The words 'separation of church and state' not in the Constitution
buckeye
The words 'separation of church and state' not in the Constitution
http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090701/OPINION02/90630070
John E. Stewart III, Asheville � July 1, 2009 01:03 PM
I tire of people so eager to advance their argument that they twist words
and tell outright lies. For example, Rob Thomas of Matchbox 20, blogging at
Huffington Post, pressed his argument for gay marriage recently by saying
our Founding Fathers �...put into their brand new constitution (sic) a
separation of church and state so that the ideals of a group of people
could never be forced onto the whole.�
Hogwash. The words �separation of church in state� do not appear in the
U.S. Constitution. They won't be found in the Bill of Rights, either.
Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was the first
place a private citizen, a Founding Father, suggested this opinion. It
became the basis for several groups' lawsuits that ultimately reached the
Supreme Court, and there is where the origin of the misinformation began.
If those with an agenda don't have the facts on their side maybe they have
the wrong side.
Our government cannot encroach on our religious rights or force anyone to
accept a religion of its choosing. Believe what you wish, live as you wish
and don't interfere with others doing the same. It is a concept the left
just can't quite grasp.
John E. Stewart III, Asheville
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS � Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
James Veverka wrote:
One of the ways to counter the attack on American Constitutional principles
by the religious right is to address their revisionism, misinformation and
distortions.
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
zencycle
the complete ignorance of the social conservatives is mind boggling
> http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090701/OPIN...
>
> John E. Stewart III, Asheville • July 1, 2009 01:03 PM
>
> Hogwash. The words “separation of church in state” do not appear in the
> U.S. Constitution. They won't be found in the Bill of Rights, either.
Not the specific verbiage, but certainly the line "Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion" in the first amendment
to the constitution qualifies, as does the formal ban of religious
qualification for federally elected officials in Article VI, section
3, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
office or public trust under the United States."
> If those with an agenda don't have the facts on their side maybe they have
> the wrong side.
Clearly, john is on the wrong side then.
> Our government cannot encroach on our religious rights or force anyone to
> accept a religion of its choosing.
that _is_ the establishment clause, you moron.
> Believe what you wish, live as you wish
> and don't interfere with others doing the same. It is a concept the left
> just can't quite grasp.
Really? So how is attempting to pass a discriminatory amendment based
purely on religious grounds OK, if the government is to stay out of
it?
Really john, you're not making a lot of sense here.
> John E. Stewart III, Asheville
>
> ***************************************************************
> You are invited to check out the following:
>
> The Rise of the Theocratic States of Americahttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
>
> American Theocrats - Past and Presenthttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
>
> The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and Statehttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>
> [and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
> Church and State in general, listed below]
>
> HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&Statehttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
>
> ***************************************************************
> . . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
> respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
> take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
> page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
> 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
> Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
> . . .
Christopher A. Lee
<zenc...@bikerider.com> wrote:
>On Jul 2, 7:32�am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>the complete ignorance of the social conservatives is mind boggling
>
>> http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090701/OPIN...
>>
>> John E. Stewart III, Asheville � July 1, 2009 01:03 PM
>>
>> Hogwash. The words �separation of church in state� do not appear in the
>> U.S. Constitution. They won't be found in the Bill of Rights, either.
>
>Not the specific verbiage, but certainly the line "Congress shall make
>no law respecting an establishment of religion" in the first amendment
>to the constitution qualifies, as does the formal ban of religious
>qualification for federally elected officials in Article VI, section
>3, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
>office or public trust under the United States."
The words are too long for the dumbed down rednecks.
Basically it's all about the rights of the individual vs the tyranny
of the majority.
>> If those with an agenda don't have the facts on their side maybe they have
>> the wrong side.
>
>Clearly, john is on the wrong side then.
>
>> Our government cannot encroach on our religious rights or force anyone to
>> accept a religion of its choosing.
>
>that _is_ the establishment clause, you moron.
Their religion says everybody else has to practice it, which overrides
everybody else's right not to - whether it's practicing a different
one or nor none at all.
They've got god on their side so nobody else has a say init.
If they're prevented they imagine this abridges their own freedom of
religion.
They don't understand the evils of imposed religion which had let to
wars and strife in both Europe and the original North American
colonies. To anybody living in the 1700s it was recent history, and
older people had lived through it.
Don't they teach history any more?
>> Believe what you wish, live as you wish
>> and don't interfere with others doing the same. It is a concept the left
>> just can't quite grasp.
A projected falsehood. And the "left" in the USA are so few as to be
insignificant.
It's a standard dishonesty by the religious conservatives to label
everybody they don't like as "the left" as if they were a monolithic
whole with everybody having exactly the same position.
Even the position is an invented lie that projects their own
behaviour.
It's the religious conservatives who can't live and let live, who
teach our kids creationism, who force them to pray in school, who
legislate what passes for their morality, etc.
>Really? So how is attempting to pass a discriminatory amendment based
>purely on religious grounds OK, if the government is to stay out of
>it?
Because they're exempt.
>Really john, you're not making a lot of sense here.
Nope.
tirebiter
>
and state".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
You'll see that this EXACT phrase has become bedrock constitutional
law in the legal system, up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
You'll also see that your computer can be used for other things
besides trolling and hanging out in the alt.binaries groups.
---
a.a. #2273
Clown John Burke
> On Jul 2, 7:32 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:> The words 'separation of church and state' not in the Constitution
>
> Read this article for a explanation of the term "separation of church
> and state".
>
>
> You'll see that this EXACT phrase has become bedrock constitutional
> law in the legal system, up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
>
> You'll also see that your computer can be used for other things
> besides trolling and hanging out in the alt.binaries groups.
>
> ---
> a.a. #2273
Nicely done.
Jimbo
>
>
> John E. Stewart III, Asheville • July 1, 2009 01:03 PM
>
> I tire of people so eager to advance their argument that they twist words
> and tell outright lies. For example, Rob Thomas of Matchbox 20, blogging at
> Huffington Post, pressed his argument for gay marriage recently by saying
> our Founding Fathers “...put into their brand new constitution (sic) a
> separation of church and state so that the ideals of a group of people
> could never be forced onto the whole.”
>
> Hogwash. The words “separation of church in state” do not appear in the
> U.S. Constitution. They won't be found in the Bill of Rights, either.
>
> Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was the first
> place a private citizen, a Founding Father, suggested this opinion. It
> became the basis for several groups' lawsuits that ultimately reached the
> Supreme Court, and there is where the origin of the misinformation began.
>
> If those with an agenda don't have the facts on their side maybe they have
> the wrong side.
>
> Our government cannot encroach on our religious rights or force anyone to
> accept a religion of its choosing. Believe what you wish, live as you wish
> and don't interfere with others doing the same. It is a concept the left
> just can't quite grasp.
>
> John E. Stewart III, Asheville
>
> ***************************************************************
> You are invited to check out the following:
>
>
> American Theocrats - Past and Presenthttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
>
> The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and Statehttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>
> [and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
> Church and State in general, listed below]
>
>
> ***************************************************************
> . . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
> respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
> take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
> page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
> 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
> Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
> . . .
>
> One of the ways to counter the attack on American Constitutional principles
> by the religious right is to address their revisionism, misinformation and
> distortions.
>
> ****************************************************************
> USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
>
> "You pilot always into an unknown future;
> facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
>
> That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
> many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
>
> It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
> plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
> almost every media turn.
>
> *****************************************************************
> THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>
> ****************************************************************
James Madison, primary author of the US Constitution quotes:
Direct references to separation:
The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its
functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and
the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have
been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from
the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in
the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already
furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I
have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one
has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in
greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward
Livingston, July 10, 1822).
I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case,
to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the
civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and
doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side
or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them
will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government
from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of
preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on
its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).
To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina
I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection
to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at
Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the
practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as
essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution
of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on
the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in
North Carolina, June 3, 1811).
Madison's summary of the First Amendment:
Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal
observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner
contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-
eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which
they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th,
1789 pages 730 - 731).
buckeye
>:|
>:|James Madison, primary author of the US Constitution quotes:
You were corrected on the above quote before but you don't seem to want to
correct it:
This is the correct version:
The above quote isn't quite accurate. Madison did say the above but not
as one quote. See below:
Congressional Debates: Religious Amendments, 1789
http://candst.tripod.com/1stdebat.htm
August 15, 1789 First Federal Congress (Amendments-religious reference)
[House of Representatives]
The House again went into a Committee of the Whole on the proposed
amendments to the Constitution. Mr. Boudinot in the chair.
The fourth proposition being under consideration, as follows:
(Religious Reference)
Article 1. Section 9. Between paragraphs two and three insert 'no religion
shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be
infringed.
Mr. SYLVESTER had some doubts of the propriety of the mode of expression
used in this paragraph. He apprehended that it was liable to a construction
different from what had been made by the committee. He feared it might be
thought to abolish religion altogether.
Mr. VINING suggested the propriety of transposing the two members of the
sentence.
Mr. GERRY said it would read better if it was no religious doctrine shall
be established by law.
Mr. SHERMAN thought the amendment altogether unnecessary, inasmuch as
Congress had 'no authority whatever delegated to them by the Constitution
to make religious establishments; he would, therefore, move to have it
struck out.'
Mr. CARROLL As the rights of conscience are, in their nature, a peculiar
delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand; and
as many sects have concurred in opinion that they are not well secured
under the present constitution, he said he was much in favor of adopting
the words. He thought it would tend more towards conciliating the minds of
the people to the government than almost any other opinion he heard
proposed. He would not contend with gentlemen about the phraseology, his
object was to secure the substance in such a manner as to satisfy the
wishes of the honest part of the community.
[**** EMPHASIS ADDED BY ME ****]
Mr. MADISON said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that
****Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal
observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner
contrary to their conscience.**** Whether the words are necessary or not,
he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the state
conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion, that under the clause of
the Constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary
and proper to carry into execution the constitution, and the laws made
under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the
rights of conscience, and establish a national religion; to prevent these
effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well
expressed as the nature of the language would admit.
Mr. HUNTINGTON said that he feared, with the gentleman first up on this
subject, that the words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely
hurtful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment to mean what
had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but others might find it
convenient to put another construction on it. The ministers of their
congregations to the eastward were maintained by contributions of those who
belong to their society; the expense of building meeting houses was
contributed in the same manner. These things were regulated by bylaws. If
an action was brought before a federal court on any of these cases, the
person who had neglected to perform his engagements could not be compelled
to do it; for a support of ministers or buildings of places of worship
might be construed into a religious establishment.
By the charter of Rhode Island, no religion could be established by law; he
could give a history of the effects of such a regulation; indeed the people
were now enjoying the blessed fruits of it. He hoped, therefore, the
amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of
conscience, and the free exercise of religion, but not to patronize those
who professed no religion at all.
Mr. MADISON thought, if the word 'National' was inserted before religion,
it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the
people feared ****one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined
together, and establish a religion, to which they would compel others to
conform.**** He thought if the word 'National' was introduced, it would
point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.
Mr. LIVERMORE was not satisfied with the amendment; but he did not wish
them to dwell long on the subject. He thought it would be better if it were
altered, and made to read in this manner, that Congress shall make no laws
touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.
Mr. GERRY did not like the term National, proposed by the gentleman from
Virginia, and he hoped it would not be adopted by the House. It brought to
his mind some observations that had taken place in the Conventions at the
time they were considering the present constitution. It had been insisted
upon by those who were called anti-federalists, that this form of
government consolidated the union; the honorable gentleman's motion shows
that he considers it in the same light. Those who were called
anti-federalists at that time, complained that they were in favor of a
federal government, and the others were in favor of a National one; the
federalists were for ratifying the constitution as it stood, and the others
did not until amendments were made. Their names then ought not to have been
distinguished by federalists and anti-federalists, but rats and anti-rats.
Mr. MADISON withdrew his motion but observed that the words single 'no
National religion shall be established by law', did not apply that the
government was a national one; the question was then taken on MR.
LIVERMORE's motion, and passed in the affirmative 31 for it, and 20 against
it.(5)
(End of Religious Reference)
(5). The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States
(Annals of Congress), August 15, 1789, Vol. I, Joseph Gales, published by
Gales and Seaton, Washington, 1834, pp 729-749.
ALSO there is some problems with the page numbers
From the online sorce we have the following:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=380
It shows the entire converstation is recored on pages 757 -759.
Though it is possible that print publications, different editions of such
might have shown different page numbers. They shouldn't have since they
should have photocopied the original pages.
I am in a hurry but will post the exact pages numbers of that particular
discourse later today when I have more time.
************************************************************
It is always good to get in the habit of using proper citation. That
greatly reduces the number of bogus quotes that can be found all over the
Internet and makes it possible to verify the quotes. It is also the proper
way of doing it
The following gives the complete and proper cites:
************************************************************
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
----------------------------------------
OCTOBER 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions, etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more
adapted to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory between
the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has been made by
a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently distinguish the
nature of the one acquisition from that of the other, and seems to imply
that the acquisition from France was wholly on the other side of the
Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor. The
jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will be
less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see Ford,
VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty from the
Kaskaskia Indians; see
Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian treaty
requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the stipulations
in the treaty to "the competence of both
houses.... as soon as the senate shall have advised its ratification"; see
ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Oct.
1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.],
The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison, 1776-1826, Edited by James Morton Smith, Vol. II, 1790
-1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London, (1995) pp 1297-98)
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 2, 1819
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excert of a letter to Robert Walsh from James
Madison. MARCH 2, 1819 Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
----------------------------------------------------------
1817-1833
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished
in their short history"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda. This
document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a
biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand
sometime between 1817 and 1832. The entire document was published by
Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
----------------------------------------------------------
JULY 10, 1822
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Edward Livingston from James
Madison, July 10, 1822. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 273-276. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
---------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 1833
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to
trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil
authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on
unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other
or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded
against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way
whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting
each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others".
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper
Adams, September, 1833.Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard Hunt,
[not sure what the volume number is but have enough information presented
here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488. )
------------------------------------------------------------------
There is another here you didn't include:
DECEMBER 3, 1816
And may I not be allowed to add to this gratifying spectacle that I
shall read in the character of the American people, in their devotion to
true liberty and to the Constitution which is its palladium, sure presages
that the destined career of my country will exhibit a Government pursuing
the public good as its sole object, and regulating its means by the great
principles consecrated in its charter and by those moral principles to
which they are so well allied; a Government which watches over the purity
of elections, the freedom of speech and of the press, the trial by jury,
and the equal interdict against encroachments and compacts between religion
and the state; . . .
JAMES MADISON.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from James Madison's 8th Annual Message to
Congress pp. A compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents,
1789-1897, James D Richardson ed. Volume I, Bureau of National Literature,
NY (1897) 564-565
buckeye
>:|On Jul 2, 7:32�am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
>:|
>:|the complete ignorance of the social conservatives is mind boggling
No. Buckeyeelo did no write the above, you did.
>:|
>:|> http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090701/OPIN...
>:|>
>:|> John E. Stewart III, Asheville � July 1, 2009 01:03 PM
>:|>
>:|> Hogwash. The words �separation of church in state� do not appear in the
>:|> U.S. Constitution. They won't be found in the Bill of Rights, either.
>:|
>:|Not the specific verbiage, but certainly the line "Congress shall make
>:|no law respecting an establishment of religion" in the first amendment
>:|to the constitution qualifies, as does the formal ban of religious
>:|qualification for federally elected officials in Article VI, section
>:|3, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
>:|office or public trust under the United States."
>:|
The "no religious test" is the separation clause in the un amended
constitution. The religious clauses of the BORS on reinforced that
which had been embodied in the un amended constitution
Dank 110100100
> The words 'separation of church and state' not in the Constitution
It is definitely implied. For example, the First Amendment guarantees
the right to peaceably assemble, also known as the right to "freedom
of association." Freedom OF association implies freedom FROM
association.
An American has the right to join any group he wishes, whether it be
the Catholic church, the Ku Klux Klan, the Shriners, or the Blueberry
Muffin Club. The right to join these organizations implies the right
to NOT join them. No American can be forced to support a private
organization he does not agree with.
The First Amendment also prohibits the government from passing any
laws in regards to religion, also known as "freedom of religion."
Freedom OF religion implies freedom FROM religion. If the government
may not interfere with religion, then religion may not interfere with
government. This is known as "separation of church and state."
buckeye
>:|Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal
>:|observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner
>:|contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-
>:|eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which
>:|they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th,
>:|1789 pages 730 - 731).
The correct version of the above should read as follows:
Mr. MADISON said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that
Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal
observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner
contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-
eminence, or two combined together, . . .
. . . He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a
pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion, to which
they would compel others to conform. . .
The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States
(Annals of Congress), August 15, 1789, Vol. I, Joseph Gales, published by
Gales and Seaton, Washington, 1834, pp 730 - 731.
From the online sorce we have the following:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=380
It shows the entire converstation is recorded on pages 757 -759.
Christopher Helms
> The words 'separation of church and state' not in the Constitution
>
>
> John E. Stewart III, Asheville • July 1, 2009 01:03 PM
>
> I tire of people so eager to advance their argument that they twist words
> and tell outright lies. For example, Rob Thomas of Matchbox 20, blogging at
> Huffington Post, pressed his argument for gay marriage recently by saying
> our Founding Fathers “...put into their brand new constitution (sic) a
> separation of church and state so that the ideals of a group of people
> could never be forced onto the whole.”
>
> Hogwash. The words “separation of church in state” do not appear in the
> U.S. Constitution. They won't be found in the Bill of Rights, either.
This from the same people who had no problem locating a "Unitary
Executive" clause, an amendment that okays data mining, a section that
allows the president to lock a person up for the rest of his life
without ever charging him with anything and an amendment that okays
torture. You've also got the amendment that declares the Tenth
Amendment null and void and allows the national government to grab any
power it feels like grabbing and then allows it to trump state laws
with powers that once were specifically and directly denied it and
reserved for the states.
Face it, you guys are as full of shit as any liberal when it comes to
original intent and every bit as capable of finding things in the
Constitution that aren't really there. There are a lot of "rights" in
this country that are really nothing more than "bunnies in the clouds"
that some judge or panel "saw" and declared to be real when they
weren't really there at all, that were not placed there by anyone or
ever intended to be there by anyone. But one day somebody looked up
and saw a cloud bunny that told him or her that the Framers intended
"driving down the road" to be sufficient reason to give the police the
"right" stop a car and search it, or that health care was a "right" or
a thousand other figments of peoples imaginations that ended up as
"rights" that needed laws to protect them and we all accept this crap
as normal. Well, it's not, normal, god dammit. It's not normal at all.
It's a whole lot of cloud bunnies, that's what it is.
buckeye
Separation of church and states was embodied in the unamended constitution,
directly with the right to affirm rather than swear and the religious test
ban. Indirectly the entire document as a whole.
The religious clauses of the BORS did not create church state separation,
it only reinforced what was already there.
Mitchell Holman
news:5958141d-f9cc-4ff6...@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
Such is the problem with conservatives who think
"original intent" can solve every legal problem. So,
what WAS the framers "original intent" when it comes
to surrogate motherhood, wiretaps, telecom mergers,
waterboarding, email surveillence, thermal energy scans,
airport weapons bans and drug courier profile arrests?
Peter Franks
> Christopher Helms <Chrish...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:5958141d-f9cc-4ff6...@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Jul 2, 6:32 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> The words 'separation of church and state' not in the Constitution
>>>
>>> http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090701/OPIN.
>>> .
>> .
>>>
>>> I tire of people so eager to advance their argument that they twist
>>> words and tell outright lies. For example, Rob Thomas of Matchbox 20,
>>> blogging
>> at
>>> Huffington Post, pressed his argument for gay marriage recently by
>>> (sic) a separation of church and state so that the ideals of a group
>>>
>>> Hogwash. The words �separation of church in state� do not appear in t
ARTICLE V!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This isn't rocket science. 5th grade education will suffice.
READ THE DOCUMENT AND UNDERSTAND OR DWELL IN IGNORANCE.
Mitchell Holman
september.org:
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> Christopher Helms <Chrish...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:5958141d-f9cc-4ff6...@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Jul 2, 6:32 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> The words 'separation of church and state' not in the Constitution
>>>>
>>>> http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20090701/OPIN.
>>>> .
>>> .
>>>> John E. Stewart III, Asheville � July 1, 2009 01:03 PM
>>>>
>>>> I tire of people so eager to advance their argument that they twist
>>>> words and tell outright lies. For example, Rob Thomas of Matchbox
20,
>>>> blogging
>>> at
>>>> Huffington Post, pressed his argument for gay marriage recently by
>>>> saying our Founding Fathers �...put into their brand new
constitution
>>>> (sic) a separation of church and state so that the ideals of a group
>>>> of people could never be forced onto the whole.�
>>>>
>>>> Hogwash. The words �separation of church in state� do not appear in
Since you know so much you tell us.
What was the "original intent" of the founding
fathers regarding wiretaps.
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote in news:h2te21$g07$1...@news.eternal-
> september.org:
>
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> Christopher Helms <Chrish...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> news:5958141d-f9cc-4ff6...@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 2, 6:32 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>> The words 'separation of church and state' not in the Constitution
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
> AID=/20090701/OPIN.
>>>>> .
>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> I tire of people so eager to advance their argument that they twist
>>>>> words and tell outright lies. For example, Rob Thomas of Matchbox
> 20,
>>>>> blogging
>>>> at
>>>>> Huffington Post, pressed his argument for gay marriage recently by
>>>>> (sic) a separation of church and state so that the ideals of a group
>>>>>
Thank you for noticing.
> What was the "original intent" of the founding
> fathers regarding wiretaps.
There is no original intent, nor authority for wiretaps as such was
clearly not contemplatable by the founders.
If authority is deemed necessary by government for the securing of
rights, Article V is invoked. Any other means for the acquisition of
authority is illegitimate, null, and void.
legist
> > september.org:
>
> >> Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >>> Christopher Helms <Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >>>news:5958141d-f9cc-4ff6...@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>>> On Jul 2, 6:32 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >>>>> The words 'separation of church and state' not in the Constitution
>
> >>>>>http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
> > AID=/20090701/OPIN.
> >>>>> .
> >>>> .
>
> >>>>> I tire of people so eager to advance their argument that they twist
> >>>>> words and tell outright lies. For example, Rob Thomas of Matchbox
> > 20,
> >>>>> blogging
> >>>> at
> >>>>> Huffington Post, pressed his argument for gay marriage recently by
> > constitution
> >>>>> (sic) a separation of church and state so that the ideals of a group
>
> >>>>> Hogwash. The words “separation of church in state” do not appear in
>
> - Show quoted text -
So, since the Founders had no conception of television, the internet,
movies, or radio, the Free Speech and Free Press clauses of the First
Amendment don't preclude federal censorship or regulation of such
media?
Jimbo
> > september.org:
>
> >> Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >>> Christopher Helms <Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >>>news:5958141d-f9cc-4ff6...@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>>> On Jul 2, 6:32 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >>>>> The words 'separation of church and state' not in the Constitution
>
> >>>>>http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
> > AID=/20090701/OPIN.
> >>>>> .
> >>>> .
>
> >>>>> I tire of people so eager to advance their argument that they twist
> >>>>> words and tell outright lies. For example, Rob Thomas of Matchbox
> > 20,
> >>>>> blogging
> >>>> at
> >>>>> Huffington Post, pressed his argument for gay marriage recently by
> > constitution
> >>>>> (sic) a separation of church and state so that the ideals of a group
>
> >>>>> Hogwash. The words “separation of church in state” do not appear in
>
> - Show quoted text -
The original intent of the founding fathers was that all search and,
and particularly searches that lead to seizure and/or arrest, must
follow due process of law, which requires judicial review in the form
of a warrant. Wiretaps have been ruled several times now by lower
courts all the way up to the SCOTUS to fall directly under these
Constitutional protections, and deviating from due process is
unconstitutional. Unfortunately, our politicians do not seem to
listen, and the judiciary is forced to revisit this issue every 20
years or so. Start putting these bastards in jail for an extended
period and it will stop.
Peter Franks
> On Jul 7, 7:19 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote innews:h2te21$g07$1...@news.eternal-
>>> september.org:
>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> Christopher Helms <Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:5958141d-f9cc-4ff6...@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>> On Jul 2, 6:32 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> The words 'separation of church and state' not in the Constitution
>>>>>>> http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
>>> AID=/20090701/OPIN.
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> I tire of people so eager to advance their argument that they twist
>>>>>>> words and tell outright lies. For example, Rob Thomas of Matchbox
>>> 20,
>>>>>>> blogging
>>>>>> at
>>>>>>> Huffington Post, pressed his argument for gay marriage recently by
>>> constitution
>>>>>>> (sic) a separation of church and state so that the ideals of a group
What legitimate federal authority allows for the censorship or
regulation of such media?
legist
> legist wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 7:19 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >> Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >>> Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote innews:h2te21$g07$1...@news.eternal-
> >>> september.org:
> >>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >>>>> Christopher Helms <Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >>>>>news:5958141d-f9cc-4ff6...@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>> On Jul 2, 6:32 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> The words 'separation of church and state' not in the Constitution
> >>>>>>>http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
> >>> AID=/20090701/OPIN.
> >>>>>>> .
> >>>>>> .
> >>>>>>> I tire of people so eager to advance their argument that they twist
> >>>>>>> words and tell outright lies. For example, Rob Thomas of Matchbox
> >>> 20,
> >>>>>>> blogging
> >>>>>> at
> >>>>>>> Huffington Post, pressed his argument for gay marriage recently by
> >>> constitution
> >>>>>>> (sic) a separation of church and state so that the ideals of a group
> >>>>>>> Hogwash. The words “separation of church in state” do not appear in
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can start with the the police power over the District of Columbia
and the commerce clause.
Peter Franks
> On Jul 8, 8:59 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> legist wrote:
>>> On Jul 7, 7:19 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote innews:h2te21$g07$1...@news.eternal-
>>>>> september.org:
>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>> Christopher Helms <Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:5958141d-f9cc-4ff6...@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 6:32 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The words 'separation of church and state' not in the Constitution
>>>>>>>>> http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
>>>>> AID=/20090701/OPIN.
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>> I tire of people so eager to advance their argument that they twist
>>>>>>>>> words and tell outright lies. For example, Rob Thomas of Matchbox
>>>>> 20,
>>>>>>>>> blogging
>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> Huffington Post, pressed his argument for gay marriage recently by
>>>>> constitution
>>>>>>>>> (sic) a separation of church and state so that the ideals of a group
That isn't federal authority.
> and the commerce clause.
The intent of "regulate" was to ensure the free flow of, not arbitrary
control, therefore the Commerce Clause doesn't apply. See the Preamble
to the Amendments.
Anything else?
There isn't authority delegated that would permit censorship of said
media, therefore the media types you mentioned aren't subject to federal
legislation.
legist
> legist wrote:
> > You can start with the the police power over the District of Columbia
>
> That isn't federal authority.
Oh, please. Read Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the
Constitution. Congress can legislate any way it wishes regarding DC
and other federal enclaves, subject only to other provisions of the
Constitution. So if the First Amendment doesn't apply to the
internet, radio, television, or movies, Congress could censor or
otherwise regulate such media within DC.
> > and the commerce clause.
>
> The intent of "regulate" was to ensure the free flow of, not arbitrary
> control, therefore the Commerce Clause doesn't apply. See the Preamble
> to the Amendments.
The Preamble isn't law (there is no "Preamble to the Amendments", by
the way). And while I may agree that the Commerce Clause has been
overstretched, I am not naive or arrogant enough to think that my
opinions constitute the law -- those of the Supreme Court do, and
under current commerce clause jurisprudence it wouldn't be hard for
Congress to censor interstate media if the First Amendment didn't
apply.
Peter Franks
> On Jul 8, 3:12 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> legist wrote:
>
>>> and the commerce clause.
>> The intent of "regulate" was to ensure the free flow of, not arbitrary
>> control, therefore the Commerce Clause doesn't apply. See the Preamble
>> to the Amendments.
>
> The Preamble isn't law
It explains law.
> (there is no "Preamble to the Amendments", by
> the way).
What do /you/ call:
<quote>
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their
adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent
misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and
restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of
public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent
ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring,
that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the
several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States,
all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the
said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of
the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the
Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the
original Constitution.
</quote>
?
> And while I may agree that the Commerce Clause has been
> overstretched
Overstretched past its bounds? Under what authority?
> I am not naive or arrogant enough to think that my
> opinions constitute the law -- those of the Supreme Court do, and
> under current commerce clause jurisprudence it wouldn't be hard for
> Congress to censor interstate media if the First Amendment didn't
> apply.
So then, when Madison argued that the Amendments were superfluous and
unnecessary, he was really a babbling buffoon?
Does the judicial branch have the authority to create or expand
legislative authority? If they say they do, does that make it so?
Jimbo
I think you mean Hamilton. I don't think Madison made such an
argument.
legist
They have the authority to say what the Constitution means regarding
its grant of various powers to Congress, subject to being overruled by
constitutional amendments. And since the people have acquiesced in
the concept of judicial review for over 200 years, it's an established
part of the law.
Returning to the original topic, which you don't seem to want to
address: if Congress wanted to censor or otherwise regulate movies,
radio, TV, and other media unknown to the Founders within DC or other
federal areas, does the 1st Amendment prevent it from doing so?
Peter Franks
Yes.
legist
So every time a new media technology is created, we need to amend the
Constitution to extend the First Amendment to it. How cumbersome (and
recall, we're talking about restricting governmental power here, not
expanding it).
Of course, this rationale would also mean that any weapons unknown to
the Founders would not be covered by the 2d Amendment, so that
automatic rifles and pistols with ammunition clips could be outlawed
by Congress in DC and other federal areas, correct?
Peter Franks
> On Jul 9, 12:20 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> legist wrote:
>>
>
>>> Returning to the original topic, which you don't seem to want to
>>> address: if Congress wanted to censor or otherwise regulate movies,
>>> radio, TV, and other media unknown to the Founders within DC or other
>>> federal areas, does the 1st Amendment prevent it from doing so?
>> Yes.
>
> So every time a new media technology is created, we need to amend the
> Constitution to extend the First Amendment to it. How cumbersome (and
> recall, we're talking about restricting governmental power here, not
> expanding it).
I answered "Yes".
> Of course, this rationale would also mean that any weapons unknown to
> the Founders would not be covered by the 2d Amendment, so that
> automatic rifles and pistols with ammunition clips could be outlawed
> by Congress in DC and other federal areas, correct?
No.
Protections are liberal in application; powers are conservative.
legist
> legist wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 12:20 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >> legist wrote:
>
> >>> Returning to the original topic, which you don't seem to want to
> >>> address: if Congress wanted to censor or otherwise regulate movies,
> >>> radio, TV, and other media unknown to the Founders within DC or other
> >>> federal areas, does the 1st Amendment prevent it from doing so?
> >> Yes.
>
> > So every time a new media technology is created, we need to amend the
> > Constitution to extend the First Amendment to it. How cumbersome (and
> > recall, we're talking about restricting governmental power here, not
> > expanding it).
>
> I answered "Yes".
Pardon. I misread your answer.
Peter Franks
No problem.
Strabo
1. The Preamble as well the Declaration, Federalist papers and other
documentation of the period, may be used to determine original
intent.
2. The SCOTUS interprets law. Whether an interpretation is observed
is another case.
3. The SCOTUS is not the final arbitrator of law. A jury may nullify
any law and a law which cannot be enforced is null.
Elijahovah
then the question remaining is which church do you think the state
should go to.
There can be no freedom of religion if the state chooses to be
of one religion married to and not separate from.
If of course the state chooses to be of no religion,
then it is indeed a separate rule form religion. Because if it has
no religion that it has established then each religion is free to have
its own rule below the state rule. But if the state has a religion
then
it is married to and not separate from that religion and all are then
forced to be ruled by that religion instead of their own personal
religion allowed by state and under and below the state.
Now why is it that stupid americans cannot see other governments
ruled by a state religion whether it be Italian Catholic, or Iranian
Islam etc.
Obviously any religion who sticks its nose into our government to rule
us
by the laws of Islam or Christ or Buddha are actually trampling on the
freedom of the rest of us to have the religion of choice. yet you have
already done this because I recall feeeling like a Moslem or Jew when
in school we colored Saint Valentine, and Halloween, and Santa Claus
all in the lie that these are not religious but just party days.
The nation that lives the lie will be killed by their own lie.
Time always does so.
ELIJAH
Elijahovah
The bad forms of worship are the weeds.
The witch hunters will try to nip the bad in the bud
before it is too big but by doing so they kill all the wheat
who were not witches at all.
Instead Jesus said allow each to grow and show their fruit,
and then harvest the wheat and separate from the weeds.
Yes it is work, but look at the world, that is the work that
is very massive to handle right now.
God will sort out by those who survive it.
The government who harvests before the ripening, is
choosing which religion they think is the wheat, and
destroying which they feel is the weeds, and in doing
so they have destroyed God's kingdom in their own land
and then wonder why another land perceives that God's kingdom is there
growing in the midst of that land.
Yes they will say look how can that be God's kingdom it grows amongst
the evil weeds, the bad churches,
the ways of wicked people becaus ethey have this freedom.
Well I see the same sexual morality in other lands who have a state
religion,
or communism (nor religion), or the state is THE religion, and simply
put Jesus was right that
the freedom is what allows God to grow a real true church for himself
to save when the whole world
like Noah's world dies.
This is why 2300 years after Daniel died in 538 BC (a year that was
not always calculated as being that year)
when the Dutch harbor froze as it never does so that they gave Britain
New Amsterdam (New York) then
Britian regarded it as an act of God, and as this 2300 years, and
established God's sanctuary of freedom by declaring the Proclamation
of Freedom of Religion in all of the United Kingdom especially
America. That contract with God will be honored this year, and the
death of the christ in the New City will make her the New City. And a
great earthquake occurred as the sign as it did at the death of Jesus
her husband.
Amen. The hour has arrived.
The harvest completes.
Jimbo
> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:30:20 -0700, Peter Franks> No, it merely states a philosophical position.
Years ago, a college professor explained the preamble to be roughly
equivalent to a "mission statement" for the constitution, as well as
outlining some general purposes and goals. It, in and of itself, is
not law, nor, to my knowledge, has it ever been used as such.
Jimbo
>
> - Show quoted text -
The SCOTUS is not required to observe "original intent". Original
intent is often a good starting point for the law, but even the
founding fathers realized that times and culture changes, and the law
must reflect that.
The SCOTUS makes decisions arising from constitutional challenges.
They are not the final arbitor, but a jury has no power to overturn
nor nullify the decisions of the SCOTUS. Only Congress has that
power. They can rewrite the law to circumvent the previous
constitutional objections, or they can initiate the Amendment process
to nullify the SCOTUS' decision, making the existing law
constitutional.
The third and final way that a SCOTUS decision can be overturned or
nullified is for the SCOTUS itself to issue a later decision,
repealing it's first decision.
US Constition, Article 3, Section 1 vests the judicial power in
federal courts, requires a supreme court, allows inferior courts,
requires life tenure for judges, and prohibits decreasing the salaries
of judges.
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in
one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may
from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the
supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good
Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a
Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in
Office.
The wording clearly indicates that all other courts are subordinate to
the SCOTUS.
Jimbo
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:50:58 -0400, Strabo
>
> A jury can be over-ruled by a judge- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
A jury cannot be over-ruled by a judge in a criminal trial. The
judge has a bit more leeway for a civil trial, but not a lot.
Peter Franks
It is a foundation; the law rests atop it. Similar to the Declaration
of Independence: it isn't law, but rather the foundation for government
and the laws.
The Preamble is clear as to the intent and purpose of the Amendments.
Ignoring it is merely an act of foolishness.
Jimbo
> Jimbo wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 9:44 am, G...@Whipped.com wrote:
> >> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:30:20 -0700, Peter Franks
>
> >> <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >>>> The Preamble isn't law
> >>> It explains law.
> >> No, it merely states a philosophical position.
>
> > Years ago, a college professor explained the preamble to be roughly
> > equivalent to a "mission statement" for the constitution, as well as
> > outlining some general purposes and goals. It, in and of itself, is
> > not law, nor, to my knowledge, has it ever been used as such.
>
> It is a foundation; the law rests atop it.
"Foundation" is not entirely accurate. The Constitution itself is
the foundation for law. The preamble is as I said above, for the
foundation. The preamble only gives direction in the most general of
terms, and is not strong enough to be a foundation.
> Similar to the Declaration
> of Independence:
Which is also not law.
it isn't law, but rather the foundation for government
> and the laws.
The DOI is exactly that, a declaration of colonial independence from
Britain, it did not form this nation, nor does it serve as its
foundation. The DOI's construction served a couple of purposes, but
nothing within it suggested the foundation of a country.
>
> The Preamble is clear as to the intent and purpose of the Amendments.
> Ignoring it is merely an act of foolishness.
No one is ignoring it, and additionally no one is ascribing the level
of importance to it that you are suggesting.
haiku jones
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:25:54 -0700, Peter Franks
>
>
>
> <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >Jimbo wrote:
> >> On Jul 9, 9:44 am, G...@Whipped.com wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:30:20 -0700, Peter Franks
>
> >>> <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >>>>> The Preamble isn't law
> >>>> It explains law.
> >>> No, it merely states a philosophical position.
>
> >> Years ago, a college professor explained the preamble to be roughly
> >> equivalent to a "mission statement" for the constitution, as well as
> >> outlining some general purposes and goals. It, in and of itself, is
> >> not law, nor, to my knowledge, has it ever been used as such.
>
> >It is a foundation; the law rests atop it. Similar to the Declaration
> >of Independence: it isn't law, but rather the foundation for government
> >and the laws.
>
> >The Preamble is clear as to the intent and purpose of the Amendments.
> >Ignoring it is merely an act of foolishness.
>
>
> Thinking it's law, or binding is foolishness
>
> The declaration has nothing to do with law---it's an
> enumerationof grievances justifying the dissolution of
> a legitimate government.
Not to mention a carefully crafted piece of wartime
propaganda aimed at enlisting the aid of France
against the English.
Haiku Jones
> The preamble is not law, it is a philosophical
> statement (as Jimbo carefully explained to you grade
> schoolers)
Jimbo
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:37:53 -0700 (PDT), Jimbo
>
> <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The SCOTUS makes decisions arising from constitutional challenges.
> >They are not the final arbitor, but a jury has no power to overturn
> >nor nullify the decisions of the SCOTUS. Only Congress has that
> >power. They can rewrite the law to circumvent the previous
> >constitutional objections, or they can initiate the Amendment process
> >to nullify the SCOTUS' decision, making the existing law
> >constitutional.
>
> accepted constitution law could be "legal" just because
> it passed a political test.
Amendments are just that. An amendment that contradicts earlier parts
of the Constitution superceeds that previous part. The 13th, and 14th
Amendment, which abolishes slavery and guarantees equal treatmentm
superceeds the 3/5th's compromise, for example.
> If slavery were to be the issue, could merely passing
> it in states make it constitutional
In theory, yes. If they were to somehow manage to pass an amendment
allowing slavery, then slavery would become Constitutional. The
likelyhood of this happening is so remote, that the example is
laughable. Not to mention that such an amendment would most likely
spark open revolt, and perhaps another Civil War.
Jimbo
Also true. It's important to know just how incredibly brave
declaring independence from Britain was at that particular juncture in
time. The "rebels" had no money, no weapons except what they managed
to take from British Armories, no Navy, and no Standing Army.
General George Washington had only lead two combat missions prior,
losing one of those battles, and seriously escalated the fighting in
the other. (French & Indian War) Still, Washington was a better
than fair strategist, and was an excellent leader. The fighters that
he was given to work with were only obligated through enlistment
contract for one year. At the end of that year, most choose to stay
and fight, mostly due to Washington's leadership.
Even so, France refused Jefferson's requests for help until Washinton
won a couple of battles. (He had lost a number of inititial battles
miserably) Independence and the Revolution was not wildly supported
in that first year. The Founding Fathers, and perhaps 25% - 30% of
the common folk were in agreement, with roughly the same number that
were loyal to the British Crown (Ben Franklin's son was a Loyalist).
The remainder (40% - 50%) remained uncommitted (Fence Riders) in the
initial part of the war. The Founding Father's desperately needed
help from the French, which they eventually receieved.
Mitchell Holman
> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:59:11 -0700, Peter Franks
> <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>What legitimate federal authority allows for the censorship or
>>regulation of such media?
>
> Public interest
>
> More perfect union
>
> General welfare
>
> The constitution
Public ownership of the airwaves
Kurt Nicklas
> G...@Whipped.com wrote innews:2i2a55lab756cp26t...@4ax.com:
Tell it to the head of the FCC.
--------------------------------------------
Mitchel Holloman on gun rights:
"What militia do you belong to and who regulates it?"
--------- 1/17/08
Peter Franks
None of those are federally-delegated authorities.
I'll conclude that there is no federal authority for the censorship or
regulation of such media.
Jimbo
What about the anti-Federalist papers? :D
>
> 2. The SCOTUS interprets law. Whether an interpretation is observed
> is another case.
>
> 3. The SCOTUS is not the final arbitrator of law. A jury may nullify
> any law and a law which cannot be enforced is null.- Hide quoted text -