jj@rabbit.UUCP (09/07/84)
Ahhhh, yessssss, Mr. Ray Simard, let's let the Supreme Court enforce religious viewpoints on the good old USA. You know, Mr. Simard, that it's strictly UN-Constitutional to allow religion to interfere in the constitutional process, but that's what YOU want to do, allow religion to interfere, just to gain your own ends. It's funny how the question of unconstitutionality comes up, but only when it suits your cause, sir. Please consider that what you would do is enforce religion by tampering (yeah, that's tampering, as in criminal) with the Supreme Court. What you SHOULD do, Mr. Simard, but what you're not trying to do, is work for a legislative solution. It's true, though, that THEN perhaps you will find democracy working against you. I don't know how much history you've studied, but perhaps you should consider that what you're rejoicing about is the submission of a country to your religious preference without any regard for a small group of amendments to the Constitution, namely those numbered one through ten. Enjoy your dreams, Mr. Simard. Just hope that they remain dreams! (Oh yeah, re the exclusionary rule and Miranda, I think YOU better look at some of the recent decisions! Likewise for illegal search and seizure.) -- TEDDY BEARS ARE SOFT AND CUDDLY. TRY ONE YOURSELF! "I'm not sleepy and there ain't no place I'm goin' to " (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj