Just wondering
After having read the First Amendment, or Article I, as some like to call it, for the umpteenth time, I'm just wondering how the very presence of a granite monument, irrespective of what might be etched upon it, becomes, ipso facto, the making of a law. For those of you without a nearby copy of the US Constitution, here's the First Amendment, verbatim (that's word-for-word, for you folks in Rio Linda): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." For the likes of me, I can't see how this very beautiful and meaningful monument can remotely be construed as the "making of a law," but its removal might certainly be interpreted as a prohibition of the free exercise thereof...
It would be an interesting bit of info to know who appointed this judicial cretan, and to inquire about his resume to determine if he ever read, really read, the Constitution. May the cheeks of his biased ass grow shut.
__________________
One Big Ass Mistake, America
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
|