B&H and Adorama Closed!

"David Littlewood" wrote in message
...
In article , PTravel
writes

Thanks for the extremely lucid summary of the role of the US constitution;
as an "alien" I knew some of this but not in such detail. I don't think it
actually conflicts with what I wrote.

I think it would be fair to point out, though - in response to your
slightly hot-under-the-collar bit towards the end, that the person who
posted t he original message/question was actually a visitor from Ireland,
who may perhaps be excused for not knowing this.

David

David, my post wasn't in response to the OP's question, which was
legitimate, or to anything you've written, but to another poster who has
been quite vocal about his peculiarr prejudices and beliefs and is, sad to
say, a citizen of the US.


(top-posting for once to keep the interesting text)



I think there is a semantic mis-communication here. The term
"established
religion", at least here in the UK, means a religion which is by law a
part of the fabric of the state - if you like, the "official" religion.

There is no miscommunication. There is only a poster who doesn't
understand
the Constitution (and many other things).

The Bill of Rights of the Constitution is a list of powers that the
federal
government does not have. This is an important distinction, because the
UK
is not predicated upon the same concept. In the US, we believe that the
source of all rights resides with the people and the government has only
those rights that were expressly ceded to the government by the people.
This is expressed in the oft-heard phrase, "Ours is a government of
limited
powers."

The Bill of Rights reiterates those powers that the government
specifically
does NOT possess. Among them, as stated in the First Amendment, is the
power to establish religion. Note that the term is "religion," not "a
religion." Clearly, the government lacks the power to establish "a
religion," as that is readily subsumed within the actual language of the
First Amendment. However, it also lacks the power to establish ANY
religion.

In more than 200 years of Constitutional jurisprudence, a relatively
consistent formulation has evolved for construing the First Amendment. It
is frequently stated as precluding the government from "excessive
entanglement" with religion. This formulation permits, for example,
allowing Congress to start a session with a prayer. It forbids, however,
anything viewed as an endorsement of religion. This is why Judge Roy
Moore's placement of a copy of the Ten Commandments, first in his
courtroom,
and then in the form of a large statue in the lobby of his court house,
was
violative of the First Amendment. As a state actor, Judge Moore may not
endorse ANY religion.

It is critical to the survival of our constitutional form that the
government NOT exercise any power that was not ceded to it by the people.
As you can imagine, if the government exercises power that it does not
have,
it is acting illegally and, moreover, because it is usurping a right
specifically reserved to the people, it is acting as tyrant.

This applies not only to the First Amendment, but to the entire Bill of
Rights -- ten amendments that delimit the scope of federal power.

This is a fact that is lost on many in this country just now, particularly
those who get their information from right-wing talk radio hosts -- these
are the ones most often heard parrotting, "You don't need to study the
Constitution in a school to understand -- it's written in plain English,
so
common sense is enough."

The greatest danger to the U.S. at this moment comes not from external
terrorists or divergent government philosophies, but from those Americans
whose sole understanding of their rights and obligations comes from
sloganeering ill-educated pundits, and who are willing to compromise the
strict protections set up by the Constitution by, for example, standing by
while the government endorses and enforces religious beliefs, violates 4th
and 5th Amendment proscriptions against deprivation of life and liberty
without due process, etc. Not surprisingly, people who advocate for
tyranny
in this fashion also advocate for other ideas that, one would hope, had
become extinct by now. You'll hear them complain about "Jewish stores"
that
are closed on Jewish holidays, and they'll spout all sorts of lies about
Jews, e.g. that prostelytization is a tenet of Judaism (of course, it is
not), that Jews want their holidays recognized as legal holidays (of
course, none do), and other such nonsense.

These are the ones who proclaim this a "Christian nation" when it is most
expressly not (note the complete lack of reference to a creator, much less
a
Christian version of one, in the U.S. Constitution, which is the source of
all law in the U.S.). These are the ones who pat themselves on the back
for
being so tolerant as to allow non-Christian immigrants into "their"
country.

It is a sad fact that this kind of pernicious, polite, pseudo-articulate
anti-Americanism is the fashion now, and it was responsible for electing
the
present president. Fortunately, more and more people see it for what it
is:
a move towards tyranny, theocracy, racism, anti-semitism.


In the UK, the Church of England is the established religion. The head
of
state is also the head of the religion, and several bishops sit by right
in the upper chamber of our Parliament. This despite the fact that the
percentage of the population which actively participates in the
established religion is minute, and probably (I don't have the figures)
there are many more active participants in other religions. In practice
it
seems (to me at least) a fairly unimportant issue and is mostly a
historical curiosity, though the head of state is still debarred from
being a Roman Catholic.

Other countries (France and the USA for example) have chosen to be
secular
states, in that the state is debarred by statute from having any
"official" religion, and from discriminating between religions.
Religions
are all equal before the law.

IOW, the two of you appear to me to be arguing at cross purposes.

David
--
David Littlewood



--
David Littlewood

In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

He wasn't sued. Nobody was sued. A case was filed to remove a
plaque promoting the Jewish and Christian religions from a public
governmental facility. The ACLU represented those who filed the
suit.

The suit against "nobody"? Gosh, what will they think of next?

I didn't say a suit against "nobody"; I said nobody was sued. Your
childish response demonstrates the incoherence of your argument.

That's OK with the ACLU for what reason? Because it's Moses?
ahem This looks like it's a question of whose ox is being gored,
eh?

Ah, more anti-Jewish claptrap from you. Surprise surprise.

So it's perfectly appropriate to sue for the removal of the Ten
Commandments from a public building or courtroom (on the grounds that
that's "Christians forcing their religion on others" in your view),
BUT when it's suggested in that case the fresco showing Moses and his
tablets above the U.S. Supreme Court bench should not be treated
differently, that's "anti-Jewish claptrap"? I guess I understand how
it works now.

You guess wrong. That fresco is in an historical context; the Ten
Commandments in the courtroom was promoting a religious agenda.

With almost every message in which you mention Jews, you demonstrate
more and more clearly your antipathy towards Jews. I'm waiting with
bated breath to read your opinions of Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, and/or
paganism.

In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

For example, we don't have to worry about soldiers being
quartered in our homes.

Because of the third amendment

We don't have to worry about it anyway. I don't think there's been
a Third Amendment case brought before SCOTUS for about 200 years.
It was an issue when we were British colonies, and has not really
been an issue since.

Because of the third amendment.

No, because the government hasn't had any wish or need to quarter
troops in private homes for about 200 years. The Third Amendment is
about as relevant today as a buggy whip.

Oh, so the fact that the third amendment keeps the government from
quartering troops in people's homes has nothing to do with the fact that
the government doesn't try to quarter troops in people's homes?

As recently as 1979, National Guard troops were quartered in the living
quarters of certain civilians in Warwick, NY. Two residents brought
suit against the state for violation of the Third Amendment. The trial
court dismissed the case because of the definition of "house" as it
applied to the context of the case. The 2nd US circuit court of appeals
reversed the decision, and remanded it back to the trial court for trial.

Because the quarters were owned by the state of New York, the judge
decided that the state had "qualified immunity" and dismissed the suit
again.

So even though there was only one case under the third amendment since
its inception, it is still relevant.

In article ,
wrote:

No, because the government hasn't had any wish or need to quarter
troops in private homes for about 200 years. The Third Amendment is
about as relevant today as a buggy whip.

You didn't live on the west coast during WWII, did you? Oops, you're
Harrington, so you can't se this plonkee's postings.


For the benefit of the rest of you:

The Army wanted to use St. Joseph's Seminary in Mt. View, CA to
house a contingent of WACS. Plans were well underway to do so when it
turned out they had a poor plumbing situation on their hands.

I have this directly from the then president of that seminary.

Except for the Third Amendment, the Army would have been looking to
house them in private homes.

Now he can see it, unless he's plonked me too, and I've seen no evidence
of that.

In article ,
wrote:

The Army wanted to use St. Joseph's Seminary in Mt. View, CA to
house a contingent of WACS. Plans were well underway to do so when it
turned out they had a poor plumbing situation on their hands.

I have this directly from the then president of that seminary.

Except for the Third Amendment, the Army would have been looking to
house them in private homes.

However, the Third Amendment does grant the government to pass a law
allowing such quartering in time of war.

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without
the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law."

Oh, and although the third amendment was the focus of only one case, it
has been cited in passing in other cases:

"The Third Amendment has been cited in passing in other cases, most
notably opinions arguing that there is a constitutional right to
privacy, such as the Supreme Court's decision in Griswold v.
Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965). In other cases, courts have cited
the Third Amendment as proof that the Constitution carefully
distinguishes between times of war and peace. Youngstown Sheet & Tube
Co. v. Sawyer., 343 U.S. 579, 644 (1952)."

http://www.thirdamendment.com/third.html

cjcampbell wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
cjcampbell wrote:
wrote:

These posts about B&H and Adorama have
illustrated why I wish religious beliefs were mandated by law to be
*PRIVATE*. No public expression of religion allowed. Expression
of "religion" has caused more pain, death, and suffering than all
other causes in the history of mankind.

Interesting how people who say this conveniently forget that the
greatest atrocities of the 20th century were committed by avowed
atheists,

And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I
am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
Adolph Hitler -- Mein Kampf

Yes, and as I pointed out earlier Hitler professed his supposed
Christian beliefs on many other occasions -- right up until the time he
felt that he did not need them any more to stay in power. From that
time on he appears to have teetered between atheism and some form of
paganism.

Subtracting Hitler, then, and you still have more people killed by
atheists than in all the wars preceding the 20th century.

And never mind overt acts of genocide and mass turture done in the
name of one religion or the other.

--
Ray Fischer

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 19:27:48 -0700, Nikon User
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

The Army wanted to use St. Joseph's Seminary in Mt. View, CA to
house a contingent of WACS. Plans were well underway to do so when it
turned out they had a poor plumbing situation on their hands.

I have this directly from the then president of that seminary.

Except for the Third Amendment, the Army would have been looking to
house them in private homes.

However, the Third Amendment does grant the government to pass a law
allowing such quartering in time of war.

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without
the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law."

Oh, and although the third amendment was the focus of only one case, it
has been cited in passing in other cases:

"The Third Amendment has been cited in passing in other cases, most
notably opinions arguing that there is a constitutional right to
privacy, such as the Supreme Court's decision in Griswold v.
Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965). In other cases, courts have cited
the Third Amendment as proof that the Constitution carefully
distinguishes between times of war and peace. Youngstown Sheet & Tube
Co. v. Sawyer., 343 U.S. 579, 644 (1952)."

http://www.thirdamendment.com/third.html

Thanks for the correction and the references.

"Nikon User" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

No, because the government hasn't had any wish or need to quarter
troops in private homes for about 200 years. The Third Amendment is
about as relevant today as a buggy whip.

You didn't live on the west coast during WWII, did you? Oops, you're
Harrington, so you can't se this plonkee's postings.


For the benefit of the rest of you:

The Army wanted to use St. Joseph's Seminary in Mt. View, CA to
house a contingent of WACS. Plans were well underway to do so when it
turned out they had a poor plumbing situation on their hands.

I have this directly from the then president of that seminary.

Except for the Third Amendment, the Army would have been looking to
house them in private homes.

Now he can see it, unless he's plonked me too, and I've seen no evidence
of that.

ahem WW II was a time of war.


The Third Amendment specifically provides for that exception:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the
consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed
by law.

Now I'll grant you I never heard of that Mt. View, CA episode before. But if
you have to go back 60 years or so to find a case in wartime which *might*
have resulted in a violation of the Third Amendment (or might not, depending
on what the home owners' wishes were in the matter and/or whether it was
done "in a manner . . . prescribed by law"), that is not much of a
demonstration of the importance of the Amendment.

"Nikon User" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

The Army wanted to use St. Joseph's Seminary in Mt. View, CA to
house a contingent of WACS. Plans were well underway to do so when it
turned out they had a poor plumbing situation on their hands.

I have this directly from the then president of that seminary.

Except for the Third Amendment, the Army would have been looking to
house them in private homes.

However, the Third Amendment does grant the government to pass a law
allowing such quartering in time of war.

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without
the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law."

Oh, and although the third amendment was the focus of only one case, it
has been cited in passing in other cases:

"The Third Amendment has been cited in passing in other cases, most
notably opinions arguing that there is a constitutional right to
privacy, such as the Supreme Court's decision in Griswold v.
Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965).

Which is as arrogant an example of legislating from the bench as you can
find. Griswold was about the right of a married couple to practice
contraception, which was then against Connecticut state law. (It was a
nonsensical law and practically unenforceable anyway.) The very left-leaning
Supreme Court then "discovered" something in the Constitution which no one
who reads plain English can find the a "right to marital privacy." The
notion that this really has anything at all to do with the Third Amendment
is a ridiculous stretch, and many Constitutional scholars (including at
least two dissenting Justices at the time) regard Grisworld as a very bad
ruling leading to very bad law.

Griswold in turn became part of the basis for Roe v. Wade, which found that
abortion was a constitutional right based on a further extension of the
"right to privacy."

Now whether the laws being overturned were good or bad is beside the
question. The Supreme Court in these cases was flatly replacing the
judgement of elected legislators with its own, and usurping the roles of the
legislatures. This utterly violates the principle of separation of powers,
the "checks and balances" which are supposed to be the very foundation of
the U.S. system of government.

Justice Black (who wrote a quite lengthy dissent on his own) joined Justice
Stevens in his dissent, which puts it concisely and well:
"Since 1879 Connecticut has had on its books a law which forbids the use of
contraceptives by anyone. I think this is an uncommonly silly law. As a
practical matter, the law is obviously unenforceable, except in the oblique
context of the present case. As a philosophical matter, I believe the use of
contraceptives in the relationship of marriage should be left to personal
and private choice, based upon each individual's moral, ethical, and
religious beliefs. As a matter of social policy, I think professional
counsel about methods of birth control should be available to all, so that
each individual's choice can be meaningfully made. But we are not asked in
this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine. We
are asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution. And that
I cannot do."

"Neil Harrington" wrote:
But if you have to go back 60 years or so to find a case in
wartime which *might* have resulted in a violation of the Third
Amendment ... that is not much of a demonstration of the
importance of the Amendment.

If you have to go back more than 200 years to find abuses, it
would seem the significant difference occurred approximately 200
years ago.

_Obviously_ the reason we do not suffer those abuses is because
it was written into our Constitution, and (at least to the
degree that we have not yet violated that particular clause) our
Constitution has indeed been effective.

If in fact there were any significant number of abuses in the
past 60 years, don't you think that would be proof positive that
the Constitution was *not* significant in eliminating said
abuses?

Like so many things, logically you've got it exactly backwards...

--
FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)