Comments for April News and Notes at http://mnatheists.org , comment 1 to 1 out of 1 comments http://mnatheists.org Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:23:53 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://mnatheists.org/content/view/313/88/#comment-301 Conclusions of law are always supported by findings of fact. (Think of it as evidence-based reasoning.) It's not that facts (and a finding of those facts by the court) rarely exist in constitutional cases, but rather that they are often uncontested. The parties may even stipulate to the facts or draft a stipulated set of findings for the court to sign off on. One of the uncontested and possibly stipulated facts here is that the presidential oath of office contains the words "so help me God". That fact (and the court's finding of that fact) is not contested. Without that fact, however, there is no controversy and no constitutional case. Appellate courts may overturn a finding of fact, but rarely do so. Hence the findings made at the district court level are usually inconsequential at the appellate level (although the written briefs do offer a concise summary of the facts). Such is the case here. If Mr. Newdow is an attorney, he should be more precise so as not to mislead laypersons. - Scott Jackson Wed, 20 May 2009 17:01:33 +0100