights aren't interpreted.
I get it.

The court can interpret the constitution but they re not supposed to
just make **** up that they wished it said.
As Scalia said, The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not
living, but dead, or as I prefer to call it, enduring. It means,
today, not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought
to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted.