Robert George is an amazing anachronism: a virtuous and gifted intellectual in the early 21st century West. As Barbie says: "Constitutional law is hard! Come on, Robby-- let's dance!"
The constitution is very clear and described correctly by Mr. George. If you don't like what is says, that's fine, then change it - there is a process for that. What if Supreme Court judges decided that "free speech" doesn't really mean you have freedom of speech but only freedom to speak what the authorities permit? Are we to simply ignore parts of the Constitution that don't suit us?
The Constitution does not mandate a separation between church and state; it only forbids the government from establishing a state religion, which would’ve been unnecessary because the states already had their own Christian denomination. Maryland was Roman catholic and so on.
If you don’t think that the public has been badly misled on the purpose of the First Amendment, try stating a moral opinion in a public setting. You’ll likely hear someone ask, “What about separation of Church and State?” “Isn’t that what the First Amendment is all about?”
Dr. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, a visiting professor at Harvard Law school, a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, and a senior fellow at the Witherspoon Institute. Clearly, though, you know more about constitutional law than Dr. George. Please don't be selfish and withhold your wisdom! Why is he wrong?
To say this is absolute ignorance and the product of a stunted intellect is a bit strong, don't you think? He does present an argument, after all. A question for you: these myriad decision by the SC to which you refer--were they unanimous? If not, were the dissenters stunted too? And is the SC an infallible interpreter of the Constitution?
Robert George is an amazing anachronism: a virtuous and gifted intellectual in the early 21st century West. As Barbie says: "Constitutional law is hard! Come on, Robby-- let's dance!"
The constitution is very clear and described correctly by Mr. George. If you don't like what is says, that's fine, then change it - there is a process for that.
What if Supreme Court judges decided that "free speech" doesn't really mean you have freedom of speech but only freedom to speak what the authorities permit?
Are we to simply ignore parts of the Constitution that don't suit us?
The Constitution does not mandate a separation between church and state; it only forbids the government from establishing a state religion, which would’ve been unnecessary because the states already had their own Christian denomination. Maryland was Roman catholic and so on.
Excellent!
If you don’t think that the public has been badly misled on the purpose of the First Amendment, try stating a moral opinion in a public setting. You’ll likely hear someone ask, “What about separation of Church and State?” “Isn’t that what the First Amendment is all about?”
Feeling Bigger, Better and Stronger now are you?
Dr. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, a visiting professor at Harvard Law school, a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, and a senior fellow at the Witherspoon Institute.
Clearly, though, you know more about constitutional law than Dr. George. Please don't be selfish and withhold your wisdom! Why is he wrong?
Address any of his points? Of course not.
A Bible running around spreading fear: that _would_ be pretty creepy.
The Bible has been spreading that fear for the last 2000 years.
The ignorant are never stingy with their mental wares.
You couldn't even name every religion. Stop littering the comment section.
The great oppressor .... religion. All of them.
To say this is absolute ignorance and the product of a stunted intellect is a bit strong, don't you think? He does present an argument, after all.
A question for you: these myriad decision by the SC to which you refer--were they unanimous? If not, were the dissenters stunted too? And is the SC an infallible interpreter of the Constitution?
Nonsense. Dr. George suggests nothing of the sort.