View Single Post
Old 10-13-2007, 02:54 PM   #42 (permalink)
KnightOfSappho
Council Member
 
KnightOfSappho's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,359
Country:
Points: 4,687, Level: 43
Points: 4,687, Level: 43 Points: 4,687, Level: 43 Points: 4,687, Level: 43
Level up: 69%, 63 Points needed
Level up: 69% Level up: 69% Level up: 69%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
KnightOfSappho is offline
Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtdmski View Post
My sarcastic little game?????? What is the matter do you not like me using your own argument against you?????? Abortion is constitutional???? No where in the Constitution of the United States or in any its Amendments can you show me the word abortion. Yet it is Constitutional, because the Supreme Court in a 7 - 2 ruling said that it was.

Hmmmm, the Supreme Court says that "This is a Christian Nation", thus it is Constitutional, by the way, it was a unanimous ruling 9 - 0. Sorry, but if the one is true, then the other must also be true. So despite no where in the Constitution it saying we are a Christian nation, because the Court has ruled thus, it must be Constitutional.

Unfortunately, for you, all other arguments are moot. Like it or not, this is the liberals own argument coming back to bite you in the ass.

dmk

Lets put this arguement to rest, shal we?

The comment from the Justice that this is a 'Christian Nation' is what is known as an obiter dictum. That is a comment, or illustration of idea, that is included in the court opinion but is NOT necessarily part of the court decision itself.

For example, if a serial killer is convicted and is being sentenced, the judge saying 'Justice would only be truly served if we could kill you the way that you killed those people' would be an obiter dictum. It is part of the court document and part of the judge's opinion, but it is NOT part of the sentence.

The 'Christian Nation' comment was made to illustrate that the lawmakers that made the law being challenged (importing foriegn workers) had not meant to include foriegn ministers.

Read the decision, and it will make a bit more sense.