I knew somebody was going to nitpick that. I kind of guessed it's not a participatory democracy. But, how does that change the relationship that they experts are unelected and representatives of a public are? Furthermore, they are not even answerable to the people. It's all about restraining the power of the people and their elected representatives to interpretations of where the Constitution should be by now.

The court–and not the states–were the problem for the 14th amendment. The states ratified it. Chief Justice Taney wrote that black people could never warrant a full interpretation of the Cons. and were never meant to. As a result, the states unwittingly gave up 9th amendment rights through "Incorporation" which is not really something they did ratify. That means in order for the Cons. to travel over that line of precedent it took the intercession of the states, which limited themselves and lost all rights on successive interpretations.

Taney's arguments were unbelievable to say that a slave owner forever retains the property of a competent slave managing his owner's business in another state. But the funny thing is is that when Scot first tried to be legally emancipated, they threw it out. The court said that they couldn't decide on it because he couldn't prove he was owned!!. After this, Taney decides, he's just property. Just property that you can count on to manage your business living for years in a free state.

That was some property.

But Taney invoked the takings clause, because…well…he could. It only cost a war, though–and tens of thousands of lives to set it right. (despite that it was an illegal war against a country that parted with us the same way we parted with Britain) But they didn't know the law as well as Taney, or the fella that argued for Sandford.

The ACLU, by the way, didn't deny that I might have a case for suit. They said my "class" wasn't big enough to bother with. IOW, I'm the wrong color [insert minority status of choice here]. Now that the "class" of illegally searched (and wiretapped) Americans is much larger, I hear there are cases pending… §;o)

3 Attorney Generals, a state SC Chief Justice and the ACLU told me all I could do was sue the official (DA of New Orleans) for trouble caused, since if I have not been convicted of a crime using illegally obtained evidence, I have no 4th amendment rights - could assert it only on appeal. Not being wealthy, of course I had to let it ride.

And that was years before the so-called "Patriot Act." Go figure.

But they are unelected power brokers, who worry about people who get their self-esteem as citizens over whether or not there is a cross not yet sand-blasted off a city's shield.

They're civil rights lawyers. With resources quite well versed in constitutional law. I have no problem at all with ensuring the constitution's enumerated and reserved rights are protected.

I don't have a problem seeing religious symbols here and there, mine or other people's. When somebody got all up in arms complaining about a cell tower disguised as a cross on a church conference facility nearby that could be seen from the interstate highway, I just laughed.

It was quickly determined that nobody's precious eyes are immune from seeing symbols they don't like, on other people's private property.

Public property is something else. I don't mind if religious symbols are removed, or if everybody's are displayed. It's just symbols, holy to some, but not to all. I'm always baffled by people who think everybody must worship their religion's symbology, and by people who are offended by any religion's symbology. Makes me wonder if humanity can ever grow up.

Which means that people vote on policy and it's not always a matter of expert judges triangulating the cross-sections of laws and reading tea leaves, and bemoaning the burden of governing as if they just had to make a decision in every case.

Actually, it's a republic (as Aagcobb noted), or a representative democracy. We do not vote on policy, we vote for representatives and administrators. Parties 'stand for' this or that general thrust, but that doesn't guarantee any given policy, nor does it prevent bad policies. Politics is a game of compromises. When that is unbalanced - as it has been recently - half the citizens have no say at all in general policy and none of the citizens have any say in specific policy. Such as unilateral wars of aggression launched on lies.

The courts adjudicate issues and policies of law. The USSC only gets final appeals, and only on constitutional issues. School district officials and school administrators should always consider constitutional issues in matters of first amendment concern, thus should seek out expert legal analysis when considering breaking (or enforcing) the law. If they don't, their money will go for lawyers later and that's not a good use of educational tax revenues that could better go to facilities, teacher's salaries, textbooks and supplies.

One of the original purposes of that document that they channel is that it was set up to organize a democracy.

Actually, the U.S. Constitution was set up to organize a Republic, and a bill of rights was added to limit the powers of that republican government, regardless of what the majority of people might want to do.

Well, the ACLU *is* a power-broker in issues like this, because they're the ones who will represent parents who sue for violations per constitutional issues. This is actually a good thing, because policies don't have to get fought about in the actual courts if they can be shaped constitutionally in the first place.

But they are unelected power brokers, who worry about people who get their self-esteem as citizens over whether or not there is a cross not yet sand-blasted off a city's shield.

One of the original purposes of that document that they channel is that it was set up to organize a democracy. Which means that people vote on policy and it's not always a matter of expert judges triangulating the cross-sections of laws and reading tea leaves, and bemoaning the burden of governing as if they just had to make a decision in every case.

Not to mention that the ACLU becomes a power-broker or a semi-legitimate ruling authority in their own right. Neat

More evidence there is no theocracy!

Not to mention that the ACLU becomes a power-broker or a semi-legitimate ruling authority in their own right. Neat.

Well, the ACLU *is* a power-broker in issues like this, because they're the ones who will represent parents who sue for violations per constitutional issues. This is actually a good thing, because policies don't have to get fought about in the actual courts if they can be shaped constitutionally in the first place.

You can't call the US attorney or fed/state AG to do this negotiation or advise. You can't call the chief judge of the Supreme Court to tell you what to do. So including those lawyers who would represent complainants prevents the problems before they arise. ACLU does nothing by individual lawyer's passion for rights or money. That makes them more trustworthy than any lawyer you could pick out of the contingency phone book.

In Staunton the off-campus religious instruction has been going on for 65 years. The issue was what children who opted out would get from the school while their classmates were out. This would be the same issue that would arise if religious students opt out of evolution or sex-ed classes (which they have a right to do).

Though to tell you the truth, I don't know why students need mid-week religious instruction during school hours if they get Sunday School and Wednesday night fellowship (that could be instruction if they wanted), or after-school religious group time.