Monkey Trial II: Tenn. House Passes Bill Permitting Teachers To Teach The “Controversy” Over Evolution

Submitted by Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

Legendary actor Spencer Tracy Crosses Frederick March in "Inherit the Wind"
I guess it takes a few whacks to get things into the heads of the theocrats in Tennessee.  Eighty-six years after the famous “Scopes Monkey Trial” pitted Clarence Darrow, Esq., against William Jennings Bryan, Esq., in a classic cross-examination of opposing counsel that decimated the notion that teaching creationism was anything except the indoctrination of religion by public school officials, Tennessee legislators are at it again with a new version of the Butler Act. 

Feigning that some controversy actually exists over the fact of evolution, the Rocky Toppers have decided to grant job protection to teachers who choose to criticize the scientific doctrine. To be quite proper, they have inserted language that stipulates that “this section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine.”  But  Becky Ashe, the president of the Tennessee Science Teachers Association, is not fooled. She told a subcommittee of the Tennessee House that the Bill “is an anti-evolutionary attempt to allow non-scientific alternatives to evolution (such as creationism and intelligent design) to be introduced into our public schools.”

Seems the famous trial and the movie version (“Inherit The Wind”) are always on the minds of  theocrats. Tennessee State Representative Richard Floyd (R) even alluded to them in the floor debate commenting that “since the late ’50s, early ’60s when we let the intellectual bullies hijack our education system, we’ve been on a slippery slope.” Aptly named Republican Sheila Butt even found a way to criticize environmentalists in the debate saying she was told in high school that Aqua Net hair spray hurts the environment. In a conclusion worthy of mention she added, “Since then scientists have said that maybe we shouldn’t have given up that aerosol can because that aerosol can was actually absorbing the Earth’s rays and keeping us from global warming.” Ah, the joys of anti-intellectualism.

The Bill passed the House 70-23 and now goes to the Senate. Hopefully, they reached a stage of high intellectual evolution.

Source: TPM

~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

239 thoughts on “Monkey Trial II: Tenn. House Passes Bill Permitting Teachers To Teach The “Controversy” Over Evolution

  1. No Anon Nurse….Not enough whacks….Not enough….I am not intimating the John Gotti School of Discipline….but something in between….

  2. AN,

    I wake up just to annoy… Buddha of course lives to be of service… or at least I was informed of this a few years ago…

  3. These teabaggers and Republicans that have suddenly (and tragically) been given a bit of authority through being elected to office are like little children on a sugar high. They’re bouncing uncontrollably off the walls of various state legislatures and statehouses flailing and grasping at every opportunity to behave badly. They obviously know they’re only going to get one shot at destroying America before the electorate wakes up and kicks them to the curb, so any and every insane idea that’s every crossed their little kid brain becomes fodder for more of their mindless shenanigans. They provide a disgusting collective display of the lowest depths of America’s mean side and a serious lack of intelligence.

  4. I think you could do a good lesson plan on teaching the controversy,

    I) Danbury Baptists, Jefferson and REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES
    I) Kansas Board of Education and the Flying Spaghetti Monster
    III) Dover decision

  5. marc sobel:

    good idea, teach it all. explore all the variables and the history of evolution. What are the pros and cons of each theory and why evolution is the better model.

    Let people make up their own minds, and believe or not believe by the dictate of their own conscience.

  6. Yeah.

    Let’s not let pesky facts get in the way.

    Like physical evidence of speciation in existent divergent but related populations.

    Like physical evidence of past speciation from the fossil record.

    Like advances in molecular genetics that allow for precise tracking of gene changes over time.

    Evolution is a group of facts gathered under one rubric called a theory only because it has areas of study that are incomplete, not that the whole of the area of study is theoretical or untrue. Evolution is a factual, demonstrable and measurable process within existent populations of animals and plants.

    The only way one’s conscience could conclude that facts verifiable by empirical testable evidence are false when the evidence says they are true is if one’s conscience is in either deliberate or unconscious denial in furtherance of wishful thinking that “Sky Daddy” is going to come to one’s rescue. Wishful thinking is not reality. Evolution is reality.

    Allowing for the teaching of “intelligent design” or “creationism” is as large a disservice to children as teaching them that the boogie man under their bed is real. If your conscience requires deception to yourself and others, it’s not much of a conscience and/or it is a delusion based upon falsehood.

  7. If people want to believe in a Sky Daddy, it is their right. However clueless you may think they are.

    “Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence
    proposed to their minds; that [Whereas,] Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his
    supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to
    influence by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy
    and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord
    both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to
    do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone, that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers,
    civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion
    over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible,
    and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over
    the greatest part of the world through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for
    the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical…”
    The Virginia Statute for Establishing Religious
    Freedom

    Works in Tennessee as well.

  8. Jefferson also says this:

    “that even the forcing
    him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty
    of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers
    he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal[ry] rewards,
    which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest
    and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our
    religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry”

    Seems to me you could make an argument for the defunding of a public school which doesn’t permit a person to worship as they see fit. Since people who believe in a Sky Daddy have rights too.

  9. If education were free of state control, people could send their children where they thought best.

    Public schools encourage herd thinking and sameness.

  10. Bob,

    If I recall correctly that the one about the existence and/or non-existence of God.

    LG,

    “Since people who believe in a Sky Daddy have rights too.”

    But not the right to force others to believe their religiously based nonsense. The Separation of Church and State forbids any religion from using the law to gain advantage over another. Both Jefferson and Madison were quite clear on this issue. And the bottom line is you Sky Daddy worshipers seek exactly that: the imposition of your views on others who do not share them via tax funded public services. You want to teach creationism or ID? Knock yourself out. Just do it in church where faith based teaching belongs. To be for the greater benefit of all, public education must be fact based, not mythologically based.

  11. What are the odds that, of the millions of species of animals, a male of each species developed around the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?

    Why are there two sexes anyhow? This is not a given in the evolutionary process. If the first generation of mating species didn’t have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point? Isn’t evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation? Which came first the chicken or the egg :)

  12. Thesis: There belongs to the world, either as its part or as its cause, a being that is absolutely necessary.

    Antithesis: An absolutely necessary being exists nowhere in the world, nor does it exist outside the world as its cause.

    or you could just go with the 4th of July in Antinomy Utah.

  13. Bdaman,

    Evolution via natural selection also arises from isolation of populations to geographically distinct regions and mutations from both adaptive behaviors and random effects like radiation and chemical mutations. Asexual creatures still evolve. Diamorphic sex is an adaptation that simply allows for greater variation in genes by sharing material.

  14. Buddha can you name one warm blooded animal that has been around thousands of years that looks different today than it did then or have we reached a final product. For insects, how have cockroaches evolved within this time frame :)

  15. Bob,

    I don’t care one way or the other about proving or disproving the existence of a God. What I do care about is proof. All Kant did was demonstrate that the existence or non-existence of God is unprovable. What is provable is that organized religion – independent of the existence of God or not – operates on beliefs not based in facts but rather in superstition and ancient fairy tales that simply ask blind faith. Beliefs that are often contrary to the facts provable by empirical evidence and the application of the Scientific Method. But mostly I care about the fact that the Constitution was designed to act as a barrier preventing state sponsored churches and preventing religiously based laws to give one group advantage over another. And I know you won’t argue that point unless you are just feeling particularly contrary today because you know I’m right about the Separation of Church and State. :mrgreen:

  16. Bdaman,

    Unless a species has reached what is called the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (which is impossible in nature but used as a baseline for geneticists to measure genetic drift by “taking a snapshot in time” of a given species), then a species is constantly evolving by nature of breeding/reproducing and interactions with the environment and changes in the environment.

  17. Bdaman:

    cockroaches are the same as they were millions and millions of years ago.

    Fruit flies as well, no substantial changes on thousands of generations studied with environmental stresses and radiation applied.

    Something causes change, probably a virus or some sort of spontaneous damage to DNA/RNA in reproductive cells.

  18. Kant was showing how a particular proof for the existence of God is an antinomy.

    The cosmological proof deals with ‘the first cause’ and is the root argument for any ‘intelligent design’ argument.

    I say “a man’s got to know his limitations” not only because empiricism can guarantee you neither certainty nor necessity, but to remind you of the limits of human reason itself. (ever notice the title of Kant’s critique?)

    This debate is far more complex than ‘evolution’ v. ‘intelligent design.’ And to treat it as anything less, i.e. stating that the theory of evolution is categorically correct, is just an exercise in sheer ignorance as to the complexity of the topic.

    Per the Constitution and the Separation of Church and State, you’ll get no argument from me that the state run schools must refrain from supporting any particular CREED or RELIGION in their teachings; which means refraining from teaching intelligent design outside of a college level comparative religion/metaphysics/epistemology course. At that level, the analysis is sufficiently abstract as to preclude the possibility of endorsing any particular creed or religion.

  19. Leave it to Tennessee to bring back the teaching of nonsense. If you want to learn this nonsense, go to a private school and you can learn this nonsense and any other nonsense that is currently in vogue with the Religious Wrong. The next scientific fact that the Scopes people will be paying next is gravity. Of course they will call it Intelligent Falling!
    Great pst Mespo!

  20. Bob,

    Don’t forget my take on certainty is heavily influenced by quantum mechanics. All certainty is relative to the frame of reference and absolute certainty is impossible. I don’t expect absolute certainty. I operate of of reasonably absolute certainty within a given context first and the reasonable certainty and down that chain of qualitatives until reasonable uncertainty is reached. That comports just fine with Kant to my reading.

  21. Bdaman
    1, April 10, 2011 at 2:11 pm
    Here’s another pondering thought. Which came first the heart or the lungs?

    =====================================================

    It’s a party and everybody arrives together:

    “The embryo is now made of three layers. The top layer — the ectoderm — will give rise to your baby’s outermost layer of skin, central and peripheral nervous systems, eyes, inner ear, and many connective tissues.

    Your baby’s heart and a primitive circulatory system will form in the middle layer of cells — the mesoderm. This layer of cells will also serve as the foundation for your baby’s bones, muscles, kidneys and much of the reproductive system.

    The inner layer of cells — the endoderm — will become a simple tube lined with mucous membranes. Your baby’s lungs, intestines and bladder will develop here.” (Mayo Clinic)

  22. “Monkey Trial II: Tenn. House Passes Bill Permitting Teachers To Teach The “Controversy” Over Evolution”

    In one sense, HB893 is the exact opposite, having been acted to prevent just such cases from occurring.

    But is it merely a repeat based on religious intent? From the Bill:

    (e) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not
    be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

    While the hysteria foisting about claims that it opens the door to religious teaching, it does not, since another Dover trial would be the result.

  23. Buddha, @April 10, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    “…. But mostly I care about the fact that the Constitution was designed to act as a barrier preventing state sponsored churches and preventing religiously based laws to give one group advantage over another. And I know you won’t argue that point unless you are just feeling particularly contrary today because you know I’m right about the Separation of Church and State. ”

    Bob,Esq. @April 10, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    ” … Per the Constitution and the Separation of Church and State, you’ll get no argument from me that the state run schools must refrain from supporting any particular CREED or RELIGION in their teachings; which means refraining from teaching intelligent design outside of a college level comparative religion/metaphysics/epistemology course. At that level, the analysis is sufficiently abstract as to preclude the possibility of endorsing any particular creed or religion.”

    ===============================================

    Whew … I got worried there for a second

  24. rafflaw
    1, April 10, 2011 at 2:58 pm
    Blouise,
    Thanks for the biology lesson!

    ================================

    I decided to take everything literally and answer accordingly

  25. The problem with that is that in the scientific community, evolution is readily accepted as not being scientifically controversial, but rather as being scientifically accepted as true. If the section only allows the teaching of scientific information, then the law is an oxymoron in that by that very wording it would prevent the religiously based topics of ID and creationism from being taught in a science class. Ambiguous and contradictory laws on their face invite abuse and circumvention. This law is indeed nonsense logically and invites abuse by the religious who want to spread their dogma as if it were valid science when it is not.

  26. Blouise,

    No worries! The Separation of Church and State Doctrine gets a pretty through workout around here. I’m sure if Bob were going to drop a bombshell, he’d have done it long before now. :mrgreen:

  27. “Intelligent Design” is in and of itself an oxymoron when applied to the question of evolution. Any law written to support it would be cut from the same cloth … id est, falsely true

  28. Buddha Is Laughing
    1, April 10, 2011 at 3:05 pm
    Blouise,

    No worries! The Separation of Church and State Doctrine gets a pretty through workout around here. I’m sure if Bob were going to drop a bombshell, he’d have done it long before now.

    ==============================================

    Yeah, but he’s been ill and now feels better so just might want to cause a little mischief in celebration 8)

  29. Thanks Blouise, On my way to take one of my creations to Disney on Ice. Hope it evolves into a great show :)

  30. Bda,

    Taking my youngest grandchild to Sesame Street Live as a build up to vacationing at Sesame Street Place.

    However, since all my children are adopted, none are of my creation but have evolved nicely never-the less …

  31. Bedaman: “Buddha can you name one warm blooded animal that has been around thousands of years that looks different today than it did then or have we reached a final product.”

    —-

    Dogs. Cats, beef cattle, cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, turkeys, canaries. All selectively bred for our consumption or amusement. People are taller too, those that inhabit resource rich (by chance or design) environments and have the benefit of cultures that treat as well as suppress disease and illness.

    What kind of question is that? That something looks different doesn’t mean it is different and vice versa.
    What’s the point? Creatures respond to genetic pressure of many kinds.

    There is no final product in nature, evolution is ongoing so long as the environment demands it or a stray mutation is beneficial.

    Tennessee needs to move on, this law isn’t a substitute for jobs, just a diversion- like so much of the recent Republican legislation we see.

  32. Some modern scientists who accept the biblical account of creation:

    * Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
    * Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
    * Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
    * Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
    * Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
    * Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
    * Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
    * Dr. Don Batten, Plant Physiologist
    * Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
    * Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
    * Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
    * Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
    * Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
    * Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
    * Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
    * Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
    * Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
    * Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology
    * Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
    * Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
    * Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
    * Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
    * Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
    * Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
    * Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
    * Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
    * Timothy C. Coppess, M.S., Environmental Scientist
    * Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
    * Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
    * Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
    * Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
    * Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
    * Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
    * Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
    * Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
    * Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
    * Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
    * Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
    * Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
    * Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
    * Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
    * Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
    * Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
    * Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
    * Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
    * Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
    * Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
    * Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology
    * Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
    * Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
    * Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
    * Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
    * Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
    * Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
    * Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
    * Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
    * Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
    * Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
    * Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
    * Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
    * Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
    * Dr. Vicki Hagerman, DMV
    * Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
    * Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
    * Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
    * Dr. John Hartnett, Physics
    * Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
    * Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
    * Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
    * Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
    * Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
    * Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
    * Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
    * Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
    * Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
    * Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
    * Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
    * Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
    * Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
    * Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
    * Dr. Russ Humphreys, Physics
    * Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
    * George T. Javor, Biochemistry
    * Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology
    * Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
    * Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
    * Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
    * Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
    * Dr. William F. Kane, (Civil) Geotechnical Engineering
    * Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
    * Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
    * Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
    * Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
    * Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
    * Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
    * Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
    * Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
    * Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
    * Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
    * Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
    * Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
    * Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
    * Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
    * Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
    * Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
    * Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
    * Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
    * Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
    * Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
    * Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
    * Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
    * Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
    * Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
    * Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
    * Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
    * Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
    * Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
    * Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
    * Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
    * Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
    * Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
    * Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
    * Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
    * Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
    * Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
    * Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
    * Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
    * Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
    * Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
    * Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
    * Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
    * Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
    * Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
    * Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
    * Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
    * Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
    * Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
    * Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
    * Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
    * Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
    * Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
    * Prof. Richard Porter
    * Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
    * Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
    * Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
    * Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
    * Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
    * Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
    * Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
    * Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Physical Chemistry
    * Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
    * Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
    * Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
    * Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
    * Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
    * Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
    * Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geology
    * Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
    * Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
    * Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
    * Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
    * Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
    * Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
    * Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
    * Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
    * Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
    * Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
    * Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
    * Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
    * Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
    * Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
    * Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
    * Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
    * Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
    * Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
    * Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
    * Dr. Stephen J. Vinay III, Chemical Engineering
    * Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
    * Dr. Tas Walker, Geology/Engineering
    * Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
    * Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
    * Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
    * Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
    * Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
    * Dr. Carl Wieland, Medicine/Surgery
    * Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
    * Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
    * Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
    * Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
    * Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
    * Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
    * Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
    * Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
    * Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
    * Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

  33. Tootie, I went over your list and to the best of my recollection, do not recognize ANY of the names on your list. Having a doctorate does not insulate one from being an idiot.

    Also, you may be overinterpreting the position of these alleged professionals. They may believe in a Creator, but the seven day story may be understood by them as an ancient allegory rather than something to be taken literally. Frankly, if a literal creationist applied for a job with our company, they would be passed over without further review. We do not accept employees who reject science in favor of mythology. If they cannot tell the difference between an allegory and science, they have no place in our company.

  34. Way to go, Team Theocracy! That’s one thing I do like about you, Tootles. You can never go too long without showing your true colors.

    Too bad about that 1st Amendment though.

    Too bad for you that is.

    Absolutely wonderful for the rest of us.

  35. As I said earlier (and I’ll correct myself this time around), too many whack jobs… (Thanks to AY for calling the error to my attention.)

    And too many pointless distractions that keep us from tackling important, even critical, issues.

  36. raff, who knows if they are real or not. No matter. Tootie posts a list as if volume is a substitute for fact. If we were to post a list of all the true scientists who reject creationism or “intelligent design” whatever that is, we wold use up all the Professor’s photons and then where would we be? It would be quite a list to compare with her pitiful little offering.

  37. Too tie,
    It is not a controversy. Religion does not belong in public schools and evolution is a scientific fact. Check out the First Amendment and the Separation of Church and State.

  38. rafflaw:

    The public schools can be anything a free people devoted and dedicated to liberty wish them to be.

    You still haven’t told me what in the Constitution forbids the states from teaching about creationism. Perhaps it is because nothing does?

  39. Tootie,
    The First Amendment is there to protect those of us who don’t believe in your particular religious beliefs. Private schools can tach that nonsense.

  40. Tootles,

    The 1st Amendment has everything to do with it.

    ID and Creationism aren’t science. They’re religion and wishful thinking. In the scientific community, there is no controversy about evolution. It’s accepted fact. The only controversy is from theocratic knuckleheads such as yourself who think the Bible is a factual and scientific document when it isn’t. It’s a collection of parables and stories. You cannot force your religion upon others via the law.

    If you doubt that creationism isn’t science and that evolution is valid science, I cannot sum it up better than the late Stephen Jay Gould did:

    “Kirtley Mather, who died last year at age 89, was a pillar of both science and the Christian religion in America and one of my dearest friends. The difference of half a century in our ages evaporated before our common interests. The most curious thing we shared was a battle we each fought at the same age. For Kirtley had gone to Tennessee with Clarence Darrow to testify for evolution at the Scopes trial of 1925. When I think that we are enmeshed again in the same struggle for one of the best documented, most compelling and exciting concepts in all of science, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

    According to idealized principles of scientific discourse, the arousal of dormant issues should reflect fresh data that give renewed life to abandoned notions. Those outside the current debate may therefore be excused for suspecting that creationists have come up with something new, or that evolutionists have generated some serious internal trouble. But nothing has changed; the creationists have not a single new fact or argument. Darrow and Bryan were at least more entertaining than we lesser antagonists today. The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.

    Creationism Is Not Science

    The basic attack of the creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their complaints against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word “theory” to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that “scientific creationism” is therefore meaningless and self-contradictory, a superb example of what Orwell called “newspeak.”

    In the American vernacular, “theory” often means “imperfect fact” —part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is”only” a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can’t even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): “Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was.”

    Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome. And human beings evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

    Moreover, “fact” does not mean “absolute certainty.” The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

    Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: ‘I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its | natural selection’s] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.’

    Thus Darwin acknowledged the provisional nature of natural selection while affirming the fact of evolution. The fruitful theoretical debate that Darwin initiated has never ceased. From the 1940s through the 1960s, Darwin’s own theory of natural selection did achieve a temporary hegemony that it never enjoyed in his lifetime. But renewed debate characterizes our decade, and, while no biologist questions the importance of natural selection, many now doubt its ubiquity. In particular, many evolutionists argue that substantial amounts of genetic change may not be subject to natural selection and may spread through populations at random. Others are challenging Darwin’s linking of natural selection with gradual, imperceptible change through all intermediary degrees; they are arguing that most evolutionary events may occur far more rapidly than Darwin envisioned.

    Scientists regard debates on fundamental issues of theory as a sign of intellectual health and a source of excitement. Science is—and how else can I say it?—most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old information may be explained in surprisingly new ways. Evolutionary theory is now enjoying this uncommon vigor. Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been led to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy. Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that we now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.

    Using another invalid argument, creationists claim that ‘the dogma of separate creations,’ as Darwin characterized it a century ago, is a scientific theory meriting equal time with evolution in high school biology curricula. But a prevailing viewpoint among philosophers of science belies this creationist argument. Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science.

    The entire creationist argument involves little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting supposed contradictions among its supporters. Their brand of creationism, they claim, is ‘scientific’ because it follows the Popperian model in trying to demolish evolution. Yet Popper’s argument must apply in both directions. One does not become a scientist by the simple act of trying to falsify another scientific system; one has to present an alternative system that also meets Popper’s criterion—it too must be falsifiable in principle.

    ‘Scientific creationism’ is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified.

    Science operates off of fact. Creationism operates off of beliefs. Creationism is not science in substance or in form.

  41. Tootie, the public schools can be anything we want them to be as long as we keep religion out of it. When the First Amendment speaks to freedom of religion, that includes freedom FROM religion as well. As for where it says it, there are any number of Federal court opinions saying exactly that. And in case you have not noticed, we depend on the Federal Court system to clarify and explain the Constitution for us.

    I do not want my kids and grand-kids exposed to a particular branch of fundamentalist religion of any stripe. I am opposed to anything passed off as science that is based in mythology and superstition. Evolution is a fact. Evolutionary change follows the laws Gregor Mendel discovered a century and a half ago. And for what it is worth, Mendel was a monk.

    As for clicking links, they go where? To creationist propaganda sites? How about reading the Scientific American or the journal Science instead. On second thought, never mind. Facts just confuse you and you are already confused enough.

  42. rafflaw

    Ah. So you cannot find any such words in the Constitution which say or imply that “the federal government can forbid state schools from teaching about the biblical creation of the world and humankind” or “the federal government has the power to stop state schools from teaching about the biblical viewpoint of the meaning of life”?

    Thank you, I didn’t think it was there either.

  43. Buddha:

    You wrote:

    “The 1st Amendment has everything to do with it.”

    Okay. Prove it. Where does it say that the feds can tell the states to not teach about creation. I need the EXACT words from the 1st amendment.

  44. raff, don’t do that! Here I am having a glass of orange juice before bedtime and you have me snorting it out my nose. Bad raff!

  45. Where? Where does it say that the feds have the power to tell the public schools ANYTHING about what it may or may not teach regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with religion?

  46. Tootie, your lack of understanding of the Constitution and case law based on the Constitution is exceeded only by your lack of understanding of science.

  47. Otteray:

    My lack? You cannot even site the words which would prove your argument and I’m the one lacking?

    You are hilarious.

    I would think that, if you were correct, then you could prove it from the text of the Constitution. But you cannot do it. And I will tell you why you cannot. It is because what you say is in the first amendment isn’t there. You are just making up junk because of your own wishful thinking.

    We are not ignorant (or, rather, we shouldn’t be) about what the words in the first amendment mean. Several states had state religions at the time of ratification and would NEVER have voted for the Constitution if it outlawed their state religion. This is a proof that what you think the first amendment means is incorrect.

    American don’t know this part of history because evil and deceitful Christophobic bigots on the left have tried to erase this information from the historical record.

  48. Tootles,

    “Okay. Prove it. Where does it say that the feds can tell the states to not teach about creation. I need the EXACT words from the 1st amendment.”

    The Separation of Church and State is in the 1st Amendment.

    That the barrier between the two was designed by the Framers to both stop the creation of state sponsored churches and to prohibit any one sect using the law to gain advantage over another is well-established fact in case you forget the recent drubbing on the subject that I gave you here: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/04/08/oops-but-no-apology-nato-admits-it-killed-over-dozen-rebels-but-says-it-had-no-idea-they-had-tanks/#comment-219994

    Why repeat myself when I’ve already proven you a fool once this week?

    There is also the test provided by Lemon v. Kurtzman which I’ve pummeled you over the head with often enough even you should be able to remember it. Again, I’m not going to repeat myself because you wouldn’t know “secular purpose” or “excessive entanglement” if they bit you on the ass.

    Creationism isn’t science.

    It’s a religious belief.

    Seeking to have it taught in public schools violates both the Lemon test and the 1st Amendment as envisioned by the Framers as evidenced by their copious writings on the subject.

    Public schools – as they are tax payer funded government institutions – can’t Constitutionally teach creationism as a matter of law. It’s an attempt to use the government to spread your religion, i.e. gain advantage over other religions using the the government as your tool. Legislation saying you can will fail the Lemon test when challenged in Federal court. And they will be challenged. That’s a fact. If you want your children to be brainwashed ignoramuses such as yourself, that is your right. But you’ll have to teach them to be so in church, in private schools, or better yet to ensure they turn out to be complete morons: home school them.

  49. Buddha:

    It isn’t that difficult for you to find the words you claim forbid teaching about creation from the biblical point of view. And yet, you still cannot do it.

    This is really fun. And funny.

    Which words specifically give the feds any power to determine public school curricula?

    Is it in Article 1 Section 8? Where? In your dreams and fantasies?

    LOL?????? Where? Point to the words from the Constitution then recite them back to me. I need you to refer to the Constitution itself, not the opinions of others.

  50. It is irrelevant whether or not creationism is science.

    The question is: do the feds have the power to determine curricula in state schools?

    Buddha has to drag in a red herring (i.e. creationism isn’t science) to distract simple folks from the real issue: who determines curricula.

  51. “LOL?????? Where? Point to the words from the Constitution then recite them back to me. I need you to refer to the Constitution itself, not the opinions of others.” (Tootie)

    ===========

    That’s easy … go to usconstitutionforrepublicans dot com and scroll down to Amendment 36 which is a clarification of Article 9 …

  52. Blouise,
    You are on a roll!!
    Buddha,
    I think the response that Tootie needs is to ask here where in the Constitution does it say that the Feds can’t dictate curriculum?

  53. rafflaw,

    I purposely replaced the “.” with “dot” so he/she can’t copy and paste … make ’em work for it is my motto which I believe is stated somewhere in Article 54 …

  54. Also Tootles, while I’m thinking about it, just because you wouldn’t have ratified the 1st Amendment?

    Is irrelevant. Do you know which of the original ratifying states did approve of the 1st Amendment? Let’s take a look at that, shall we?

    The process of ratification requires 3/4 of the states to approve of the proposed amendment(s). The first ten amendments, commonly called the Bill of Rights, was drafted by James Madison (you may remember him from this week’s previous drubbing over Constitutional history) and submitted to Congress for ratification on December 15, 1791. The original submission included twelve amendments, but the first two were not ratified. What is now the 1st Amendment was originally Article III of the proposed Bill of Rights.

    The first one not ratified (Article I) was about apportionment and number of Representatives and it was never incorporated into the Constitution.

    The second one not ratified (Article II) limited the ability of Congress to raise their salaries and was later incorporated into the Constitution as the 27th Amendment.

    Of the remaining ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, all of them were ratified in the form in which they exist today. On the original dates of ratification (from November 20, 1789 to December 15, 1791) of the voting states none – I repeat NONE – of them voted against what would become the 1st Amendment. The only three states that didn’t vote to ratify the Bill of Rights in toto were Massachusetts, Connecticut and Georgia.

    When these three holdouts finally voted for the ratification of the Bill of Rights on the 150th anniversary of the original adoption in 1939, they did so without exception.

    Thus this historical set of facts belies your assertion that the original states would never have voted for the 1st Amendment if it banned state sanctioned religion.

    The original states ll knew for a fact the 1st Amendment (Article III) banned state sanctioned religion and they all voted for the 1st Amendment as it stands today.

    So suck it, Theocrat.

    The historical facts prove you’re wrong once again.

  55. James Madison to Reverand Adams 1832 (yes, 1832! decades AFTER the ratification).

    Here Madison discusses the fact that there are still states (former colonies) with state supported religion. No where does he claim this is unconstitutional (because it is not). In summary he writes that he is sure that, whatever the right or wrong of it, the federal government has NO business interfering with it.

    He writes in the last paragraph:

    “The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinance of the Govt. from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, & protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others.”

    The passage in question reads:

    “In the Colonial State of the Country, there were four examples, R. I. N. J. Penna. and Delaware, & the greater part of N. Y. where there were no religious Establishments; the support of Religion being left to the voluntary associations & contributions of individuals; and certainly the religious condition of those Colonies, will well bear a comparison with that where establishments existed.

    As it may be suggested that experiments made in Colonies more or less under the Controul of a foreign Government, had not the full scope necessary to display their tendency, it is fortunate that the appeal can now be made to their effects under a compleat exemption from any such controul.

    It is true that the New England States have not discontinued establishments of Religion formed under very peculiar circumstances; but they have by successive relaxations advanced towards the prevailing example; and without any evidence of disadvantage either to Religion or good Government.

    And if we turn to the Southern States where there was, previous to the Declaration of independence, a legal provision for the support of Religion; and since that event a surrender of it to a spontaneous support by the people, it may be said that the difference amounts nearly to the contrast in the greater purity & industry of the Pastors and in the greater devotion of their flocks, in the latter period than in the former. In Virginia the contrast is particularly striking, to those whose memories can make the comparison. It will not be denied that causes other than the abolition of the legal establishment of Religion are to be taken into view in accountg for the change in the Religious character of the community. But the existing character, distinguished as it is by its religious features, and the lapse of time now more than 50 years since the legal support of Religion was withdrawn sufficiently prove that it does not need the support of Govt. and it will scarcely be contended that Government has suffered by the exemption of Religion from its cognizance, or its pecuniary aid.

    The apprehension of some seems to be that Religion left entirely to itself may run into extravagances injurious both to Religion and to social order; but besides the question whether the interference of Govt. in any form wd. not be more likely to increase than controul the tendency, it is a safe calculation that in this as in other cases of excessive excitement, Reason will gradually regain its ascendancey. Great excitements are less apt to be permanent than to vibrate to the opposite extreme.

    Under another aspect of the subject there may be less danger that Religion, if left to itself, will suffer from a failure of the pecuniary support applicable to it than that an omission of the public authorities to limit the duration of their Charters to Religious Corporations, and the amount of property acquirable by them, may lead to an injurious accumulation of wealth from the lavish donations and bequests prompted by a pious zeal or by an atoning remorse. Some monitory examples have already appeared.

    Whilst I thus frankly express my view of the subject presented in your sermon, I must do you the justice to observe that you very ably maintained yours. I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions & doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinance of the Govt. from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, & protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others.”

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions68.html

  56. rafflaw:

    I’m embarrassed for you, but certainly not surprised, and would be happy to always cite the Constitution in defense of my arguments (unlike you). The part of the Constitution which says the feds cannot dictate school curricula is here:

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” 10th Amendment to the US Constitution

    Since the power to dictate school curricula was never delegated (nor prohibited to the states) said power to determine anything regarding public schools is served to the states (or the people).

  57. Tootles,

    Who has the right to decide curricula is the red-herring here.

    The 1st Amendment applies to the states via the Supremacy Clause. State laws cannot violate Federal laws including the Bill of Rights. State laws can supplement or provide greater protections than Federal law, but they cannot violate it. Local jurisdictions can indeed determine local curricula – just so long as said curricula doesn’t violate the Constitution. Teaching creationism – as it is a religious belief – through state run schools is a violation of the 1st Amendment and the rights of every non-Fundie student going to school there.

    So again, suck it, Theocrat.

  58. Blouise:

    So you join your friends in not being able to prove the feds have power to dictate public school curricula?

  59. Tootles,

    Are you so dense that you think that Madison quote does anything other bolster what I said about him and the Separation of Church and State?

    That’s really funny.

    No one said you couldn’t teach creationism in private schools, church and at home.

    Just not in public schools.

    You are a simple creature.

    Wrong too.

    And apparently illiterate.

  60. BTW, Tootles, I just proved how the Feds have rights to determine curricula. But don’t let the law and facts get in your way. Or was your inability to understand English that tripped you up again?

  61. BIL

    You are joking? Right?

    You said “The original states ll knew for a fact the 1st Amendment (Article III) banned state sanctioned religion and they all voted for the 1st Amendment as it stands today.”

    When did I say I disagreed with that? I agree. But they were voting to forbid the FEDERAL government from establishing a state religion. They were NOT voting for the federal government to forbid the states from having their own state sanctioned religion.

    This is really not that difficult. I think a 5th grader could figure it out.

    Are you past the fourth yet? If not, my apologies.

    Let me make it simple: they voted against federal establishment
    : they knew individual state establishment
    was allowed

  62. “James Madison was very short and as such had an aversion to any words that contained more than 5 letters … he called them tall words. If something is purported to have been written by Madison and contains words with more than 5 letters … be skeptical.” (ushistoryforrepublicansdotcom)

  63. Poor Buddha.

    He thinks the establishment clause refers to the states. LOL And I’m the one with the problem!

    Who is this “congress” that the first amendment is referring to? The federal congress or the state congress?

  64. Tootie
    1, April 11, 2011 at 12:44 am
    Blouise:

    So you join your friends in not being able to prove the feds have power to dictate public school curricula?

    ================================================

    Nope … as you can see from my posts I support you 100%

  65. Tootles,

    Ahhh. I should have known nothing like facts could stop your verbal diarrhea. You never surprise.

    “But they were voting to forbid the FEDERAL government from establishing a state religion. They were NOT voting for the federal government to forbid the states from having their own state sanctioned religion.”

    Yes. They were. Because the also voted for the Supremacy Clause when the adopted the U.S. Constitution. The same Constitutional powers that allows the Feds to dictate curricula are the same powers which forbid states from individually adopting state religions: the 1st Amendment via the Supremacy Clause.

    My, you are particularly dumb this evening.

  66. Buddha:

    You have to tell me everything but the exact words which say that the feds have the power to dictate public school curricula.

    This is because the Constitution says no such thing so you cannot defend your argument from the text of it.

    Young people are rejecting your old fashioned and misguided corruptions of the Constitution.

  67. Tootie,
    You are embarrassed for me? Wow! You have gone and hurt my feelings now. And you bring in the Tenther crap as evidence that religion can be taught in public schools and you are embarrassed for me? I tried to give you the facts. Buddha showed you the facts in great detail, but yet very succinctly, but you can’t see past your nose. Have fun with your religious beliefs, just don’t force them on students who actually want to learn science and not religion.

  68. Yeah, Tootles, I do think the Establishment Clause applies to the states. Because it does. Via the Supremacy Clause.

    That you’re too zealously ignorant of Constitutional law to accept that is just . . . hysterically funny and pathetic all at the same time. States can no more adopt a state religion than they can re-institute slavery or repeal women’s right to vote.

  69. Buddha:

    The supremacy clause only refers to the powers authorized and not to the powers you would like usurped.

    The federal powers are “supreme” only in those specified things allowed by the Constitution. That is all the supremacy clause means. It does not mean what you say.

  70. Tootles,

    Article IV contains the Supremacy Clause, which reads:

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    Those are the exact words that give the Feds the power to forbid religious curricula in state run schools.

    And for the record, I don’t have to do anything you tell me to do.

    I make you look like a fool not at your command, but simply because I think it’s funny.

  71. Buddha:

    You have frothed on and on about everything BUT the text of the Constitution (and thus have failed to prove your argument) and then have the nerve to say I’m zealously ignorant?

    LOL

  72. No, Tootles.

    The Supremacy Clause applies to the entire Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

  73. Tootles,

    I’m not the one frothing at the mouth, sweetie.

    I’m the one referencing the specific language of the Constitution that proves you wrong.

    Oh, and laughing my ass of your contortions.

  74. Come on though. Tell me again about how I’m not using the text of the Constitution when I’ve proven you wrong with the 1st Amendment and the Supremacy Clause. That’s really really funny.

  75. Buddha: where does it say in the 1st Amendment that the feds have the power to dictate curricula?

    You are delusional.

  76. Tootles,

    No. It’s not difficult for me to accept that you’re talking nonsense about the Constitution.

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    The power to prohibit religious interference in government is expressly delegated to the Federal government by operation of the 1st Amendment.

    The 10th Amendment in no way helps your argument.

  77. Awwww.

    I’m delusional. Isn’t that cute! Especially coming from someone who thinks the world was created in seven days.

    Try again.

    I’ve already shown you how the Feds can dictate curricula: if it violates the Constitution, they can forbid it. The teaching of creationism violates the 1st Amendment as it is promoting your religion via governmental mechanisms. The Feds can prohibit this via the Supremacy Clause. This power to prohibit religious promotion by governmental mechanisms is delegated to the Federal government and is thus also rightful under the 10th Amendment.

    You twist and shout some more though.

    I like a good laugh before bedtime.

  78. “It is rumored that the Supremacy Clause was actually written by Thomas Jefferson and sent by carrier pigeon from his apartments in France to the boys at the Philadelphia State House. The Supremacy Clause contains many “tall words” and Jefferson was a tall man.” (republicanbirdwatchingsocietydotcom)

  79. Blouise,

    I see you are wearing your finely crafted Hat of Sarcasm tonight.

    It looks good on you. :mrgreen:

  80. Buddha,

    Stinky feet? … the Pope washes feet on Maundy Thursday … you still have time to book a flight … you have to bring your own oil for anointing … and a towel

  81. Blouise

    you got me on the ushistoryforrepublicans.com. i tried looking that one up.

    be a good one to start though

  82. pete,

    I’m particularly proud of the (republican birdwatching society dot com)and carrier pigeons … it was nuanced …

  83. Blouise,

    Some old pedophile protecting Hitler Youth touching my feet?

    Ewwwwwwww! doesn’t seem quite strong enough.

  84. Buddha Is Laughing
    1, April 11, 2011 at 1:35 am
    Blouise,

    Some old pedophile protecting Hitler Youth touching my feet?

    Ewwwwwwww! doesn’t seem quite strong enough.

    =============================================

    Well Elaine and I sure as hell aren’t going to do it!

    However … we might be able to accompany you to Italy …

    Time to turn in and dream of roly-poly green feet running amuck through the Sistine Chapel

  85. The error of the “intelligent design” folks is their mistaken belief that intelligence was ever created?

    The error of the “creationist” folks is their mistaken belief that what has been created does not evolve?

    The error of the “evolutionist” folks is their mistaken belief that what was not created can evolve?

    So, only human error is creatively evolving, through ever diminishing imagined intelligence?

  86. Blouise,

    Thanks for the ushistoryforrepublicans link. The birdwatching link is a good one, as well. Some good info… :-)

  87. Blouise,

    “Well Elaine and I sure as hell aren’t going to do it!”

    Awww. Why not? I have sexy well-kept boyish feet!

    Which is just all the more reason to stay away from the Pope.
    :mrgreen:

    And there’s only one problem with going to Italy. With their cuisine? I may never come back. I wouldn’t need a home. I could just travel, roaming from restaurant to restaurant in an never-ending bacchanalia of seafood and pasta and sauces and wine, sleeping between courses and taking monkey baths in the fountains.

    On second thought, that doesn’t sound half bad . . .

  88. Buddha: “The Supremacy Clause applies to the entire Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.”

    What does that mean?

    And the incorporation doctrine fits into this plan how?

  89. Bob,

    If you want to talk incorporation doctrine, the only provisions of the first eight amendments that have not been incorporated are the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, the 5th Amendment’s requirement of grand jury indictment, and the 7th Amendment. The remainder have all been expressly incorporated into the 14th Amendment via its due process clause and so now applies to the state as well as the federal government. This includes the 1st Amendment. Given that it is an incorporated Amendment, the Supremacy Clause does apply to the 1st Amendment.

  90. Buddha,

    Honestly, I’ve never seen the argument put quite the way you put it. It seems counter intuitive. To say that the supremacy clause makes the bill of rights applicable to the states is simply incorrect; for then there would have been no need for selective incorporation.

    Further, to say that the supremacy clause applies to something like the first amendment necessarily precludes the equal and independent state grounds doctrine. Any state with an equivalent first amendment within their state constitution is not obliged to adhere to the fed first amendment jurisprudence because of the supremacy clause.

    See my problem here?

    BTW, the 2nd Amendment was incorporated to the states under Heller and McDonald.

  91. Bob,

    Do you see my point that once incorporated an Amendment becomes part of the Constitution proper?

    Otherwise, pssst!, it’s not incorporated.

    Incorporation in the sense of contracts and charter documents like the Constitution means the ancillary writings have become part of the finalized whole.

    Selective incorporation is a separate issue from those amendments already incorporated.

    The only problem I can legitimately see from your side is that I wasn’t initially specific about which amendments were incorporated and why. But this isn’t court. I’m not required to bring my A game in presentation. I do, however, think what I have said is factually correct given the operation of incorporation is it applies to documents.

    Quantum mechanics is also counter-intuitive.

    That doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

  92. “Any state with an equivalent first amendment within their state constitution is not obliged to adhere to the fed first amendment jurisprudence because of the supremacy clause.” (Bob.Esq,)

    Does that mean that no one within a state that has an equivalent first amendment can go beyond that state’s Supreme Court when appealing violation decisions?

  93. Buddha: “Do you see my point that once incorporated an Amendment becomes part of the Constitution proper?”

    No. The ‘Constitution proper’ has everything to do with specifically enumerated powers defining the fed and nothing defining the states. The bill of rights was simply further restrictions places specifically on the fed.

    And again, to say the supremacy clause applies to incorporated amendments necessarily precludes the equal and independent state grounds doctrine.

    New York State, in deciding a ‘First Amendment’ issue may completely disregard federal first amendment jurisprudence and decide the issue solely on cases decided under Article 1, Section 8 of the New York State Constitution.

    Where’s your supremacy clause then?

  94. Blouise: “Does that mean that no one within a state that has an equivalent first amendment can go beyond that state’s Supreme Court when appealing violation decisions?”

    The equal and independent state grounds doctrine essentially says that while the Federal Constitution sets the floor or basic minimum of rights, the states set the ceiling of rights. Accordingly states may afford additional protection under their respective state constitutions and the Fed can’t do anything about it.

  95. No, it doesn’t Blouise. You can directly Federally file for civil rights violations under 42 U.S. Code §1983. This statute applies to all state actions – including those of individual states. Since 42 U.S. Code §1983 has not been ruled unconstitutional (and logically couldn’t be), the civil rights capable of Federal redress are validly incorporated into the final document of the Constitution. Thus proving my statements about incorporation of documents.

  96. And feel free to ignore the meaning of the word “incorporation” as it applies to documents all you like, Bob.

    I don’t mind.

    Really.

  97. Oh . . . and there’s my Supremacy Clause!

    Right where I left it.

    Applying to all of the U.S. Constitution.

    Even the incorporated parts.

  98. Buddha,

    Under the equal and independent state grounds doctrine, the Federal First Amendment does not hold supremacy over Article I, Section 8 of the New York State Constitution.

    Period.

  99. Bob,

    The equal and independent grounds doctrine only applies when states provide additional protections. We are talking about the 1st Amendment here. Any additional protections supplemental to the Separation of Church and State found in the 1st Amendment found in state constitutions would only further bolster the case against teaching creationism in public schools. 1983 address this matter by allowing direct Federal action on civil rights violations of the civil right incorporated into the Constitution.

    Like the 1st Amendment.

    The ground floor here is the 1st Amendment as it is incorporated into the Constitution.

  100. By the way, Bob, the New York state constitution’s Bill of Rights reads:

    Art. I § 3. “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this state to all humankind; and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his or her opinions on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state.”

    That’s it.

    Compare with . . .

    U.S. Constitution, 1st Amendment which reads:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”.

    The New York constitution only addresses half of what the 1st Amendment addresses – namely the Free Exercise Clause – and totally ignores the Establishment Clause.

    Ergo, if the floor is the U.S. Constitution and the New York constitution is the ceiling, you are attempting to put the ceiling under the floor. The U.S. Constitution provides superior protection to that which is found in the New York state constitution.

  101. I just want everyone to think of the implication of Tootie’s list. If that’s not an example of the correct usage of “It’s the exception that proves the rule.” I don’t know what is.

  102. Article I, §12. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable interception of telephone and telegraph communications shall not be violated, and ex parte orders or warrants shall issue only upon oath or affirmation that there is reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained, and identifying the particular means of communication, and particularly describing the person or persons whose communications are to be intercepted and the purpose thereof. (New. Adopted by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.)

    ============

    Rather than researching establishment clause cases under the NYS Constitution…

    Your argument was that the Bill of Rights holds supreme via the supremacy clause.

    Wanna tell me how the Fourth Amendment holds supreme over Article I, Section 12 of the NYS Constitution?

    You made a broad sweeping comment about the Bill of Rights and the Supremacy Clause that’s technically incorrect.

  103. Bob,

    I’ve already addressed your statement about overbroad. This isn’t court and if I’d known you were going to be a dick about it, I would have used greater specificity initially so as to avoid this conflict. With greater specificity, my argument is that the 1st Amendment applies via the Supremacy Clause because it’s incorporated. Ancillary to that, there is no 10th Amendment issue here as the U.S. Constitution provides greater protection than the state constitution.

    The issue here isn’t the 4th Amendment either.

    It’s the 1st Amendment.

    The application of the U.S. Constitution’s 4th Amendment still applies to the state of New York via the Supremacy Clause when and – now read this very carefully – IF AND ONLY IF the NYS constitution had supplied inferior civil rights as compared to the civil rights found in the Constitution. States can grant superior rights to the U.S. Constitution, not inferior rights curtailing the U.S. Constitution. As the equal and independent grounds doctrine only applies when a state constitution grants superior rights (or addresses a right not covered by the incorporated Constitution), your point is moot and an instance of apples and oranges. The equal and independent grounds doctrine provides an exception to the instance of the NY state constitution Art. I, Sec. 12 precisely and only because the NYS constitution clearly provides greater protection than the Federal Constitution’s 4th Amendment.

    Just like there is no exception created by the equal and independent grounds doctrine where the NYS constitution provides inferior rights compared to the U.S. Constitution when comparing the 1st Amendment and the NYS Art. I, Sec. 3. “Superior rights to those found in the U.S. Constitution”, Bob. That’s the trigger for the exceptions created by equal and independent grounds doctrine.

    Also your childish fit throwing about the issue and attempts to move the goal posts (futilely I might add) is much akin to lame bitching.

    Try to change the subject.

    Just goes to show what a pissy loser you can be, Bob.

    I must say I’m a bit disappointed, but not surprised.

  104. Pardon the blown out tag. That last bolding was meant to end after “inferior rights”.

    Just like your argument ends a “inferior rights”.

  105. Lunch and errand break.

    I’ll tune in for the rest of your argument, such as it is, later.

    Just don’t hate me when I out argue it again.

    Or do.

    That’s your prerogative.

  106. Buddha,

    By declaring victory in bold you’re the one being childish.

    The problem here has more to do with language comprehension than law. Simply because the Fed sets the floor of rights with the BOR it does not follow that a supremacy clause analysis is applicable. For if the supremacy clause was applicable as you say, then what’s to stop Congress from declaring that the BOR preempts all similar or identical state constitutional provisions?

    I understand what you’re saying about the Bill of Rights holding supreme, once incorporated, to states infringing on the basic minimums; i.e. state law standing in contradiction to valid federal law. But the Bill of Rights is not ‘supreme’ per se because they could never preempt greater protections afforded by state constitutions.

  107. Bob,

    “what’s to stop Congress from declaring that the BOR preempts all similar or identical state constitutional provisions?”

    The 10th Amendment and the equal and independent grounds doctrine. The Supremacy Clause would apply with the exceptions provided by the aforementioned laws.

    Yes. The problem here does have to do with language comprehension. Yours. You apparently don’t understand what “incorporation” means as it relates to documents. You can try to keep selectively applying the Supremacy Clause all you like but the fact is that once an amendment is incorporated, it is part and parcel of the whole including the application of the Supremacy Clause. That is the very mechanism that allows superior rights under the U.S. Constitution to be, duh, superior to inferior rights conferred by state constitutions. The Supremacy Clause is exactly how Federal law trumps state law. Or is there something unclear about “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding” coupled with the exceptions provided by the equal and independent grounds doctrine?

    I didn’t declare victory. I said you were a pissy loser because you are losing this argument and that I’d out argue you again. Which I did and will continue to do so because the logic is sound and you haven’t proved otherwise. Because supreme is supreme absent the aforementioned exceptions. You seem to think I haven’t thought this through. That would be incorrect.

    Exceptions are exactly that: exceptions. Not the rule. The rule is the Supremacy Clause. The exceptions are equal and independent grounds doctrine and unreserved powers.

  108. If tooties list is right, and I find getting info from the “Creation Museum” to be very specious….but I’ll give tootie the benefit of the doubt..since Ive always enjoyed he/she/its comedy routines ….just imagine how long the list of people with doctorates who think creationism is hogwash must be….and I bet we might even know a few of those who would be on that list.

  109. Great discussion by the regulars on everything from Kant to Incorporation Doctrine, but why no mention of M*A*S*H’s “Colonel Potter” (Harry Morgan) as the somber judge in the photograph?

  110. Okay, mespo. I’ll bite.

    Has anyone but be noticed that Dexter’s father on the Showtime series “Dexter” and from the Jeff Lindsay novels is also named Harry Morgan?

    And Harry Morgan thinks I’m right too. :mrgreen:

    I’ll let you decide which Harry Morgan I mean.

  111. If the Tennessee House is open to teachers explaining the perceived flaws in evolution as “teaching the controversy,” then teachers should also be able to teach students the controversy over the flaws in the creation story — the ways in which the creation story is internally contradictory (sun and moon created on the 4th day, after the creation of plans on the third day), and contrary to scientific evidence of a 4.5 billion year old earth, etc. Let’s see the teachers require students homework assignments on the flaws in creationism and ID along with homework assignments on the flaws in evolution. After all, the goal is not religious education but “teaching the controversy” (within the First Amendment according to the Tenn legislature) so students can be informed of both views. One side doesn’t get a free pass under that rubric. I am willing to bet that the first time a teacher explains to Johnny and Jane the factual problems in their Sunday school lessons, the Tenn legislature will rush to change the law.

  112. Me: “what’s to stop Congress from declaring that the BOR preempts all similar or identical state constitutional provisions?”

    Buddha: “The 10th Amendment and the equal and independent grounds doctrine. The Supremacy Clause would apply with the exceptions provided by the aforementioned laws.”

    That’s the language comprehension problem. I fully understand the doctrine of incorporation; seeing I was the one who reminded you of the concept here.

    What I don’t understand is your unique take on the Supremacy Clause. The phenomena that you deem ‘exceptions’ precede the very existence of a supremacy clause.

    The tenth amendment is a mere tautology; it does not confer any rights or powers to the states that they didn’t already have.

    Buddha: “Yes. The problem here does have to do with language comprehension. Yours. You apparently don’t understand what “incorporation” means as it relates to documents.”

    I’m the one with the language comprehension problem?

    Your language on this topic lacks clarity; especially as it relates to your obsession with the term ‘incorporation.’

    For example:

    “You can try to keep selectively applying the Supremacy Clause all you like but the fact is that once an amendment is incorporated, it is part and parcel of the whole including the application of the Supremacy Clause.”

    Once an amendment is incorporated THEN the supremacy clause applies???

    Was the 13th Amendment ‘incorporated?’ How about the 18th Amendment? Was it ‘incorporated?’ NO. Yet those amendments were deemed the supreme law of the land; were they not?

    To be clear, the incorporation doctrine relates only to the bill of rights (actually 1-8) since they were originally addressed to further restrict the powers of the fed only. Accordingly, incorporation is not a pre-requisite for ‘an amendment’ becoming part and parcel of ‘the supreme law of the land.’

    And what’s this tripe?

    Buddha: “That is the very mechanism that allows superior rights under the U.S. Constitution to be, duh, superior to inferior rights conferred by state constitutions.”

    Since when do constitutions “confer” any rights whatsoever?

    To say that the BOR, to the extent they have been incorporated, are supreme subject to the exception of the equal and independent state grounds doctrine MEANS that the BOR is not “supreme.” Supremacy is not dependent on any outcome other than prevailing over everything.

  113. stewartblock

    Good comment about that sauce for the gander. I’m waiting for the Tennessee Bill protecting teachers from repercussions due to teaching the “controversy” over gravity. It’s all mere scientific theory you know.

    WOOOOOOOOAH, I’m floating away! Damn rationalists!

  114. rafflaw:

    Yes! yes! Intelligent falling — obviously created by the deity to prevent too many close encounters in the celestial heights.

  115. Bob,

    “Your language on this topic lacks clarity; especially as it relates to your obsession with the term ‘incorporation.’”

    My only language problem was not being specific enough initially to avoid you acting like an ass.

    “Once an amendment is incorporated THEN the supremacy clause applies???

    Was the 13th Amendment ‘incorporated?’ How about the 18th Amendment? Was it ‘incorporated?’ NO. Yet those amendments were deemed the supreme law of the land; were they not?”

    Since I thought we were talking about the BOR, I assumed you were too. My bad! If you want to discuss other Amendments beyond that scope? That’s another topic. My but you like to move the goal posts when cornered.

    “To be clear, the incorporation doctrine relates only to the bill of rights (actually 1-8) since they were originally addressed to further restrict the powers of the fed only. Accordingly, incorporation is not a pre-requisite for ‘an amendment’ becoming part and parcel of ‘the supreme law of the land.’ ”

    No. But incorporation is a pre-requisite for an amendment being incorporated into the Constitution.

    To be clear, you still don’t understand what incorporation means. The parts of the BOR incorporated to the Constitution /i>become the Constitution with all the other attendant powers found there. This includes including the Supremacy Clause.

    The Supreme Court has held that the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates all of the substantive protections of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th (except for its Grand Jury Clause) and 6th Amendments and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the 8th Amendment.

    I wouldn’t be so cocksure about the incorporation of the 13th Amendment if I were you either. It may be the law of the land, but it is not incorporated into the Constitution, ergo on it’s own the Supremacy Clause does not apply to it. No cases have been prosecuted directly related to the 13th Amendment since 1947 and as recently as 1988, the SCOTUS ruled that the 13th Amendment did not prohibit compulsion of servitude through psychological coercion (United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988), later redressed by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000). So what makes the 13th Amendment the law of the land? Why the the supplemental protections of the 14th Amendment, the 15th Amendment’s additional racial protections for voting rights, and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 do. Without these supplemental protections, the 13th Amendment has got fewer teeth than you may realize. Should it be incorporated? You betcha! Is it? No. It may be the law of the land, but it’s not so because of incorporation into the Constitution.

    As to the 18th Amendment? Well there was a little bit of enabling legislation that went along with that called the Volstead Act. And nice example you’ve got there, Bob. An amendment and enabling legislation that were effectively killed by the 21st Amendment. The word “nullity” does come to mind.

    If you want to nitpick, which evidently you do, I will stipulate that “delineate” would have been a better word choice than “confer”.

    “To say that the BOR, to the extent they have been incorporated, are supreme subject to the exception of the equal and independent state grounds doctrine MEANS that the BOR is not “supreme.” Supremacy is not dependent on any outcome other than prevailing over everything.”

    The incorporated sections of the BOR are supreme except as limited by the 10th Amendment and its attendant supporting doctrines.

    Come back when you have a cogent argument that shows you realize what “incorporation” means and what an “exception” is.

  116. “The Supreme Court has held that the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates all of the substantive protections of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th (except for its Grand Jury Clause) and 6th Amendments and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the 8th Amendment. This is in addition to their incorporation.”

  117. Lottakatz,

    As an aside which has nothing to do with this thread’s evolving I was struck by your comment “People are taller too …” in that it brought back a memory.

    Tex and I were on a road trip out west and stopped at a small town (sorry, I can’t remember where)for lunch. This little town had been a stopover for the Pony Express and they had a marvelous historical set up in their town square complete with the original “station building”. One of the plaques on the building explained that it was not a “miniature rendition” of the old building but the building itself. The doorway was only 5’4″ tall because the adults back then were that much shorter than they are today. The plaque noted that the average adult back then was the same height as the average 12 year old is today. Indeed, the old station building did look like a child’s playhouse.

    By the way, I agree with everything else in your post.

  118. Buddha,

    You accused me of having a problem with language comprehension and you expect me to overlook your glaring mistakes?

    There was no moving of goal posts; I merely pointed out how you stepped in your own shit.

    Me: “To be clear, the incorporation doctrine relates only to the bill of rights (actually 1-8) since they were originally addressed to further restrict the powers of the fed only. Accordingly, incorporation is not a pre-requisite for ‘an amendment’ becoming part and parcel of ‘the supreme law of the land.’ ”

    Buddha: “No. But incorporation is a pre-requisite for an amendment being incorporated into the Constitution.”

    What does that mean? Amendments are not ‘incorporated into the constitution;’ they are part of the constitution. Specific amendments, i.e. the bill of rights, are selectively incorporated into the 14th Amendment and then applied to the states. Your sentence makes ABSOLUTELY no sense.

    Buddha: “To be clear, you still don’t understand what incorporation means.”

    See above.

    Buddha: “The parts of the BOR incorporated to the Constitution become the Constitution with all the other attendant powers found there. This includes including the Supremacy Clause.”

    Once again, the bill of rights are selectively incorporated into the 14th Amendment and then applied to the states. They are not ‘incorporated into the constitution.’

    Buddha: “I wouldn’t be so cocksure about the incorporation of the 13th Amendment if I were you either. It may be the law of the land, but it is not incorporated into the Constitution, ergo on it’s own the Supremacy Clause does not apply to it.”

    The 13th Amendment is not incorporated into the constitution?? Do you hear yourself? This is not like mispronouncing the word ‘nuclear.’ This is a huge misstatement of logic. Hate to break the news to you, but Article V assures us that all amendments are in fact part and parcel of the original constitution.

    And in your musings about the 13th and 18th amendments, you glossed over the original ‘enabling legislation’ within the amendments themselves.

    Section 2 of Amendment 13: Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Section 2 of Amendment 18: The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Now if congress passed a law under either of those amendments and it conflicted with a state law, can you guess which law, fed or state, would reign ‘supreme?’ Hmm?

    Buddha: “The incorporated sections of the BOR are supreme except as limited by the 10th Amendment and its attendant supporting doctrines.”

    Care to tell me how the tenth amendment came into play on this question of SCOTUS subject matter jurisdiction; i.e. the equal and independent state grounds doctrine?

    Buddha: “Come back when you have a cogent argument that shows you realize what “incorporation” means and what an “exception” is.”

    Let me just say your notion of the concept of ‘incorporation’ as used here is truly an exception to the notion used by everyone else when referring to the ‘incorporation doctrine.’

    “Incorporated into the constitution” —

    Jesus H. Tap Dancing Christ!

  119. Bob,

    I’d also like to know why you think the Incorporation Doctrine hasn’t been applied to the 13th Amendment.

    It couldn’t be because since there hasn’t been a 13th Amendment claim before the court since 1947 and the Incorporation Doctrine wasn’t created let alone used until 1963 (Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)), could it?

    “That river of time is a real crowd pleaser,” said Mr. Einstein, “Too bad it’s so hard to swim upstream.”

  120. Bob,

    The Incorporation Doctrine applies to the Constitution as it applies to the states actions, Bob. Unless the Amendment has had the ID applied to it by a court, it can still be part of the Constitution. It’s just not a part of the Constitution that necessarily applies to states actions absent some other enabling legislation or direct application through the 14th Amendment. If it were, then the Feds could make all kinds of Amendments that violate the powers reserved to states simply by Amendment. You seem to have forgotten that the ID is a judicial doctrine, not a statutory doctrine.

    You can bring up Dancing Jesus all you want.

    I think you’re just mad you never thought of this line of argumentation.

    The logic is solid. You still haven’t proven otherwise. The Supremacy Clause applies to amendments as they relate to state action so long as that amendment has been incorporated via the ID. In the other cases you mentioned, they were applied to state actions via other enabling legislation. Other amendments may be the law of the land and they may apply to states but they do not do so via the ID unless they have had Gideon applied to them by a court.

  121. “they were applied to state actions via other enabling legislation or the 14th Amendment.”

    Sorry. Lap full of cat.

  122. JT I am sure you hope otherwise but I sincerely hope this site is never famous. I love the witty clique of writers and how they do not suffer fools lightly,gladly or otherwise. Another kick ass read! Thanks to you all and your expensive educations.

  123. Buddha and Bob,

    Please excuse my baby-lawyer status but I have been following this discussion and have a few questions.

    Am I correct in my understanding that the BOR was understood initially to regulate the actions of the federal government, not the states and that this changed after the Civil War notably through the 14th Amendment in July of 1868, which could have applied the Bill of Rights to the States via Total Incorporation, but the Supreme Court restricted its use?

    Has the Supreme Court practiced selective incorporation, upholding certain individual clauses within each Amendment and rejecting other clauses?

  124. Buddha and Bob,

    p.s. … I was busy trying to think of how I wanted to word my questions and folding clothes from the dryer and putting clothes in the washer so didn’t see all your posts since my last post at 5:48p. If you have answered my questions don’t be insulted … just point me to the post

  125. rafflaw
    1, April 11, 2011 at 6:31 pm
    Blouise,
    Using those height standards from the 1800′s, I would be a tall man at 5’8″!

    =================================================

    Imagine how George Washington (6’2″) and Abe Lincoln (6’4″) appeared to their fellow citizens.

  126. Blouise,

    “Am I correct in my understanding that the BOR was understood initially to regulate the actions of the federal government, not the states and that this changed after the Civil War notably through the 14th Amendment in July of 1868, which could have applied the Bill of Rights to the States via Total Incorporation, but the Supreme Court restricted its use?”

    Yes. Absent specific wording about total incorporation, the issues were only settled when challenged in court by state laws that citizens claimed violated their Constitutional Rights due to them as citizens of the United States. Three clauses of the amendment are pertinent to this discussion as the others dealt with issues surrounding the Confederacy.

    Only one of the relevant clauses of the 14th Amendment applied directly to standing precedent at the time of adoption and that was the Citizenship Clause which overturned the ruling of Dred Scott (1857).

    The second relevant clause of the 14th Amendment, the Due Process Clause, has been used to incorporate other sections of the BOR into the Constitution in such a way as to make the BOR apply to states. This clause is the foundation of the decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) which held that failure to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who are unable to afford their own attorneys was a violation of their civil rights as U.S. citizens. It is also the basis of later rulings like Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) which relied upon Gideon and the 14th Amendment to determine citizen’s rights to counsel under police interrogation.

    The third relevant clause of the 14th Amendment is the Equal Protection Clause which requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. The Equal Protection Clause is the basis for Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) which overturned Plessy v. Feguson and made segregated schools illegal.

    “Has the Supreme Court practiced selective incorporation, upholding certain individual clauses within each Amendment and rejecting other clauses?”

    Yes. I’ll get back to you with a little more detail later, but I’m in the middle of cooking. :mrgreen:

  127. Buddha,

    This is good. For persons such as myself trying to follow the discussion between you and Bob … well, it’s helpful to be certain I understand the basics …

  128. Ok, Blouise.

    It’s kind of a good thing anyway. I ate too much and feel a nap coming on. If so, as usual, I’ll have the cats assisting.

  129. I give up, but I can’t resist commenting on the following:

    Buddha: “The Incorporation Doctrine applies to the Constitution as it applies to the states actions, Bob. Unless the Amendment has had the ID applied to it by a court, it can still be part of the Constitution. It’s just not a part of the Constitution that necessarily applies to states actions absent some other enabling legislation or direct application through the 14th Amendment.”

    The Court selectively incorporated portions of the first eight amendments into the 14th amendment because by their express terms they applied only to the federal government. An amendment that is not by its express terms solely applicable to the federal government need not be ‘incorporated’ into the 14th.

    Amendment: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

    Enforcement clause therein: “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

    Same design with the 18th Amendment; both have enforcement clauses by which the Fed applied the law to the states. You see see, the inclusion of enforcement clauses made clear that the amendments were not expressly concerned with the Fed, like the BOR, but directly applicable to the states as well.

    No, what’s that word, ‘incorporation’ needed.

    Buddha: “If it were, then the Feds could make all kinds of Amendments that violate the powers reserved to states simply by Amendment.”

    You mean like the 18th Amendment exercising a general penal/police power normally reserved by the states? Or do you mean the Fed promulgating general penal laws under no express authority to do so contained within the constitution?

    The 18th Amendment was a straight out amendment with an enforcement clause; doesn’t need a general power penal power within the constitution to exist. But things like federal drug laws, that started out as tax laws because there is no general penal power afforded to the Fed… well that’s a different story entirely now isn’t it?

    Buddha: “The Supremacy Clause applies to amendments as they relate to state action so long as that amendment has been incorporated via the ID.”

    Again with the broad sweeping statements; again, as shown above with the 13th and 18th amendments, the incorporation doctrine need not apply. They apply to the states by virtue of the language contained therein and they are supreme by virtue of being part of the constitution.

    Buddha: “In the other cases you mentioned, they were applied to state actions via other enabling legislation. Other amendments may be the law of the land and they may apply to states but they do not do so via the ID unless they have had Gideon applied to them by a court.”

    You lost me again. WTF does Gideon have to do with anything more than incorporating the sixth amendment right to counsel into the 14th amendment?

    I give up.

  130. BTW, the takings clause is applicable to the states by virtue of the due process clause of the fifth amendment as well as the due process clause of the 14th.

    It’s weird that way.

  131. Blouise, We have hat the St. Louis Art Museum several rooms of period furniture and cultural artifacts including weaponry. The suits of armour are small enough to fit me. We have one room that is from the Medieval period, it’s centerpiece is a wall that faces the interior of a room and behind that is a staircase and behind that is the panels that face the ‘outside’ wall. It’s beautiful, ornately carved and burnished hardwood: exquisite! I looked at the stairs and was amazed because they are tiny, like a miniature staircase, they look to be about 2′ wide maximum and the risers are short. A door carved in the wall under the staircase is also very short.

    Many of the older room settings have ‘small’ furniture too, a couple of the more rnate ones I at first glance thought to be ‘ladies’ rooms but they weren’t, the ornament and delicacy was a refection of the wealth and the style of the period, the size was a reflection of ‘evolution’. :-)

  132. Bob,

    That’s funny. When someone gives up they usually go away. But you seem to have a problem with the meanings of words, so I’ll help you out some more.

    But please, first, tell me how the Supremacy Clause doesn’t apply to the incorporated sections of the BOR like the 1st Amendment again.

    That’s funnier still.

    If no incorporation is required for an amendment to be part of the Constitution as it applies to the states, then all the amendments apply to the states without exclusion via the Supremacy Clause as parts of the whole. Otherwise, the Supremacy Clause is useless.

    If no incorporation is required for selective enforcement, absent enabling legislation, specific language in the amendment proper that applies it directly to the states, or riding the coattails of the 14th Amendment, then there was no need to the Gideon court to create an incorporation doctrine. Or do you think Hugo Black was just pulling his pud?

    And let’s go back to the your examples of the 13th and 18th Amendments, shall we?

    The 13th: “not a part of the Constitution that necessarily applies to states actions absent some other enabling legislation or direct application through the 14th Amendment.” What part of DIRECT APPLICATION or the qualifier NECESSARILY doesn’t register with you? Aside from all of it.

    The 18th: “not a part of the Constitution that necessarily applies to states actions absent some other enabling legislation or direct application through the 14th Amendment.” What part of ENABLING LEGISLATION or the qualifier NECESSARILY doesn’t register with you? Besides all of it.

    Broad sweeping statements? I never said ID was required for all amendments to be incorporated, so don’t put premises in my arguments. In fact, I specifically mentioned direct language and enabling legislation.

    So what you’ve just accomplished with your last post is a complicated act of regurgitation of what I had already said. Which is in itself odd since you didn’t seem to read or understand the words I initially wrote. Do you often eat things that you don’t know what they are?

    And last but not least . . .

    What does Gideon have to do with it?

    Gideon is where Black for the majority explained how incorporation applies to the BOR, getting another swing at a piece of the whole he presented in his dissent in Adamson v. People of the State of California, 332 U.S. 46, 67 S. Ct. 1672, 91 L. Ed. 2d 1903 (1947) where he said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated all aspects of the Bill of Rights and applied them to the states. He was bulldogged into the minority in the Adamson case by Frankfurter who railed against Black in his concurrence. During Frankfurter’s tenure, the Court was hesitant to even look at the ID agaom much less act upon it. It wasn’t until Frankfurter’s retirement in 1962 that the ID was seriously considered by SCOTUS again. Which bring us to Gideon . . .

    Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)

    Note that date, Bob. The year after Frankfurter retired. The majority written by Hugo Black. Coincidence? Not very freakin’ likely there, buddy!

    Where did the ID come from? Thin air? No. It came from Gideon. It’s a judicially created doctrine. Judicially created doctrine to deal with incorporating amendments that don’t have DIRECT APPLICATION or ENABLING LEGISLATION (I put those in caps again so you wouldn’t eat them and regurgitate them again.)

    And the ID has been applied piecemeal to the BOR ever since Gideon.

    What does Gideon have to do with the ID?

    Everything.

    You should read it sometime.

    Better yet, you should read Adamson and know the history of cases leading to Gideon.

  133. Isn’t it interesting how silly and childish supposed grown-ups can be?

    While that story-book some call “The Bible” (bible is a word which merely means “book”?) may have superstitious words such as, “God said…” it does not tell us how “God said…” whatever “God” said?

    Not only that, but not all versions of the book some call “The Bible” use the word “God”?

    However, I happen to have close by one which has the following words?

    “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that hath life…”? (KJV, from Genesis 1:20 ?)

    Well, to bring forth is to evolve?

    So, evolution is how God created the moving creatures; it says so in “The Bible”?

    Where is the “creation-evolution” controversy, if it can not be found in “The Bible”?

    Of course, I might know something I don’t know, had I ever taken even one useful science class in school?

    Is it not the sole real (meaning operative?) purpose and function of SCOTUS to dictate selective incorporation? Why else even bother to have a Supreme Court?

    It feels good to be perfectly ignorant?

    Or, does constitutional law inherently deny all rights under law to the perfectly ignorant?

  134. Buddha: “Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)

    Note that date, Bob. The year after Frankfurter retired. The majority written by Hugo Black. Coincidence? Not very freakin’ likely there, buddy!

    Where did the ID come from? Thin air? No. It came from Gideon.”

    Categorically WRONG:

    Long before Gideon…

    Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897) (Incorporating the takings clause as good against the states.) see also Webbs Famous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith 499 U.S. 155 (1980) (explaining why)

    Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925) (holding that the due process clause of the 14th made the free speech protections of the first amendment applicable to the states)

    State of Louisiana Ex Rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947) (holding that the cruel and unusual punishment provision of the 8th Amendment is applicable to the states.)

  135. I will stipulate I should have mentioned Gitlow and that I had totally forgotten (it does happen) about Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., so mea culpa. However, I was unaware of Webbs Famous Pharmacies. I’ll have to look that one up. Thanks, Bob.

    I should have perhaps worded that as “It [the ID] was resurrected by Gideon.” thus providing yet another reminder that the battle to maintain civil rights is perpetual.

    For every time a right like those found in the 1st Amendment and the rest of the BOR is created?

    There is always some loon looking to take it away from you.

    By saying things like the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to the states.

  136. For once, I agree with Taliban Tootie … God IS real and evolution is a farce … God created all things, the air we breath, the water we drink, the animals we eat … How do I know? Cuz Mikey Seaver and his bestest friend Ray said so …

  137. And, believing as Taliban Tootie does, understanding that God is real isn’t that difficult at all! Why? Cuz Mikey Seaver say so!

  138. raff,

    The part of the clip with Moe devolving is re-enacted in Tennessee everyday. Evidence? Lamar Alexander.

  139. BDAman,

    O.k. I’ll bite. Here’s my challenge, if you can give me a good reason for each of your arbitrary limits (warm blooded animals that have been around 1000s of years), I’ll give you one that we have strong evidence has changed on a genetic level due to variation in environmental pressures. Heck, I’m feeling generous I’ll give you TWO examples.

    But only if you can tell me why you chose those limits.

  140. For anyone interested, here’s an excerpt of the famous cross-examination by Darrow of Bryan taken from the transcript:

    STEWART [Bryan’s fellow prosecutor]: I want to interpose another objection. What is the purpose of this examination?

    BRYAN: The purpose is to cast ridicule on everybody who believes in the Bible, and I am perfectly willing that the world shall know that these gentlemen have no other purpose than ridiculing every Christian who believes in the Bible.

    DARROW: We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States, and you know it, and that is all.

    BRYAN: I am glad to bring out that statement. I want the world to know that this evidence is not just for the view. Mr. Darrow and his associates have filed affidavits here stating, the purpose of which, as I understand it, is to show that the Bible story is not true.

    MALONE: Mr. Bryan seems anxious to get some evidence into the record that would tend to show that those affidavits are not true.

    BRYAN: I am not trying to get anything into the record. I am simply trying to protect the Word of God against the greatest atheist or agnostic in the United States. [Prolonged applause.] I want the papers to know I am not afraid to get on the stand in front of him and let him do his worst. I want the world to know that agnosticism is trying to force agnosticism on our colleges and on our schools, and the people of Tennessee will not permit that to be done. [Prolonged applause.]

    DARROW: I wish I could get a picture of those claquers.*

    *The term referes to organized body of professional
    applauders.

    Now that’s good lawyering!

  141. If Darrow had a halfway decent geneticist as an expert I think he would have mopped the floor with Bryant – no matter how many ‘expert’ cintelligent designists he had on his side, it’s hard to argue against the scientific certainty that we are related to the great apes (and every other life form…).

  142. Hi Kevin hope all is well.

    it’s hard to argue against the scientific certainty that we are related to the great apes (and every other life form…).

    We all share

    Head, shoulder knees and toes, knees and toes
    Head, shoulder knees and toes, knees and toes
    Two eyes two ears a mouth and a nose
    Head, shoulder knees and toes, knees and toes
    :)

  143. Gyges,

    Bdaman has never shown much interest in a reasonable discussion – his tactic is to merely post misleading (or just plain wrong) links in response to any attempt to engage him in debate – he’s clearly got some evolving left to do…

  144. Slart,

    I know, I just wanted to point it out. Any guesses as to what species I’m thinking of? As a hint, we can trace exactly when the one of the changes began, 1881.

  145. Gyges,

    Unless you’re talking about President Garfield (a sub-species of homo sapiens sapiens which went extinct in 1881) or some species that was affected by the Thumb Fire, I haven’t got a clue…

  146. Gyges I must have missed it, what question.

    Kevin it’s not that I’m not interested. Alot of times I post links to stories related to the thread or someone’s comment and then boom I’m gone. I’m in front of my third computer today and only have a short time to post. No, no sleeep clinic yet but I did get all my blood work done and I’m good across the board with the exception a little high on my LDL and super low B-12 level. I’m now injecting myself once a week with B-12 and backing it up with OTC B-12

  147. Bdaman,

    That’s your right, but I come here for discussion, not your idea of ‘information’ – and whether you see it or not, your tactics are an asymmetric effort to either derail or disrupt the discussion rather than add to it (or at least that’s how I see them…) regardless of your intent (which may be pure as the driven snow – but I doubt it).

  148. And for someone who claims they are too busy to post here you sure have alot of time to post on ol docs site.

  149. Slart,

    Well, it stretches “looks” different (you can see it, with the right magnification equipment), but it’s a physical change that’s well documented and works along similar lines.
    The percentage of the population with certain kinds of color blindness increases when they move from “hunter Gatherer” to “agricultural” and again when they move to “industrial.”

    Meaning that overall more of the human race has been becoming color blind over the last few thousand years.

  150. Bdaman said:

    “Your right it’s my right and it’s your right to have your opinion. So now what?”

    Now I go back to ignoring you until you say something interesting…

    Bdaman said:

    “And for someone who claims they are too busy to post here you sure have alot [sic – or is it?] of time to post on ol docs site.”

    The time I spend on comments over there is a fraction of the time I used to spend on a single post here… What’s your handle over there? (just curious – but I doubt that you are spending your time over there just lurking…)

  151. No I just click the home page, look at the side bar comments to look for you :) Just to show you what I’m talking about when I find something interesting that I think professor Turley might be interested in, I post that on the corrections page.

    Bdaman 1, April 12, 2011 at 1:53 pm
    JT’s Post Pittsburgh Police Officers Beat and Taser Fan
    Published 1, April 12, 2011

    Bdaman 1, April 12, 2011 at 3:53 pm
    JT’s Post United Nations Officials Denounces Obama Administration For Denying Access to Bradley Manning
    Published 1, April 13, 2011

    Maybe I’m trying to disrupt the corrections page too :)

  152. Bdaman,

    I find it interesting that you feel the need to defend yourself when I’m not attacking – and, since the stated purpose of the corrections page includes suggestions, comments such as the ones you reference are completely on topic. Finally, I didn’t say that you were trying to disrupt anything – I said that you had the EFFECT of disrupting threads (I cite this exchange as an example).

  153. Gyges,

    It’s definitely the result of society’s impact (or that of its ‘evolution’) on the evolution of H. Sapiens Sapiens, but you said you’d throw in a second species for free (or maybe I’m interpreting a missing word in your post incorrectly…)

  154. Gyges,

    I think, in general, that the evolution of society (and technology) has a damping effect on physical evolution by rendering many mutations non-fatal. (That’s a personal opinion, not something I can back up scientifically, though…)

  155. If were not limited to mammals and can look at any vertebrates, cichlids – specifically those found in Lake Victoria – are a creature undergoing one of the fastest rates of speciation on the planet. The Science Channel has a show called “Mutant Planet”. The episode about Africa’s Rift Valley talks about them. It was very interesting, I tell you. Although I understand their population is under attack by the introduction of the Nile perch and man-made effects to the water chemistry.

  156. Slart,

    Eh, it was unclear. I meant two examples of change in a warm blooded species that’s been around thousands of years, not two species that have changed. Either one of those options is a valid reading of what I said though.

  157. Gyges,

    No problem.

    Buddha,

    The introduction of Nile perch into Lake Victoria was an example given by the professor in my first mathematical biology course of why you shouldn’t mess with biological systems you don’t understand…

  158. I find it interesting that you feel the need to defend yourself when I’m not attacking

    Kevin Kevin Kevin. I took an excerpt from one of your comments and tried a funny. I was trying to point out that 99.99% of all living beings have head shoulders knees and toes two eyes two ears a mouth and a nose head shoulders knees and toes. The wiggles song. I have a five year old. I wish I hadn’t because that song has been stuck in my head all day. My point is that how did evolution assure this. How did evolution make sure that there is a mirror image of left and right.

    Also in regards to funnies and my disruptions lets go back shall we. Someone answered one of my thoughts

    Bdaman 1, April 10, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    the heart, lungs were gills first
    I responded
    O.k. then what was the porpoise for the gills I mean blowhole :)

    Get it

  159. Slart,

    I’d argue that civilization just shifts around the hierarchy of evolutionary pressures, it doesn’t retard the rate of change, just shifts what’s selected for.

  160. Perch are a mean but tasty fish, Slarti. Still I agree completely. Especially since some varieties of cichlids are themselves edible sport fish.

  161. Buddha,

    To cast the net even further, Lager yeast.

    The original lager yeast weren’t intentionally cultivated. They were the result of German and Czech brewers using caves for fermentation, which had a lower temperature. Those yeast that worked best at that range out-bred the one that didn’t, and soon enough you had a strain of yeast that worked most efficiently at the temperature of the caves in the region.

    Did you have a chance to check out any of Peter Watts’s books yet? He deals with evolution (most of it biological, but he does have a great part about evolving viruses on the internet) as major plot points, and does his homework. All of his books have citations of scientific literature at the end. Lem does a pretty good job with ‘abiotic evolution’ (a term he uses in one of his books in Peace on Earth (the moon became a giant test run of self designing weapons systems) and The Invincible.

  162. Gyges,

    I see that view as the equivalent of a different (but also valid) frame of reference in physics. When you involve the idea of non-genetic evolution (i.e. the evolution of society) the boundaries are (at least for now) somewhat fuzzy. I think that you would agree, however, that society has evolved considerably since its inception – and in a way having nothing to do with recombinant DNA (except for society being comprised of various permutations of recombinant DNA, of course…).

    Buddha,

    We used to catch lake perch (and bass) up at the lake, bring them in, clean them, and Grandpa* would fry them up for dinner. Yum.

    *who had sunk several wooden ‘rafts’ in the lake to make for good fishing sites – one was shallow and mostly dispersed by passing boats, one was barely visible under ideal circumstances and had good fishing, and one you could only find by lining up a tree with one of the cottage windows and cross-referencing via the shape of a gap in the trees where a road was (no GPS in the 50s…). The only time I can ever remember finding it, we ran out of bait (we were bringing fish up two at a time) and my dad had to cut up some of the fish to use their roe as bait (we knew we probably wouldn’t find it again…).

    Bdaman,

    Sorry, not interesting enough.

  163. Slart,

    I’d would think that has to do with the ‘life cycle’ of an idea being closer to that of a virus or bacteria than that of a complex organism.

  164. Gyges,

    Haven’t read any Watts yet, but maybe I’ll move him to the top of the list seeing as I am between books as of last night and was planning a trip to the bookstore tomorrow anyway.

  165. And Kevin just to be clear

    Corrections Page

    This page is reserved ONLY for suggested factual or grammatical errors — not for disagreements over the conclusions or interpretations found in blog entries. If readers disagree with the merits of a story, they should use the comment section of that story to raise such issues.

    No where do I see it says for the use of suggestions so I guess I continue to upset the apple cart :)

    Adams had almost overset the apple-cart by intruding an amendment of his own fabrication on the morning of the day of ratification of the Constitution.

    Jeremy Belknap – The History of New Hampshire, 1788:

  166. bdaman,

    The placement of suggestions on the Corrections page is an unwritten rule promulgated by the Prof. when he was discussing adding guest bloggers, so you aren’t upsetting anything by doing that.

  167. Ok thanks Buddha. Sometimes when you spend to much time in one place you kinda miss whats goin on around you. I just like putting it out there because I know you guys spend quite a bit of time here and you may not see alot of the stories I do. Granted they come from the right, but if I wasn’t here you guys would just agree with each other. :)

    Here’s another one Kev thats near and dear to your/our heart.
    Luv ya man

    Arizona Senate approves ‘birther’ bill

    The Arizona Senate has approved a revised bill requiring presidential candidates to prove they are U.S. citizens eligible to run for the office.

    The bill approved Wednesday gives candidates additional ways to prove they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.

    It was prompted by the ongoing claim by some that there is no proof President Barack Obama was born in the United States and is therefore ineligible to be president.

    Democrats argued the bill exceeds the state’s authority and say state officials are not fully qualified to determine the validity of a candidate’s documents.

    http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/state/arizona-senate-approves-%27birther%27-bill

  168. More bad news Kev

    After suffering seven straight quarters of losses, Wal-Mart will announce that it is “going back to basics” ending its era of high-end organic foods, going “green” and the remainder of its appeal to the upscale market. Next month the company will launch an “It’s Back” campaign to woo the millions of customers who have fled the store.

    Further from the Wall Street Journal:

    Starting in May, Wal-Mart shoppers in the U.S. will see signs in stores heralding the return of fishing tackle, bolts of fabric and other ‘heritage’ merchandise that Wal-Mart reduced or cut out altogether as it attempted to spruce up its stores …

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704776304576253252673697210.html?KEYWORDS=walmart

  169. “Arizona Senate approves ‘birther’ bill

    From what I understand, federal election law trumps state election law including the vetting process … so this silliness is unconstitutional … but, leave it to the intellectual constitutional minds of the AZ state legislature to come up with this “brilliance” …

  170. TN State Rep. Argues Einstein Would Teach Creationism
    Think Progress, 4/15/2011
    http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/15/tn-rep-einstein/

    Excerpt:
    Armed with fantasy and lies, Tennessee legislators are attempting to dismantle science education in their state’s public schools. Last week, the Tennessee House voted by an overwhelming 70-23 margin in favor of a radical bill to teach the “controversy” about scientific subjects “including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.” During the debate on HB 368, introduced by Rep. Bill Dunn (R-Knoxville), anti-science conservative Rep. Frank Nicely (R-Strawberry Plains) argued that the “critical thinker” Albert Einstein would have wanted public schools to teach creationism alongside the science of biological evolution:

    I think that if there’s one thing that everyone in this room could agree on, that would be that Albert Einstein was a critical thinker. He was a scientist. I think that we probably could agree that Albert Einstein was smarter than any of our science teachers in our high schools or colleges. And Albert Einstein said that a little knowledge would turn your head toward atheism, while a broader knowledge would turn your head toward Christianity.

    In fact, Nicely falsely attributed his quotation to Einstein, a Jewish humanist and professed agnostic, who never argued that scientific knowledge leads one to Jesus Christ. The statement is actually a mangled paraphrase of the 16th century philosopher Francis Bacon, who argued that “a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”

    **********

    Check out the video of Nicely talking during the debate at the link I provided above.

  171. Elaine,

    Albert Einstein also said:

    The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.

  172. Blouise & Buddha,

    We’ve got state and national legislators fiddling while our country burns. And these legislators keep getting stupider and stupider by geometric progression. Don’t know if there is any hope for us.

Comments are closed.