Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

So I was addressing the wrong part of the argument. Let me correct that here.The original intent of the First Amendment addresses both the meaning of its limitations and its application to federal law. Neither of us deputes the scope of the Establishment Clause in any way important to this discussion.The adopters of the First Amendment, including Madison, and the states who adopted it in the 1700s, fully understood that each state would be free to teach creationism in public schools if a state chose to do that. Robert would have been perfectly happy with that state of affairs. In fact, he has stated that communities should be able to decide issues of teaching creationism by simple vote.Further the above was the law of the land until at least the early 1900s and at least arguably until 1947. Now it is pretty clear that school boards cannot teach creationism in schools. Robert does not like that and objects to those meddling 1900s SCt Justices who decided to apply the incorporation doctrine to the Establishment Clause when earlier Courts had refused to do so.

Simplistic maybe, but perhaps supportable in an argument.Original intent only arguments are just as simplistic. And saying that appellate courts in common law countries don't make laws is really not correct either. We require our courts to make law and to establish precedent. It would be more correct to say that courts don't have a legislative role.My personal view is that all of the first eight amendments should have been applied against the states immediately upon passage of the 14th Amendment. Those 19th century justices were simply wrong when they refused to do so. Principles aren't laws and you've agreed that the law allowed states to act against those principles.

True, but that did not happen in this case. After the 14th Amendment was ratified, and the incorporation argument failed in the 1870s, no new relevant law was enacted. You are certainly correct that courts, including the Supreme Court, are not bound by their own previous decisions. But they do give those decisions great respect.

quote:

---

Nor is precedent taken as an absolute rule, nor are court decisions ever interpreted as making laws retroactive (a clear injustice

---

Actually, many court decisions are retroactively enforced because retroactivity is required to render justice. It is only laws that add new penalties or liabilities (ex post facto laws) that are constitutionally excluded from retroactive enforcement. For example, laws applying criminal liability can be revoked retroactively although they sometimes are not.

quote:

---

which would necessarily follow if the courts alone made law).

---

No that would not follow. That would simply place constitutional limits on the judge/justice made law. No one is saying that courts alone make law, but they do make law. And as I'll argue below, the Supreme Court is special in this regard.

quote:

---

To put everything on a court decision is simply wrong.

---

When the Supreme Court decides, its ruling is the law even if others believe that the Court has overstepped or is completely wrong. In a very real legal sense, the Supreme Court is always correct even when they are wrong. Once the Court rules, there is no legal recourse other than getting the Supreme Court to rule again or passing another law. In this case, Congress did not act again after the Supreme Court refused to incorporate the Establishment Clause, but the Supreme Court did rule again. In 1947.Edited by NoNukes, : More stuff regarding SCt.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Why are you undoing my attempts to prove that you might not be a buffoon? Your reasoning simply cannot work because it does not take into account the Fourteenth Amendment which extends the Establishment Clause to apply to the states.You may be right about the original intent behind the first amendment, but unfortunately for your argument, the passing of the fourteenth amendment undid that intent, just as it undid the original intent of providing civil rights and citizenship for only white males.The same reasoning that prevents the state from outlawing handguns also prevents states from interfering in the teaching of science by introducing religious teachings.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If you mean that the courts were NOT bound by previous decisions then you only help my case. Those previous decisions did not have the same power as legislation. On the other hand the Fourteenth Amendment WAS required.

---

Not exactly the same effect, but Supreme Court decisions are just as binding on the lower courts as if they were legislation. In fact, they are more binding because the lower court is not free to substitute its own reasoning for that of the Supreme Court.I'm not sure what you mean when you say the Fourteenth Amendment WAS required, but it is clear that the Supreme Court did not interpret the Fourteenth Amendment as incorporating the Bill of Rights against the states prior to 1890. Although I support incorporation, it is not clear to me that the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment requires it.

quote:

---

Yet there would be a clear injustice in being hauled into court, facing all the costs of defence on the basis of a law that did not exist. The situation is as you not because my point is false, but because it is true.

---

The same injustice results whether a court invalidates a statute or rules against its own precedent. You still have to defend yourself in court and bear the costs. There is no distinction between court precedent and legislation in this regard.And in fact that's exactly what happened in Everson v. Board of Education and Brown v. Board of Education. In those cases, the defendant was forced to defend itself in court in situations where the plaintiff was asking for a change in the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.Finally, I don't want to leave the impression that precedent is not binding.Lower courts ARE bound by precedent established in appellate courts, and all federal and state courts are bound by applicable precedent established in the Supreme Court (except, of course for the Supreme Court). The Supreme Court can of course rule against its own precedent, but it generally does not do so.

What's the relevance? I'm completely missing your point.

quote:

---

Obviously it is NOT exactly what happened, since the 14th Amendment was passed before those cases were brought. Your claim could only be true if you ASSUME that court decisions are the whole of the law, which is precisely the point in dispute.

---

You are simply wrong on this point. What I described is exactly what happened.The Supreme Court's interpretation of a statute or amendment is the law. See Marbury v. Madison. If you cannot convince the legislature to change the law or the Supreme Court to change its collective mind, then you are out of luck if you are on the wrong side of the SC's previous opinion.In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court overruled the "separate but equal" interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause established in Plessy v. Ferguson. No relevant legislative changes occurred between Plessy and Brown. In fact, Congress was powerless to overrule Supreme Court's interpretation by any means other than amendment to the Constitution, something that did not happen.What happened instead was the passage of time and a hearing before a completely different set of Supreme Court Justices. In effect, Brown was able to sue and win against the Kansas Board of Education despite the fact that the law was on the Board's side.Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown successful civil rights cases against states relied on establishing that states did not provide separate but equal provisions for all. After Brown v. Board of Education, separate but equal was no longer the law.The effect was exactly the same as if a new amendment were ratified overruling separate but equal.Similarly, prior to ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court held in Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. No surprise there, I think.Even after the passage of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court held in US v. Cruishank that the First and Second Amendments were not incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment. I've also mentioned the Slaughter House cases of 1873 which read the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment. That interpretation continues even today to be the state of 14th Amendment jurisprudence.No application of the Bill of Rights was the state of the law until the Supreme Court changed its position in a piecemeal fashion beginning in the late 19th century and continuing up through 2010. True, but on U.S. Constitutional issues, every federal and state court is in the Supreme Court's 'chain of command'. Situations not involving the Supreme Court are not relevant to our discussion.

That's incorrect. Law does not have to be passed by the legislature first. There are plenty of examples of civil and criminal common law either do not have a statutory basis or were codified into statutes long after the laws were used to support criminal and civil offenses. For example, laws against embezzlement, arson, and larceny were common law offenses.Among civil offenses, trespass, assault, battery, and conversion were common law offenses that later became statutory law in most jurisdictions.But more to the importantly, I don't see how your point is relevant. When a court changes its interpretation of a statute or provisional of law, then we have to deal with new law. Show me the relevance to this discussion. Aren't we discussing cases that did end up before the Supreme Court? Of what relevance is it to this discussion that Alabama courts are not bound by decisions made by the New York Court of Appeals? Or that one district court in California is not by by the decisions of another district court in the same state?Supreme Court precedent is always binding precedent for every other court. With the exception of the Scopes case which did not get a favorable result, I don't believe we've discussed any cases that did not end up before the Supreme Court.

Dr. A was just having a little fun. I see no reason to believe that Robert and Dawn are the same person. They seem to be wrong in very distinct ways.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

For the purposes of this discussion, Creationism means creation of life, the universe and everything per religious teachings. If you don't believe that, I recommend reading the opening post before further participating in this thread. That isn't necessary for the purposes of this discussion. Regardless of the merits of your own theory of origins, unless your theory has a religious basis, it isn't what the rest of us are discussing or what this thread is about.Besides, haven't you abandoned every thread where ID is on topic? Why would anyone want to join you in yet another such thread?

Have you read the post originating this thread? Is this thread about ID?No it is not. The question posed is whether religious Creationism should be taught in classrooms. Why is the number of posts I've made relevant? I've read plenty of the nonsense you've written in these forums. The problem is with you attempting to hijack a thread 400+ posts in. Of course I checked my facts before posting. I make a habit of it.There are plenty of posts awaiting your response in "Intelligent Design vs. Real Science", "Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution", "Does ID follow the scientific method?", "Even if there was a Designer, does it matter?", "The evidence for design and a designer", etc. I note that you started several of those threads.

I note Dawn, that you did not respond to my listing of threads that you now avoid like the plague where discussing your personal take on ID would be on topic.The topic here is exploring reasons why creationism should be taught in science class. Surely, you jest.Picture yourself on a train in the station
With plasticine porters with looking glass ties.

I agree that Constitutionality is only a side issue, but I think you are wrong about Byers. There are bits and pieces of justification for teaching Creationism in Byers' posts.Further, Byers' isn't necessarily advocating getting rid of the teaching of evolution. His position seems to be that if evolution is taught, Genesis based Creationism should be taught also.