Locke and Calvinistic Theories of Resistance
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Mike Curtis wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >Mike Curtis wrote:
>:|> Too bad I don't have Amos' book.
>:|
>:|I fully agree about that. Didn't you give me lecture once about how easy it is
>:|to check things out of a library.
>:|
>:|> I'm acquiring all the others written
>:|> by Jeffersonian scholars. They never seem to refer to Amos' book. I
>:|> wonder why? Maybe it's that "establishment conspiracy" thingy?
>:|
>:|Fear of association. It's a normal human response. You see how much it is used
>:|against me. Just about every other post I am reminded about my evil friends
>:|and what they have said about my book.
>:|
Maybe it because his book is not viewed seriously by other scholars who
have as much or much more knowledge on the subject.
There are mavericks and radicals in every field.
It is sort of like that small hard core group of far right conservatives
who swear up and down that the doctrine of incorporation is illegal and
therefore invalid.
Most do not pay them a lot of attention, even most conservatives do not
support that particular notion.
Amos has written a book and I am sure he thinks that what he says in that
book is completely true and the way things were or are. That doesn't make
it so.
Respect has been achieved when even those who are on the opposite side of
the argument or fence still cite your book or mention it.
I can look at an author like Daniel Driesbach, Law degree from U VA, Ph. D
from Oxford (Rhodes Scholar), assistant professor of Justice, Law and
Society at American University, Washington D. C. He has published several
books and written numerous law Journal and other journal articles on
church/state over the past ten years. He advocates and defends the
accomodationist philosophy in regards to church/state, but yet freely cites
separationist authors and books and articles as well as other
accomodationists authors.
If the Amos book which has been out for ten years now is not mentioned by
many or any scholars it has less to do with his associations and more to do
with what he wrote, his theories.
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
jal...@pilot.infi.net
Here is the infor on two other books plus Amos's book. I suspect that the
other two would not go along with Amos's book.
_____________________________________________________________________
This is from a book review in the latest Journal of Church and State.
Jefferson's Declaration of Independence Origins, Philosophy and Theology.
By Allen Jayne. Lexington, Ky.: The University Press of' Kentucky, 1998.
245 pp $39.95.
Jayne's Jefferson's Declaration will appeal to both philosophers and
intelectual historians. This book began when Jayne, a philosopher read the
books that Jeffrrson recommended to friends. Jayne's quest is to answer.
the riddle of whose ideas most influenced Jefferson when he drafted the
famous Declaration of Independence. The second major theme of this book is
Jefferson's heterodox theology.
As Jayne meticulously explores Jeffersonn's intellectual mentors, Jayne
atttributes primary influence to the writings of Henry St. John (Lord
Viscount Bolinebroker), John Locke, and the Scottish jurist Henry Home
(Lord Kames.) Bolingbroke was a major contributor to Jef'frson"s conviction
that there should be no authority over or restraints, especially religious,
placed on an individual's reason. Bolingbroke preferred a deistic,
impartial God, especially rejecting the notion of origin sin, miracles,
predestination, and a God showing preference/mercy to an undeserving
people. Jefferson, shaped by Bolingbroke, believed man was an independent
moral agent who could know fiom nature what was right behavior and by
performing good works earn salvation.
John Locke's Second Treatise of Governrnent profoundly influenced
Jefferson in political theory especially the notions of equality,
individual rights, and tile necessity of religious freedorn from any
political entanglements. Lockean ideals were echoed in Jefferson"s most
famous phrase, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal." However, Lockean epistemology had a serious flaw in that
Looke doubted that most men would use their reason. Here Kames solved the
problem for JelTerson by arguing that man using his mord sense and a
minimal amount of reason coultl understand and obey the moral Inws of
nature.
Jndeo-Christian readers will find this a revealing book sincu it is more
about Jefferson's theology than his politics. For some, it will be a shock
to tiiscover that die Declaration of Independence is a document that tries
to arouse men to throw off the chains of' traditional Christianity and
embrace reason and the basic tenets of' Dcism or Unitarianism.
My major criticism is methodological: most of Jayne's evidence linking
Jefferson's idas to Bolingbroke, Locke, and Kames comes from post-1776
cornments by Jefferson, The pre-1776 evidence seems thin: passages
Jefferson's quoted in his copy book or the assumption that Jefferson must
have read a book hecause he listed it on a recommended reading list in
1771. However, Jayne's extensive documentation of Jefferson's post-1776
reference to these Enlightment thinkcrs is sound and makes the book must
reading for those interested in Jeffersou's theology.
David E. MAAS
Wheaton College
Wheaton, Illinois
_________________________________________________________
Ok this is from the cover of Gary Amos's book.
Defending the Declaration
Controversy abounds these days as to what America's founding fathers really
believed. What were their personal religious convictions? And did Biblical
principles or Christian teaching have an impact on the documents they
wrote?
In recent years, a number of books, even by Christian writers, have tried
to show that there was almost no Christian influence on the minds and
writings of America's forefathers.
This book clearly refutes that notion.
Gary Amos has spent ten years researching and four years writing Defending
the Declaration. Amos believes that the evidence from primary sources is
undeniable: underlying the Declaration of Independence is a foundation of
Biblical principles and Christian influence. The Bible and Christianity,
not deism and secularism, were the most important influences on the
framers.
Not surprisingly, Amos laments that America's educational system denies or
ignores almost all this evidence. Evidence he believes to be irrefutable.
In this book, Gary Amos discusses why we should care about America's roots.
He savs, "Where we take America in the future depends in part on where we
think she came from. In a sense, we try to live what we believe the
American dream to be. It is hard enough to remember the details of vour own
dreams once you awake, but to remember the derails of the 'American dream'
from our forefathers is especially hard. This book is about some of the
details of their dream."
There will, no doubt, be some who disagree with Gary Amos' conclusions.
None, however, will be able to question the intensity of his exploration,
or the integrity of his approach.
Gary Amos is a member of the Bar of the Commonwealth of \Iirginia.
Currently (1989) he teaches law and government at CBN (Regent) Universiry
in Virginia Beach. In addition to a Juris Doctor degree. Mr. Amos also
holds a degree in history and theology.
He and his wife. Carol Ann, have three children.
_______________________________________________________________________
This is from the back of American Scripture, Making the Declaration of
Independence, by Pauline Maier.
A NEW YORK TIMES EDITORS' CHOICE ROOK
"Splendid. Maier skillfully traces the progress of the Declaration from
political event to sacred text."
Washington Post
In a pathbreaking historical work that revolutionizes our understanding of
the Declaration of Independence, Pauline Maier strips away the accumulated
misconceptions, misplaced reverence, and hero worship that have long
surrounded this epoch-making document. Drawing upon dozens of other
"declarations of independence" written by towns, counties and states in the
spring and summer of 1776, Maier reveals the popular origins of American
nationhood.
After carefully analyzing the drafting of the Declaration that the Second
Continental Congress adopted on July 4, she makes clear how the document
became an expression of the American mind. She also sheds light on how the
myth of Jefferson's single authorship emerged and on how Abraham Lincoln
ensured the Declaration's persistence as a living force in our society.
Finally, she shows how by the very act of venerating the Declaration, we
may actually be betraying its purpose.
This is cultural history at its best--a work that irrevocably changes our
perspective on how America came to be.
"Sharp and engaging....A meticulous exhumation of American history that is
full of fascinating details and scintillating insights." San
Francisco Chronicle
Gardiner
>
> mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>
> Here is the infor on two other books plus Amos's book. I suspect that the
> other two would not go along with Amos's book.
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> This is from a book review in the latest Journal of Church and State.
[snip, huge yawn]
[snip. yawn]
Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|Mike Curtis wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> >Mike Curtis wrote:
>
> >:|> Too bad I don't have Amos' book.
> >:|
> >:|I fully agree about that. Didn't you give me lecture once about how easy it is
> >:|to check things out of a library.
> >:|
> >:|> I'm acquiring all the others written
> >:|> by Jeffersonian scholars. They never seem to refer to Amos' book. I
> >:|> wonder why? Maybe it's that "establishment conspiracy" thingy?
> >:|
> >:|Fear of association. It's a normal human response. You see how much it is used
> >:|against me. Just about every other post I am reminded about my evil friends
> >:|and what they have said about my book.
> >:|
>
> Maybe it because his book is not viewed seriously by other scholars who
> have as much or much more knowledge on the subject.
Where's your book, Allison? Can't get a publisher? Ah, I see why you're so
bitter. There's a reason why some people can get published and others can't,
and it has a little bit to do with reputation.
There are those who publish, and those who, in their frustration, do nothing
but bicker about those who publish. I wonder which one you are?
Gardiner
>
> Looks like out of the 7 or 8 posts you presented there was no history
> discussed. All personal attacks. Obfuscating and distorting a
> footnote. Attacking me again. That's becoming standard. And finally
> giving up a citation and it was poorly given at that.
>
> >There are those who publish, and those who, in their frustration, do nothing
> >but bicker about those who publish. I wonder which one you are?
>
> you do is personally attack your opponents. Maybe that's why David
> never came back. He was that you were a hopeless case. I addressed his
> desires to have a discussion. He never got back to us. Yet he did post
> about drugs and their usage in the constitutional news group. So, for
> whatever reason, he didn't feel much would be accomplished and decided
> not to narrow the scope. I'll bet you had nothing to do with that, did
> you. :-)
>
> Now when are you going to actually address HISTORY? Never?
Right, Curtis. There is no history in this section that you conveniently snipped:
Will you ignore this? Of course. But the record will be straight about whose
posting history.
******************************
Post history from http://x30.deja.com/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=478522087&CONTEXT=927050848.1254031372&thitnum=4
Blackstone In America
Lectures by An English Lawyer
Become The Blueprint for a
New Nation's Laws and Leaders
by Greg Bailey (Early American Review, Spring 1997)
In October 25, 1758 as William Blackstone
approached the podium in the Oxford
lecture hall he knew he was a failure. The thirty
year old lawyer, nearsighted, already
portly, chronically ill, now ready to read his
notes in his grating voice, had spent the last
seven years before the Bar in London with, a
sympathetic biographer wrote, "little notice
or practice."
Now addressing the students assembled before
him to hear the first of his lectures on
English law, Blackstone began with an apology.
Speaking in the third person Blackstone
worried aloud that if his plan was "crude or
injudicious, or the execution of it lame or
superficial" he would set back the study of law.
"And this he must more especially dred,
when he feels by experience how unequal his
abilities are to complete, in the manner he
could wish, so extensive and arduous a task; since
he freely confesses, that his former more
private attempts have fallen very short of his own
ideas of perfection."
Little could Blackstone know that the
lectures he began so tentatively that day would be
published as Commentaries on the Laws of England, a
work that would dominate the common
law legal system for more than a century. Nor could
he foresee that his words would shape
the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and
primal laws of a land he considered no
more than conquered territory of the British crown.
He could not forsee another failure in
life studying his Commentaries in the frontier
village of New Salem, Illinois, teaching
himself law. And little could he imagine that two
hundred years later gangsters would call
their lawyers by his name.
Blackstone spoke and wrote in the times of
Oliver Goldsmith and Samuel Johnson,
Edward Gibbon and Adam Smith, David Hume and
Benjamin Franklin. Cultural institutions
such as the British Museum, that today seem
ancient, were in their infancy. The law then,
as now, was rooted in everyday life but removed by
lawyers and courts from most people's
lives. Blackstone's task, and his ultimate
accomplishment, was to open the law to many for
whom it had been closed.
Despite his initial misgivings, the lectures
were an immediate success, breathing life
into a dry and poorly taught subject. Blackstone's
lectures were published as the
Commentaries in England between 1765 and 1769. An
American edition published in
Philadelphia between 1771-72 sold out its first
printing of 1,400 and a second edition
soon appeared. The Commentaries were translated
into French, German and Russian. During
his lifetime the work earned an estimated 14,000
pounds, an enormous amount of money at
the time. His work would also earn him belated
success as a lawyer, politician, judge and
scholar. Blackstone, however, more than paid for
his success; he and his book became the
targets of some of the most vitriolic attacks ever
mounted upon a man or his ideas.
In trying to comprehend the whole of British
law and present it logically Blackstone
divided the law into four volumes and themes. Book
I covered the "Rights of Persons," a
sweeping examination of British government, the
clergy, the royal family, marriage,
children, corporations and the "absolute rights of
individuals." Book II, on the "Rights of
Things," should more properly have been called the
Rights that people have in Things. It
begins with the observation that "There is nothing
which so generally strikes the
imagination and engages the affections of mankind,
as the right of property." In hundreds of
pages of arcane analysis he then disproves the
point. Book III covers "Private Wrongs,"
today known as torts. Book IV covers "Public
Wrongs," crimes and punishment, including
offenses against God and religion. Blackstone had
no illusions that he had covered every
important aspect of the law adequately; his
lectures and the books were designed as an
introduction to the whole of the law.
Human laws, Blackstone believed, were like
scientific laws. They were creations of God
waiting to be discovered just as Issac Newton had
discovered the laws of gravity a century
before. "Thus we say, the laws of motion, of
gravitation, of optics, or mechanics, as well as
the laws of nature and of nations." Law flowed from
the superior to the inferior, be it God,
monarch or nation, and the inferior was compelled
to obey. He acknowledged humans as "the
nobelest of all sublunary beings, a creature
endowed with both reason and freewill" but
decreed that there were "certain immutable laws of
human nature, whereby freewill is in
some degree regulated and restrained" and that God
gave "the faculty of reason to discover
the purport of those laws."
In Blackstone's more worldly scheme a King
could do no wrong. "The king," he wrote,
"is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of
thinking wrong: in him there is no folly
or weakness." A law could, however, could be
illogical and therefore irrational and open to
criticism. "Thus the statute of king Edward IV,
which forbad the fine gentlemen of those
times (under the degree of a lord) to wear pikes
upon their shoes or boots of more than two
inches in length, was a law that savored of
oppression; because, however ridiculous the
fashion then in use might appear, the restraining
it by pecuniary penalties could serve no
purpose of common utility."
Blackstone was not a pure monarchist. In his
perfect world, which he believed the
United Kingdom of his day closely resembled,
Parliament played a central role as the source
of legislation, and within Parliament the House of
Commons and the House of Lords balanced
each other. Blackstone did not invent the concept
of separation of powers but he made the
idea concrete and accessible for others to use.
Blackstone, who according to James Boswell in
his Life of Johnson "had a bottle of port
before him" during the composition of the
Commentaries finding his mind "invigorated and
supported in the fatigue of his great work," often
lead his readers through a maze of
conflicting absolutes. In Book I he wrote: "To
bereave a man of life, or by violence to
confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial,
would be so gross and notorious an act of
despotism, as must once convey the alarm of tyranny
thoroughout the whole kingdom. But
confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him
to goal, where his sufferings are
unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less
striking, and therefore a more dangerous
engine of arbitrary government." But in the same
paragraph he contends that such actions
may be necessary and proper.
Blackstone may be said to have loved humanity
and disliked people. He saw nothing
wrong with restricting the vote to property owners
because he thought those without
property would have too little interest in public
affairs and would be easily mislead. He
abhorred the very idea of slavery in England
("indeed it is repugnant to reason, and to the
principles of natural law,") declaring that anyone
brought in slavery to England was
immediately freed, but was indifferent to its
practice in America. He flatly declared that
"Christianity is part of the laws of England" but
stated that the law of England "gives
liberty, rightly understood, that is, protection to
a jew, turk, or a heathen, as well as to
those who profess the true religion of Christ."
Blackstone may have proved his best and worst
critic when he wrote: "It is well if the
mass of mankind will obey the laws when made,
without scrutinizing too nicely into the
reasons of making them."
William Blackstone, however, had no shortage
of critics, then or now. Lord
Ellenborough said of Blackstone "it might be said
of him, at the time he was composing the
book, that it was not so much his learning that
made the book, as it was the book that made
him learned."
A contemporary British writer known only by
the pseudonym "Junius" wrote "For the
defense of truth, of law and reason the Doctor's
book may be safely consulted: but whoever
wishes to cheat a neightbour of his estate, or to
rob a country of its rights, need make no
scruple of consulting the Doctor himself."
Philosopher Jeremy Bentham attended
Blackstone's lectures as a student. Blackstone, he
wrote, was a "formal, precise and affected lecturer
- just what you would expect from the
character of his writings: cold, reserved and
wary." Blackstone's comments on the King,
Bentham said "stuck in my stomach." Bentham went on
to be Blackstone's harshest enemy,
denouncing his work as "ignorance on stilts."
Another prominent critic was Joseph
Priestley, best known to history
eries. Some passages in the Commentaries on
religious dissenters prompted Priestley to
write a pamphlet attacking Blackstone, starting a
series of published replies, counter
charges and letters. Blackstone seemed confused why
the scientist should attack him "I must
first of all correct a mistake, which Dr. Priestly
seems to have fallen into, by fancying that
the offensive passages in my book were personally
leveled at him."
William Blackstone was born on July 10, 1723,
four months after his father died.
After his mother died when he was 12, his uncle
provided for him, securing through some
influence admission to a good school. Blackstone
entered Oxford at 15, studying the classics
as well as mathematics and logic. He developed a
talent as a minor poet. At 18 he entered the
Middle Temple Inn of Court, one of the training
grounds for English lawyers in London.
Upon leaving Oxford for his law training he wrote a
long poem called "The Lawyer's
Farewell to His Muse" which reads in part:
Then welcome business, welcome strife
Welcome the cares and thorns of life,
The visage wan, the pore-blind sight,
The toil by day, the lamp by night,
The tedious forms, the solemn prate,
The pert dispute, the dull debate,
The drowsy bench, the babbling hall,
For thee fair Justice, welcome all.
Blackstone completed his legal studies and
was called, or admitted, to the Bar in 1746.
James Clitherow, his biographer and brother-in-law,
blamed his failure in the law on "not
having any powerful friends or connections to
recommend him." The truth lies closer to his
indifferent abilities in court. "My temper,
constitution, inclinations and a thing called
principle, have long quarrelled with active life,"
he wrote in July 1753, "and have assured
me that I am not made to rise in it." During his
time in London Blackstone was drawn back
to Oxford, actively participating in the
university's activities. He applied for a position but
lost it for political reasons, having backed the
wrong candidate for Parliament, a mistake
he would not repeat again. When he began the
lectures on English law the "intervening
cloud" of his life disappeared and his "great
genius...broke forth, with so much splendor"
according to his admiring brother-in-law.
In 1761 Blackstone married Sarah Clitherow,
with whom he had nine children. In that
same year he was appointed a King's Counselor and
elected to the House of Commons.
Blackstone was a loyal if undistinguished Tory,
voting, for example, against the repeal of
the Stamp Act directed against the American
colonies. Some of his colleagues called him a
"toady" for his willingness to curry favor with the
establishment that once rejected him. In
one debate the opposition turned the words of the
Commentaries against Blackstone's
argument. In the next edition Blackstone rewrote
the passage.
In 1770 Blackstone was knighted and accepted
an appointment as a Justice of the Court
of Common Pleas. Blackstone was often in poor
health, and was irritable and impatient on
the bench. As a judge his record was no more
distinguished than his time at the Bar. He died
of dropsy on Feb 14, 1780 at the age of 57, four
years after the American Revolution he
unintentionally inspired.
In his 1941 book The Mysterious Science of
the Law Daniel Boorstin wrote that no
other book except the Bible played a greater role
in the history of American institutions.
The Founders of the country found their philosophy
in John Locke and their passion in
Thomas Paine, but they found the blueprint for a
new nation in Blackstone. To be sure, they
did not construct the government as Blackstone
would have designed it; they added and
subtracted from it as they went along but the
foundation was built on Blackstone.
The philosophy of the Declaration of
Independence asserting the "self-evident"
"unalienable Rights" of people granted by "the Laws
of Nature and of Nature's God" could
have come, and probably did, from Blackstone's
description of the rights of Englishmen
under the British Constitution. The indictment
against the Crown, the bulk of the
Declaration, recites many of the absolute rights of
individuals covered by Blackstone
including the prohibition of taxation without
consent.
Thomas Jefferson, the chief drafter of the
Declaration, was certainly familiar with
Blackstone. Jefferson had a love-hate relationship
with the Commentaries. In 1812 he
wrote that it was the "most elegant and best
digested of our law catalogue," but in the same
letter complained that it had been "perverted" and
responsible for "the degeneracy of legal
science."
Jefferson said that Blackstone and David
Hume's History of England "have done more
towards the suppression of the liberties of man,
than all the millions of men in arms of
Bonaparte," because both books glorified the
systems Jefferson had devoted his life to
fighting. Yet on two occasions Jefferson listed the
Commentaries as required reading for law
students.
Tefferson's animosity toward Blackstone grew
in part out of his disdain for the
superficial treatment of the law. Jefferson learned
law by reading Coke upon Littleton, a
tedious book that lead Jefferson to write to a
friend, " I do wish the Devil has old Cooke,
(sic) for I am sure I never was so tired of an old
dull scoundrel in my life."
Coke, a heroic figure who as a judge defied
the king in a face to face confrontation and
supported Parliament over royalty, improved with
age in Jefferson's eyes. Coke was
"uncouth but cunning learning" but more
comprehensive than Blackstone. "A student finds
there" Jefferson wrote of Blackstone. "a smattering
of everything, and his indolence easily
persuades him that if he understands that book, he
is master of the whole body of law. The
distinction between these, and those who have drawn
their stores from the rich and deep
mines of Coke on Littleton, (sic) seems well
understood even by the unlettered common
people, who apply the appelation of Blackstone
lawyer to these emphemeral insects of the
law."
Jefferson's core disagreement with
Blackstone, however, was Jefferson's opposition to
adopting English common law in America. He was not
alone in this view. Many advocated
adopting a civil code along ancient Roman and
contemporary European lines, and saw it as a
final break away from England. In the early 1800s
New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Kentucky
passed
'noncitation'statutes barring the adoption of
English common law.
However, both common law and Blackstone were
too pervasive to be suppressed, and the
centuries of precedents embodied in the
Commentaries still influence American law today. A
typical example is the Illinois statute adopting
common law "prior to the fourth year of
James the First," or 1607, with certain exceptions
from the reigns of Elizabeth I and
Henry VIII. Common law precedents can at times
create problems in modern law that states
have to correct by statute. The leading example is
the widespread abolition by statute of the
Rule in Shelley's Case, an obscenely obscure point
of law on the transfer of property
originating in the 1300's. "It is revolting," wrote
Oliver Wendel Holmes in 1897 of
ancient precedents in general "to have no better
reason for a rule of law than that so it was
laid down in the time of Henry IV." Revolting or
not this feature remains a central part of
the law and Blackstone is still the guide.
Jefferson gave up the practice of law to the
Blackstone lawyers and despaired of the
profession in words as true today as they were in
1810. Writing to a friend who asked his
advice on his son's career, Jefferson said "Law is
quite overdone. It is fallen to the ground,
and a man must have great powers to raise himself
in it to either honor or profit. The mob
of the profession get as little money and less
respect, than they would by digging the earth."
Another Blackstone critic James Wilson, a
signer of both the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution and later a
Supreme Court Justice. Wilson published
several tracts and lectures on Blackstone praising
him for his "uncommon merit" as a
writer but damning him for his philosophy.
Wilson's opinion on Blackstone found a
practical expression in the case Chisholm
v.Georgia, decided in the Supreme Court in 1793. A
British citizen employed two South
Carolinians to recover property confiscated by the
state of Georgia. The case was brought to
the Supreme Court. Georgia refused to answer,
denying the jurisdiction of the Court to hear
the case. The Court ruled that the creation of the
United States created a greater sovereignty
in the "more perfect Union" and that states had
surrendered a part of their sovereignty as
the price of adopting the Constitution. In his
opinion Wilson attacked Blackstone as the
author of the view that the state is sovereign and
immune from suit. "The sovereign,"
Wilson wrote, "when traced to the source, must be
found in the man." The nub of Wilson's
opposition to Blackstone was expressed "Man,
fearfully and wonderfully made, is the
workmanship of his all perfect CREATOR: A State,
useful and valuable as the contrivance is,
is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his
native dignity derives all its acquired
importance."
The Georgia legislature immediately reacted
by passing a law prohibiting the execution
of the decision. Legislators from other states,
also facing claims from British creditors,
protested. The reaction to the decision lead to the
passage and eventual ratification of the
Eleventh Amendment, a curious part of the
Constitution now little noticed or understood.
The Amendment's restriction against the federal
courts to hear "any suit in law or equity,
commenced or prosecuted against one of the United
States by Citizens of another State, or by
Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State" is a
codification of Blackstone's teachings and
indeed may be considered his fingerprint on the
Constitution.
Blackstone played an more obscure but
important part in the most important case of the
Supreme Court. Unlike Wilson, Chief Justice John
Marshall, whose father had subscribed
to the first American edition of the Commentaries,
found much to like in Blackstone,
especially when it supported his opinions.
Blackstone's definition of a writ of mandamus, an
order directing the state to perform at act, was a
linchpin in Marbury v. Madison, the
1803 case first establishing judicial review by the
Supreme Court. William Marbury, a
last minute appointee of the outgoing Adams
administration, sued Secretary of State James
Madison seeking a writ to compel the government to
carry out the appointment. Marshall,
himself appointed Chief Justice in the last three
weeks of Adams' term, blasted Jefferson
for denying the commission and ruled that Marbury
had an unquestioned right to the
appointment. Marshall then performed an act of
judicial judo, ruling that Congress had no
right to grant the Supreme Court the power to issue
a writ of mandamus, as defined by
Blackstone. Marshall ruled the act unconstitutional
because it granted the Court too much
power, at the same time securing the far greater
power of judicial review. Marbury lost
his battle, but Jefferson lost the war against
Marshall.
Writing in 1807 on the evidence in the
treason trial of former vice-president Aaron
Burr, Marshall cited the works of Blackstone and
others as "not to lightly be rejected."
"These books," he wrote, "are in the hands of every
student. Legal opinions are formed upon
them, and those opinions are afterwards carried to
the bar, the bench, and the legislature."
Blackstone played an influential part in the
drafting and ratification of the Constitution.
In his 1985 book Novus Ordo Seclorum Forrest
McDonald called Blackstone's contributions
"pervasive." The Commentaries were cited if not by
name than by inference many times
during the constitutional convention. The most
direct and lasting force of his ideas
concerned ex post facto laws, rules of laws
designed to retrospectively regulate conduct.
During the debates James Madison questioned whether
the provision banning ex post facto
laws in the draft of the Constitution would apply
to civil cases. The next day delegate John
Dickinson announced that he had consulted his
Blackstone and found that the illegitimacy of
ex post facto laws applied only in criminal cases.
The matter was dropped, and Blackstone's
edict remains in force today.
In the ratification debate Blackstone was
used by both sides. Alexander Hamilton,
following his early devotion to Blackstone in the
cause of the Revolution, cited the
Commentaries in Federalists No. 69 and 84 to
bolster the case for the Constitution. Patrick
Henry, as passionately opposed to the Constitution
as he had been to the George III, argued
against adoption in the Virginia Convention because
the Constitution failed to provide for
jury trials in civil cases as advocated by
Blackstone.
American lawyers in the early republic relied
on Blackstone as the primary and often
only source of the common law. American
commentaries on the Commentaries appeared,
such as 1814's Law Miscellanies by Hugh
Brackenridge, called the Pennsylvania
Blackstone. The Americanized versions never
supplanted the original. One Commentaries
trained lawyer James Kent, later a Chancellor in
New York, between 1826-1830 wrote
his Commentaries on American Law critical of
Blackstone and substituting much Roman law
and civil code in place of the traditional common
law. Edward Story, who also learned law
through reading Blackstone, became the youngest
Supreme Court Justice and author of
many influential law books. Blackstone was the
unseen teacher for uncounted numbers of
American lawyers, first among them Abraham Lincoln.
A typical Lincoln legend has it that a lawyer
migrating west stopped in New Salem,
Illinois, and sold a barrel full of law books,
including Blackstone, to the rough-hewn
storekeeper and surveyor in order to make room in
the covered wagon. From this fateful
accident, Lincoln is said to have thrown himself
day and night into studying law.
The truth, however, is, as Lincoln later
wrote, he first thought of becoming a
blacksmith, rejecting the idea of studying law
because of his poor education and slim
prospect of success. In 1834 Lincoln, running for
state representative, meet fellow
candidate and lawyer John Staurt, who encouraged
him to take up the profession. Lincoln
borrowed Staurt's books, read the first forty pages
of Blackstone on the walk home and
"went at it in good earnest." When Lincoln was
running for President in 1860 he replied to
an inquiry on "the best mode of obtaining a
thorough knowledge of the law." "The mode is
very simple," Lincoln wrote, "though laborious and
tedious. It is only to get the books, and
read, and study them carefully. Begin with
Blackstone's Commentaries, and after reading it
carefully through, say twice, take up Chitty's
Pleading, Greenleaf's Evidence, & Story's
Equity &c in succession. Work, work, work, is the
main thing."
Despite another set of myths, Lincoln was not
a well read man. William Herndon, his
law partner and flawed biographer, wrote that
Lincoln was not interested in reading his
copies of Charles Darwin or other writers.
Lincoln's main intellectual influences were
Blackstone, Euclid and Shakespeare. With the
distance of time it is impossible to know
exactly how anyone influenced him but in two
unpublished fragments on government and
slavery written by Lincoln in 1854 there is a trace
of Blackstone's approach. "If A. can
prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right,
enslave B -- why may not B. snatch
the same argument, and prove equally, that he may
enslave A?--" By a number of such
exercises Lincoln plotted out his views on slavery
and government.
After Lincoln's time Blackstone's influence
began to fade. American lawyers found his
long passages on the royalty irrelevant and his
work gave way to more modern writers. At
the end of the nineteenth century legal education
became more structured and the case study
method, still in use today, replaced the text study
of early America and England. Today a law
student may be barely familiar with the name,
reading only a few fragments in case books
placed there for historical perspective.
William Blackstone was by any standard often
a failure and the Commentaries were
flawed. And yet this failed, flawed man
contributed, sometimes in spite of himself, greatly
to the Constitution, laws and leaders of the United
States. For that, if nothing else, he was a
success after all. *************************************
Blackstone's View of Natural Law
and Its Influence on the Formation of American
Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution
By Kent Schmidt
Oak Brook College of Law
One of the greatest ironies of American history is
the influence of Sir William Blackstone
on the American War for Independence.Blackstone,
though most famous for his
Commentaries on the Laws of England, also enjoyed a
distinguished career as a prominent
member of Parliament, faithfully supporting the
Crown and stingingly criticizing the
Colonies for their insurrection and disloyalty to
their mother country.1 Contemporaneous
with his tenure in Parliament (1761–1770),
Blackstone put the finishing touches on the
Commentaries, which ironically served to defeat the
cause of British sovereignty for which
he so loyally fought. Little did Blackstone realize
that his project to systemize the English
common law2 would fuel the American flames of
desire for independence from the Crown.
It is interesting to speculate how Blackstone would
have refined his writings had he known
that they would be devoured so heartily by the
Colonists3 and utilized to encourage their
rebellion against the Crown to which his loyalties
belonged. The Commentaries were so well
received by the Colonists that Edmund Burke noted
in 1775 that nearly as many of
Blackstone's Commentaries had been sold in America
as in England.4 At least one thousand
copies of the English edition had been sold in the
United States by 1771, prompting printer
Robert Bell of Philadelphia to propose a domestic
edition. Fifteen hundred of these sets were
ordered by lawyers, judges, public officers, and
interested laymen throughout the Colonies.
While much has been written regarding the influence
of Blackstone on the formation and
development of various aspects of early American
law from legal education to the common
law, this thesis probes specifically into the
contribution which Blackstone made in the
areas of natural law which became the foundation of
America's two primary founding
documents: the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution.
I. the influence of blackstone on the
declaration of independence
A. The Source of Law
While Blackstone was certainly not the first to set
forth a concept termed “natural law,”
his philosophy was distinguishable from others by
his identification of the source of
natural law. Cicero and Grotius, for instance,
believed that the law of nature, which is
binding upon all humans just as surely as gravity
affects all of nature, is nothing more
than the voice of reason.5 In sharp contrast to
this humanistic view of natural law,
Blackstone believed that the law of nature is not
only binding on all men, but that it is
dictated by God Himself.6
These precepts [in the Bible] when revealed, are
found upon comparison to be really a part
of the original law of nature. . . . But we are not
from thence to conclude that the knowledge
of these truths was attainable by reason, in its
present corrupted state since we find that,
until they were revealed, they were hid from the
wisdom of the ages.7
Thomas Jefferson reflected Black-stone's view when
he used the phrase “law of nature and
of nature's God” in the Declaration. This phrase
indicates that Jefferson understood the
difference between Blackstone's theory and that of
Grotius and Cicero. The law of nature
refers to the will of God observable in creation
while the law of nature's God refers to the
divine law which is revealed through the
Scriptures. While Jefferson affirmed Blackstone's
view of natural law, he abhorred the influence of
Blackstone in the adoption of the English
common law in the Colonies. Because of Jefferson's
significant role in the founding of
America, it is necessary to discern precisely where
he agreed with Blackstone as well as
where he disagreed.
B. The Origin and Nature of Rights
The philosophy of the Declaration states that man
is endowed by his Creator with the
independence to which he is entitled by the law of
nature. It also states that certain rights
are unalienable because they are founded in the
human nature, having their source in the
Creator of the human race, and that governments are
originated to secure these rights
among men.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are
endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty,
and the pursuit of Happiness.8
The concept of Creator-endowed rights, which
accords with Blackstone,9 is best understood
by contrasting it with the beliefs of the Greeks
and Romans who believe in state-created
rights. As one scholar has noted:The Greeks could
not conceive of “rights” which were
God-given.The Greeks believed that “rights” were a
product of society and state. Only free
men had rights, because free men were able to
participate in the government of polis, the
“city.” Slaves, women, and children did not share
those rights because they had no political
voice. What rights men had were created by the
state and could be ended by the state. Rights
were politically given and were subject to the
political process, rather than God-given.10
C. The Morality of Insurrection
It is important to note that the Colonists were a
very conscientious people. As the
Declaration was disseminated to the common patriots
of New England, it solidified their
commitment to the principles of independence and
resolved whatever doubts they had
regarding the morality of a war for independence.
More specifically, as American writers,
including Thomas Paine,11 began to speak of the
duty of self-preservation—the idea of a
law that was higher and superior to the law of
England—the spirit of the revolution began to
spread.
This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and
dictated by God himself, is of course
superior to any other. It is binding over all the
globe, in all countries, and at all times: no
human laws are of any validity, if contrary to
this; and such of them as are valid derive all
their force, and all their authority, mediately or
immediately, from this original.12
(Emphasis added.)
History demonstrates that the Colonists, unlike
their counterparts in France, were not
anarchists desiring to shed every shackle of
legitimate government, but were rather
conscientious and methodical in coming to the
decision that they must separate from
Britain. In essence, the Colonists believed that,
in spite of what Blackstone stated in
Parliament,13 what he wrote in reference to the
effect which laws contrary to the law of
nature have on their subjects justified their
cause.
D. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness
It is axiomatic that the right to life is
foundational to all other rights. On this subject,
Blackstone stated:The right of personal security
consists in a person's legal and
uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his
body, his health, and his reputation.
Life is an immediate gift from God, a right
inherent by nature in every individual. . . .14
Jefferson's use of the term “pursuit of happiness”
has been distorted to justify a
philosophy which borders on anarchy. The Founding
Fathers' understanding of the concept
of happiness was much closer to that of Blackstone,
who stated that the Creator has so
intimately connected, so inseparably interwoven the
laws of eternal justice with the
happiness of each individual that the latter cannot
be attained but by observing the former;
and if the former be punctually obeyed, it cannot
but induce the latter. In consequence of
which mutual connection of justice and human
felicity, he has not perplexed the law of
nature with a multitude of abstract rules and
precepts, referring merely to the fitness or
unfitness of things . . . but has graciously
reduced the rule of obedience to this one paternal
precept, “that man should pursue his own true and
substantial happiness.”15
It is not at all surprising that Thomas Jefferson
used the phrase “life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness” to describe unalienable
rights.
II. the influence of blackstone on the
constitutionA. No Taxation Without Representation
In a sense, the Declaration was a document listing
grievances against a government which
the Signers believed had failed to operate in
accordance with the laws of nature. Chief among
the grievances listed in the Declaration was the
fact that King George violated the “laws of
nature and of nature's God” by “imposing taxes on
us without our consent.” Colonies were
taxed but denied representation in Parliament.In
contrast, the Constitution documents how
the Founding Fathers believed that an ideal
government, in submission to the law of nature,
should operate. Accordingly, the Constitution
sought to remedy the taxation problem by
requiring in Article I, Section 7, that bills for
revenue originate in the House of
Representatives, the body of government closest to
the American people.16
B. The Unalienable Right to Property
An understanding of Blackstone's beliefs on
property rights is impossible apart from an
understanding of his beliefs on happiness, for he
believed that the latter depended on the
former. Blackstone stated that a right to property
“tends to man's real happiness, and
therefore justly concluding that . . . it is a part
of the law of nature.”17 Likewise,
according to Blackstone, the converse is
true—denial of property rights is “destructive of
man's real happiness, and therefore the law of
nature forbids it.”18
Richard A. Huenefeld has noted the following
concerning Blackstone's influence on the
Founding Fathers' view of property rights:
The influential Blackstone said that the right of
private property “consists in the free use,
enjoyment, and disposal of all [personal]
acquisitions.” While he spoke of the “sacred and
inviolable rights of private property,” he
equivocated concerning the origin and nature of
property rights. He indicated that the “origin of
private property is probably found in
nature,” but that much of this natural liberty was
sacrificed in order to enjoy society's
protection of it. Apparently he was uncertain
whether to adopt a law of nature position or a
social compact theory. Blackstone turned to the
revealed law of God for “the only true and
solid foundation of man's dominion over external
things.” He referred to Genesis chapter
one wherein the Creator gave man “dominion over all
the earth.” From this, Blackstone
considered this common ownership sufficient for
only a short time as the growth of
population led to conflicts over the subject of
dominion. He adopted a social compact theory,
asserting that “[n]ecessity begat property,”
meaning that civil laws recognizing the
institution of property were needed for beneficial
resolution of conflicts. He modified his
social compact theory by holding that “bodily
labour, bestowed upon any subject which
before lay in common to all men, is universally
allowed to give the fairest and most
reasonable title to an exclusive property
therein.”19
When the Framers engrafted the right to property
into the Constitution—with all of its
complexities and exceptions—the theories of
Blackstone were, without a doubt, of
paramount influence.
C. The Unalienable Right of Self-Defense
Blackstone's view of the right to bear arms is
stated in the following quote:
The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject,
that I shall at present mention, is that of
having arms for their defense . . . which is also
declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st.
2, C. 2, and it is indeed, a public allowance under
due restrictions, of the natural right of
resistance and self-preservation.20
The Second Amendment of the United States
Constitution provides that a “well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and
bear arms, shall not be infringed.”21 The question
of the source of this principle is
difficult because of the extensive history of
debate in England and virtually every other
society which has attempted to maintain a balance
between anarchy and oppressive
government. However, it is safe to say that the
American belief in the right to bear arms
has its roots in “civil jurists of the period who
had specifically dealt with the question of
self-defense as a natural right.”22 It has been
noted that their doctrine stemmed
essentially from the traditional view of suicide as
a sin and perhaps as the ultimate sin. To
them a failure to defend yourself against an
unlawful aggression amounted to suicide by
inaction. If a person's life is a gift of the
Creator and he cannot destroy it by action, he
cannot destroy it by inaction or negligence. If
life is not the private property of the person
living, then it is not his to destroy or allow to
be destroyed: you may voluntarily acquiesce
to robbery; you may not voluntarily acquiesce to
murder.23
III. conclusion
It is not coincidental that the ideas in the
Declaration of Independence and Constitution were
espoused less than a decade after Blackstone's
Commentaries first appeared in print in
England. The correlation between the philosophy of
America's founding documents and the
Commentaries is worthy of careful exploration.
Endnotes
1. One scholar has gone so far as to say that
“Blackstone was very extreme in his
anti-American bias, and he appeared among the most
vociferous advocates of a harsh and
uncompromising attitude. . . . It was this narrow
and uncompromising outlook which led to
the break with the American colonies.” Chroust,
Blackstone Revisited, 17 U. Kan. City L.
Rev. 24, 28–29 (1948).
2. Blackstone's purpose in writing the Commentaries
was much narrower in scope than the
influence which they actually had. See I.G.
Doolittle, Sir William Blackstone and His
Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–9): A
Biographical Approach, 3 Oxford J.
Legal Stud. 99, 108 (1983), citing Holdsworth,
History of English Law xii, 745–6.
“[T]he `Proposals' advertising his first course of
lectures in 1753 spoke of his attempt `to
lay down a general and comprehensive plan of the
laws of England, to deduce their history,
to enforce and illustrate their leading rules and
fundamental principles, and to compare
them with the laws of nature and of other nations,
without entering into practical niceties,
or the minute distinctions of particular cases.'”
3. Dennis R. Nolan, Sir William Blackstone and the
New American Republic: A Study of
Intellectual Impact, 51 N.Y. Univ. L. Rev. 731, 737
(1976), citing F. Hicks, Men and
Books Famous in the Law 126 (1921) and P. Hamlin,
Legal Education in Colonial New York
64–65 (1939).
4. Address by Edmund Burke, Speech on Moving His
Resolutions for Conciliation with the
Colonies, Mar. 22, 1775, in 2 The Works of the
Right Honorable Edmund Burke 101, 125
(6th ed. 1880).
5. Tom N. McInnis, Natural Law in the American
Revolutionary Struggle, 16 Legal Studies
Forum 41, 44 (1992).
6. 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries 41.
7. Id.
8. The Declaration of Independence para. 2 (U.S.
1776).
9. Blackstone, supra note 6 at 129.
10. Gary T. Amos, Defending the Declaration, 112
(1989).
11. McInnis, supra note 5 at 41.
12. Blackstone, supra note 6.
13. See note 1 and corresponding text.
14. Blackstone, supra note 6 at 129.
15. Blackstone, supra note 6 at 40–41.
16. U.S. Const. art. I, § 7, “All Bills for raising
Revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives; but the Senate may propose or
concur with Amendments on other Bills.”
17. Blackstone, supra note 6.
18. Id.
19. Richard A. Huenefeld, The Unalienable Right of
Property: Its Foundation, Erosion and
Restoration, 8 J. Christian Jurisprudence 147,
167–168 (1990), citing 1 William
Blackstone, Commentaries at 138, 140, 2 William
Blackstone, Commentaries at 3, 8.
20. Blackstone, supra note 6 at 144.
21. U.S. Const. amend. II.
22. David T. Hardy, The Unalienable Right to
Self-Defense and the Second Amendment, 8 J.
Christian Jurisprudence 87, 97 (1990).
23. Id.
***************
The American founding fathers were heavily
influenced by the model of common law set
forth by William Blackstone in the 1700s. James
Wilson was among those who embraced
the common law model in constructing early American
founding documents and in
enumerating the powers of government. A member of
the Second Continental Congress,
signer of the Constitution, and one of the first
five U.S. Supreme Court Justices, Wilson
looked to common law principles to form his
decisions in Congress and the Court. [1]
Born in Scotland and educated at the University of
St. Andrews, Wilson emigrated to the
American colonies in 1765 in search of new
opportunities, fame and fortune. Within a few
years of opening his private law practice in
Reading, Pennsylvania, his practice stretched
over seven counties in the colony. His reputation
as a good common law lawyer thus led him
to service as a delegate to the First Continental
Congress, and later, the Constitutional
Convention.
In the Constitutional Convention, Wilson was a
strong advocate of popular sovereignty and a
strong national government. Such a stance is
evidence of his belief in the principle of
self-government: "The Articles of Confederation did
not provide a national government
strong enough to govern effectively. Yet they were
hesitant to create a governmental
monstrosity that might wipe out self-government at
the state and local levels. The new
Constitution of 1787 resolved these concerns. The
safeguard for local self-government was
the federal system."[2]
Of the Constitution Wilson says, "When I reflect
how widely men differ in their opinions,
and that every man (and observation applies
likewise to every state) has an equal
pretension to assert his own, I am satisfied
thatanything nearer to perfection could not have
been accomplished."[3]
Blackstone’s Common Law Theory
William Blackstone, an 18th century British jurist
and contemporary of James Wilson’s,
set forth a common law model with two main
categories--the law of nature and the law of
revelation. In his Commentaries on the Laws of
England, Blackstone explains that the law of
nature establishes a rule of moral conduct based on
God’s law, which recognizes man as
created in the image of God. This rule of moral
conduct imposes a rule of action upon man
that includes duties to God, self, and neighbor.
"And it is that rule of action, which is
prescribed by some superior, and which the inferior
is bound to obey." [4]
Blackstone defines the law of nature as "the
eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to
which the Creator himself in all his dispensations
conforms; and which he has enabled
human reason to discover, so far as they are
necessary for the conduct of human actions."
[5] The law of nature, therefore, sets up an
objective standard of morality and right and
wrong actions as dictated by God. This standard is
based on the understanding that man is
created in the image of God, and that he (man) has
God-given intuitive knowledge by which
he knows the objective standard, and is thus
responsible for adhering to it.
Understanding the principle of the law of nature
leads to the logical conclusion that man has
no subjective right to do something that has been
established as objectively wrong. Any act
that violates the image of God in oneself or in
other men is considered malum in se, or bad
in and of itself. An action that is malum in se,
therefore, violates not only one’s duty to God
(to live life for His glory), but also violates
duty to self in that it could potentially
compromise one’s health and well-being. Therefore,
the law of nature is the first standard
by which an
individual’s actions should be gauged.
A second standard by which an individual’s actions
should be gauged is the standard of
malum prohibitum, or bad because prohibited. This
standard is established based on certain
revealed laws seen in the law of nature and
nature’s God. Government has the authority to
pass laws that set forth a rule of civil conduct
only, and such laws must be in accordance
with the law of nature. Such laws would make
certain actions malum prohibitum.
Blackstone states, "For the end and intent of
[municipal] laws being only to regulate the
behavior of mankind, as they are members of
society . . . they have consequently no
business or concern with any but social or relative
duties." [6]
Blackstone saw that the role of government is not
to enumerate rights, but to protect those
rights already imparted to every individual by God.
His common law model establishes that
the duty of government is to command what is right
and prohibit what is wrong. He states,
"The principal aim of society is to protect
individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute
rights which were vested in them by the immutable
laws of nature." [7] The early
American founders, including James Wilson, thus
constructed a framing document that
reinforced the truth of certain unalienable rights
while defining and limiting the powers of
government.
Common Law and the Founders
In the Declaration of Independence, the founding
fathers refer to "certain unalienable rights
. . . among these are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness." [8] This statement is not
an endowing of rights by the government, but merely
an enumeration of God-given rights.
Blackstone asserted that man has a duty to "pursue
his own true and substantial happiness."
[9] Man’s pursuit of happiness, as understood by
both Blackstone and the founders, is
dependent upon his adherence to the laws of eternal
justice and God’s moral law. It is
impossible for man to be happy without keeping
these laws. "[The Creator] has so
intimately connected, so inseparably woven, the
laws of eternal justice with the happiness
of each individual, that the latter cannot be
attained but by observing the former; and if the
former be punctually obeyed, it can not but induce
the latter." [10]
In addition, Wilson believed, concurring with
Blackstone, that government is duty-bound to
regulate actions which are inconsistent with the
law of nature. For example, the Judiciary
Act of 1789 gave federal circuit courts
jurisdiction "over offenses cognizable under the
authority of the U.S." [11] But neither "crime" nor
"authority" were defined for purposes
of that act. Wilson, then Supreme Court Justice,
took the view that the federal common law
incorporates the law of nations because both are a
part of natural law. That is, Wilson saw
all laws made by man as falling under the scope of
the law of nature and nature’s God, and
therefore necessarily consistent with that supreme
law.
In establishing the role and scope of government,
the early American founders were
influenced by Blackstone’s definition of law in his
Commentaries on the Laws of England: "A
rule of civil conduct prescribed by the Supreme
power in a state, commanding what is
right, and prohibiting what is wrong." [12] Wilson
clearly understood that "it is the
nature of man to pursue his own interest, in
preference to the public good." [13] He thus
knew that a governmental system was necessary that
encouraged the proper
self-government of the people while effectively
restraining the inherent vices of human
nature. Wilson was confident that such had been
achieved through the architecture of the
Constitution of the United States, saying, "I am
bold to assert, that it is the best form of
government which has been offered to the world."
[14]
Wilson on the Judiciary
Under Chief Justice John Jay, and appointed by
George Washington, Wilson was one of the
first five Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. As
mentioned, Wilson accepted Blackstone’s
common law model that set forth legal and
behavioral standards based on the law of nature
and nature’s God. With a full understanding of
Blackstone’s view of the role of judges and
the courts, we can see that Wilson rejected
judicial activism as readily as did Blackstone.
Blackstone differentiates the role of the
legislator versus the role of judges and the courts
in Section III of Commentaries on the Laws of
England: "How are these customs and maxims
[i.e. laws] to be known, and by whom is their
validity determined? The answer is, by the
judges in the several courts of justice. They are
the depositories of the laws; the living
oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and
who are bound by an oath to decide
according to the law of the land . . . not
delegated to pronounce a new law, but to maintain
and expound the old one. . . . And indeed, these
judicial decisions are the principal and most
authoritative evidence that can be given of the
existence of such a custom as shall form a
part of the common law [emphasis added]." [15] In
his 1791 lectures, Wilson, too,
emphasized that the duty of a judge "is, not to
make the law, but to interpret and apply it."
[16]
James Wilson would vehemently reject the judicial
activism prevalent in America's federal
courts. Contemporary secular natural law
jurisprudence removes the objective standard of
the law of nature and establishes moral relativism.
This false ‘standard’ sets the stage for
the judicial activism that the Framers cast off as
being deleterious to the security of
individual inalienable rights. On the heels of the
Constitutional Convention, Wilson stated,
"The first and governing maxim in the
interpretation of a statute is, to discover the
meaning of those who made it." [17]
Wilson on Slavery
Wilson’s antislavery sentiments were based on the
common law principle of equality.
Blackstone’s common law view of equality is
composed of two parts: 1) equality is
prescribed by the law of nature, and 2) in civil
terms, there are no special privileges
afforded to anyone. Any privilege or benefit that
an individual receives should be as a result
of a right that was given up, otherwise, the
principle of equality is violated. The converse
is also true, that if any privilege or benefit due
an individual by virtue of the inalienable
rights of mankind is withheld, the principle of
equality is also violated.
Wilson concurred with Blackstone’s assertion of the
principle of equality as protected in
the common law. He specifically applied this
principle to the issue of slavery, a practice he
strongly opposed. Wilson states, "Slavery, or an
absolute and unlimited power in the
master over life and fortune of the slave, is
unauthorized by the common law . . . The
reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the
origin and the continuance of slavery
appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built
upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment
of their persons and their property, the common law
protects all." [18]
Conclusion
James Wilson was heavily influenced by the model of
common law set forth by William
Blackstone in the 1700s, as were many of the
founding fathers. By embracing the common
law model in constructing early American founding
documents, Wilson and the Framers
attempted to ensure a governmental system that
would truly be by the people, and for the
people.
Current judicial activism and an overly extended
federal government fly in the face of the
structure established by the founding fathers.
Wilson predicted this opposition shortly
after the Constitutional Convention, saying, "It is
the interest of a very numerous,
powerful, and respectable body to counteract and
destroy the excellent work produced by
the late Convention." [19] A return to the common
law model of Blackstone, a model that
recognizes the inalienable rights inherent in the
law of nature and nature’s God, a model
that was fully embraced by Wilson and the founders,
is a necessary and urgent step on the
road to restoring the greatness of America’s
federal repubic.
*********************
In the eighteenth century another star had risen in
England among legal scholars. His name
was Sir William Blackstone. He taught law at
Oxford, and in 1765 published a four-volume
commentary on the laws of England. Blackstone
quickly gained the reputation of being the
greatest living expert on the British Common Law.
Blackstone’s Commentaries won instant acclaim in
England. In the colonies they were not
only a sensation, they became a weapon.154 The
founders of the United States cited
Blackstone twice as often as they cited Locke.155
His Commentaries contained the very
same account of the history of British rights and
liberties that the colonists were already
making. Throughout the colonies people began citing
Blackstone as an authority on law and
rights. In the ten years before the revolution,
more copies of Blackstone’s Commentaries
were sold in the colonies than in England itself.
Following in the Puritan stream which
understood government’s purpose to be the
protection of the people, Blackstone had echoed
Locke’s view of the foundation of government:
For the principal aim of society is to protect
individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute
rights, which were vested in them by the immutable
laws of nature… Hence it follows, that
the first and primary end of human laws is to
maintain and regulate these absolute rights of
individuals.156
Every element of the Founders’ understanding of
legal rights had already been stated in
Blackstone’s Commentaries. Blackstone explained how
the English Common Law affirmed
the principle of inalienable rights as grounded in
religious presuppositions. Blackstone
called them natural rights and absolute rights. But
they were identical to what Jefferson
would call inalienable rights. According to Blackstone:
Those rights, then, which God and nature have
established, and are therefore called natural
rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the
aid of human laws to be more effectually
invested in every man than they are; neither do
they receive any additional strength when
declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On
the contrary, no human legislature has
power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner
shall himself commit some act that
amounts to a forfeiture…157
Rights are… first, those which concern and are
annexed to the persons of men, and are then
called jus personarum or the rights of persons …
Natural persons are such as the God of
nature formed us…158
By the absolute rights of individuals we mean those
which are so in their primary and
strictest sense, such as would belong to their
persons merely in a state of nature, and
which every man is entitled to enjoy whether out of
society or in it.159
natural liberty ... [is] a right inherent in us by
birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at
his creation...160
Several key points stand out in Blackstone's
comments about rights. First, the most
important rights are God-given. They are not
government created. Government's laws
cannot make those rights any stronger or any
weaker. Second, they can only be lost if a
person forfeits them by committing evil deeds. The
rights are permanent as long as a
person lives honestly and justly. But they can be
taken away as punishment for crime or
for some other violation of the laws of nature.
Third, they are part of human nature itself
because God attaches them to humanity––they are
“annexed” to personhood. Fourth, these
rights are “absolute,” not in the sense of being
unlimited or boundless––their limits are
set by the laws of nature. Rather, they are
“absolute” in the sense that they are not created
by society or government. They are what they are,
and will never change.
The key difference between Britain and America was
not how the rights were defined. It was
in whether those rights could really be protected.
The British system of government was
not well-suited for protecting them. It gave the
King and Parliament many broad powers
based on customs and traditions. These powers were
called prerogatives, meaning that they
were outside the restrictions of ordinary laws.
The king's power was called the royal prerogative.
It was similar to emergency power. The
king, because he was king, he could exercise
extraordinary powers even if it meant denying
people’s absolute rights. The Parliament’s power
was called parliamentary supremacy. It
meant that for some purposes there were no
effective limits on the legislature’s power.
Since England did not have a written constitution
to limit its power, Parliament could pass
any law it wished. There was no separate supreme
court in England. The highest court was
controlled by the Parliament and lacked the power
to declare laws unconstitutional.
Therefore, where lawmaking was concerned,
Parliament was supreme. If Parliament’s
laws denied people’s absolute rights, there was no
way to stop it.
In the British system, the king and the parliament
were free to treat all rights as alienable.
Even though the British Common Law said that people
possessed inalienable rights, the
British government functioned as if they did not exist.
The American founders decided to take Blackstone
seriously. If some rights are truly
inalienable, they reasoned, then these rights could
be defended—even against the king and
Parliament. Furthermore, if inalienable rights were
the basis of government, it was wrong
for the king and parliament to nullify these rights
with arbitrary power. The form of
government would have to be changed. It could no
longer be based on royal prerogative and
parliamentary supremacy. The new government would
be based on inalienable rights. Any
powers contrary to those rights would be abolished.
*********************************
Mike Curtis
SNIP. the post *I* REPLIED to had no history in it. Clear?
Don't just spam the group Gardiner. Format your material and present
it in a mature manner.
Thanks.
Mike Curtis
Please visit:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
http://www.nizkor.org
http://www.abebooks.com
http://www.bibliofind.com
Ambrose Bierce wrote:
COMFORT, n. A state of mind produced by contemplation of a neighbor's
uneasiness.
CONVERSATION, n. A fair to the display of the minor mental
commodities, each exhibitor being too intent upon the arrangement of
his own wares to observe those of his neighbor.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|Mike Curtis wrote:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >Mike Curtis wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|> Too bad I don't have Amos' book.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|I fully agree about that. Didn't you give me lecture once about how easy it is
>:|> >:|to check things out of a library.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> I'm acquiring all the others written
>:|> >:|> by Jeffersonian scholars. They never seem to refer to Amos' book. I
>:|> >:|> wonder why? Maybe it's that "establishment conspiracy" thingy?
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Fear of association. It's a normal human response. You see how much it is used
>:|> >:|against me. Just about every other post I am reminded about my evil friends
>:|> >:|and what they have said about my book.
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> Maybe it because his book is not viewed seriously by other scholars who
>:|> have as much or much more knowledge on the subject.
>:|
>:|Where's your book, Allison?
My, what a childish attack. LOL
>:|Can't get a publisher?
LOL, and this does what regarding want was said by me in the first place?
Hmmmm?
>:|Ah, I see why you're so
>:|bitter.
Bitter? LOL
WOW
Sorry, I'm not bitter about His book or your book.
Sheesh, I even bought his book in 1995 from the bookstore at Regent. LOL
>:|There's a reason why some people can get published and others can't,
>:|and it has a little bit to do with reputation.
That's kewl
Now, what exactly does all these childish smokescreen comments have to do
with the truth of the following:
Maybe it because his book is not viewed seriously by other scholars who
have as much or much more knowledge on the subject.
There are mavericks and radicals in every field.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
_________________________________________________________
This is from the back of American Scripture, Making the Declaration of
Gardiner
>
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Pot-kettle black
Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> >Mike Curtis wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> Too bad I don't have Amos' book.
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|I fully agree about that. Didn't you give me lecture once about how easy it is
> >:|> >:|to check things out of a library.
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|> I'm acquiring all the others written
> >:|> >:|> by Jeffersonian scholars. They never seem to refer to Amos' book. I
> >:|> >:|> wonder why? Maybe it's that "establishment conspiracy" thingy?
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|Fear of association. It's a normal human response. You see how much it is used
> >:|> >:|against me. Just about every other post I am reminded about my evil friends
> >:|> >:|and what they have said about my book.
> >:|> >:|
> >:|>
> >:|> Maybe it because his book is not viewed seriously by other scholars who
> >:|> have as much or much more knowledge on the subject.
> >:|
> >:|Where's your book, Allison?
>
> My, what a childish attack. LOL
>
> >:|Can't get a publisher?
>
> LOL, and this does what regarding want was said by me in the first place?
> Hmmmm?
want was said? you mean "what was said." and what was said by you in the first
place was a lot of hot air and lies and I should have avoided your abrasive
and uncivil response.
I guess I live and learn.
Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> Here is the infor on two other books plus Amos's book. I suspect that the
> other two would not go along with Amos's book.
>
Mike Curtis
>jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>>
>> mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>>
>> Here is the infor on two other books plus Amos's book. I suspect that the
>> other two would not go along with Amos's book.
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> This is from a book review in the latest Journal of Church and State.
>
>[snip, huge yawn]
>[snip. yawn]
Looks like you'd better get some sleep.
Mike Curtis
>jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>>
>> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >:|Mike Curtis wrote:
>> >:|>
>> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>> >:|>
>> >:|> >Mike Curtis wrote:
>>
>> >:|> Too bad I don't have Amos' book.
>> >:|
>> >:|I fully agree about that. Didn't you give me lecture once about how easy it is
>> >:|to check things out of a library.
>> >:|
>> >:|> I'm acquiring all the others written
>> >:|> by Jeffersonian scholars. They never seem to refer to Amos' book. I
>> >:|> wonder why? Maybe it's that "establishment conspiracy" thingy?
>> >:|
>> >:|Fear of association. It's a normal human response. You see how much it is used
>> >:|against me. Just about every other post I am reminded about my evil friends
>> >:|and what they have said about my book.
>> >:|
>>
>> Maybe it because his book is not viewed seriously by other scholars who
>> have as much or much more knowledge on the subject.
>
>Where's your book, Allison?
Mr. Allison's book, Mr. Gardiner, is on his web page. He is published.
He is also published in this group. You need to do a little study of
the common law to understand this. I can't put Mr. Allison's web page
into one of my own because of copyright violations. I can ask him and
he might allow it if I reference him as the author. I can point to it
by asking him if he minds.
> Can't get a publisher?
Seems he has. The internet is a pretty effective media these days.
> Ah, I see why you're so
>bitter. There's a reason why some people can get published and others can't,
>and it has a little bit to do with reputation.
Looks like out of the 7 or 8 posts you presented there was no history
discussed. All personal attacks. Obfuscating and distorting a
footnote. Attacking me again. That's becoming standard. And finally
giving up a citation and it was poorly given at that.
>There are those who publish, and those who, in their frustration, do nothing
>but bicker about those who publish. I wonder which one you are?
Does it matter since you never address the history presented here. All
you do is personally attack your opponents. Maybe that's why David
never came back. He was that you were a hopeless case. I addressed his
desires to have a discussion. He never got back to us. Yet he did post
about drugs and their usage in the constitutional news group. So, for
whatever reason, he didn't feel much would be accomplished and decided
not to narrow the scope. I'll bet you had nothing to do with that, did
you. :-)
Now when are you going to actually address HISTORY? Never?
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|Mike Curtis wrote:
>:|> >:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|> >:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|> >Mike Curtis wrote:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|> Too bad I don't have Amos' book.
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> >:|I fully agree about that. Didn't you give me lecture once about how easy it is
>:|> >:|> >:|to check things out of a library.
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> >:|> I'm acquiring all the others written
>:|> >:|> >:|> by Jeffersonian scholars. They never seem to refer to Amos' book. I
>:|> >:|> >:|> wonder why? Maybe it's that "establishment conspiracy" thingy?
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> >:|Fear of association. It's a normal human response. You see how much it is used
>:|> >:|> >:|against me. Just about every other post I am reminded about my evil friends
>:|> >:|> >:|and what they have said about my book.
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Maybe it because his book is not viewed seriously by other scholars who
>:|> >:|> have as much or much more knowledge on the subject.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Where's your book, Allison?
>:|>
(1) Maybe it because his book is not viewed seriously by other scholars who
have as much or much more knowledge on the subject.
(2) There are mavericks and radicals in every field.
(3) It is sort of like that small hard core group of far right
conservatives who swear up and down that the doctrine of incorporation is
illegal and therefore invalid.
(4) Most do not pay them a lot of attention, even most conservatives do not
support that particular notion.
(5) Amos has written a book and I am sure he thinks that what he says in
that book is completely true and the way things were or are. That doesn't
make it so.
(6) Respect has been achieved when even those who are on the opposite side
of the argument or fence still cite your book or mention it.
(7) I can look at an author like Daniel Driesbach, Law degree from U VA,
Ph. D from Oxford (Rhodes Scholar), assistant professor of Justice, Law and
Society at American University, Washington D. C. He has published several
books and written numerous law Journal and other journal articles on
church/state over the past ten years. He advocates and defends the
accomodationist philosophy in regards to church/state, but yet freely cites
separationist authors and books and articles as well as other
accomodationists authors.
(8) If the Amos book which has been out for ten years now is not mentioned
by many or any scholars it has less to do with his associations and more to
do with what he wrote, his theories.
*******************************************************************************
A certain person has posted a couple replies to what was said above, but
nowhere in those replies does he address the validity of a single comment
above.
Each of the above comments do state a thought that is quite valid.
There are eight thoughts presented above.
(1) Is a valid statement. It is valid to say that a book that has been
present in the market place of ideas for ten years, yet has received little
or no attention from its peers is not regarded very highly by those peers.
(2) This is a valid and true observation.
(3) This is a fact, these people do exist.
(4) This too is a fact. The Supreme Court, which had a conservative lean
to it rejected outright these peoples claims on this matter.
(5) it is a fact that this person wrote a book on the subject that was
under discussion. It is a pretty safe conclusion to arrive at when one says
that he would believe what he wrote was true, and that he would defend what
he wrote.
(6) This too is valid. Having ones work cited by those who do not
particularly agree with many of ones conclusions, yet they cite your book
because of some of those conclusions, some of your research or facts you
have found, etc is a high form of respect, etc.
(7) This is a fact, easy to check out for ones self. he does frequently
cite works from across the spectrum of philosophy regarding church state.
he even concedes some facts are not in harmony with the accomodationist
thought. Just as some facts are not in harmony with the separationist
thought, etc.
(8) Time and influence is the only real jury. Does the thought of another
have any real influence over time in the field of human knowledge that it
covered?
Is that thought taken up by others, cited by others and advanced in that or
some like manner, or is it just another book, article, etc that exists?
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Post history from http://x30.deja.com/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=478522087&CONTEXT=927050848.1254031372&thitnum=4
>:|
>:| Blackstone In America
>:|
>:| Lectures by An English Lawyer
>:| Become The Blueprint for a
>:| New Nation's Laws and Leaders
>:|
>:| by Greg Bailey (Early American Review, Spring 1997)
>:|
*********************************************************************************
Another view, from a previous discussion with another
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 06:01:38 GMT
"Brian Carey" <car...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>:|3. The pertinent part reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
>:|establishment of religion."
>:| The verbiage in the legal vernacular of the
>:|time clearly reflects a prohibition against the establishment of a national
>:|church.
>:| See Blackstone's 4th Volume of his commentaries on the laws of
>:|England (published a decade or so before the Constitutional Convention), in
>:|which he uses the terms "national church," "our present establishment," and
>:|"the national religion" interchangeably. See pp. 49, 52, & 53 of vol 4,
>:|assuming that you have the facsimile of the original.
>:|
>:|4. The framers themselves spoke of an "establishment" as an establishment
>:|of a national Christian church. See Henry Abbott's comment to James Iredell
>:|on July 30, 1788: "Many wish to know what religion shall be established... I
>:|am for my part against against any exclusive establishment, but if there
>:|were any, I would prefer the Episcopal." The context is a discussion
>:|concerning the ban on religious tests in the Constitution.
>:| The First Amendment prohibts the establishment of a national
>:|church, it does _not_ remove every vestige of religion from government.
====================================================================
REBUTTAL #1
=====================================================================
But, Blackstone didn't write the establishment clause. He didn't attend any
of the debates on it, he wasn't a member of the first Federal Congress. Nor
was Blackstone mentioned during the debates on the establishment clause (at
least based on the surviving historical record)
So, there is nothing to tie Blackstone into anything having to do with the
Establishment clause.
In other words, this is not very compelling evidence for your opinion.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Post history from http://x30.deja.com/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=478522087&CONTEXT=927050848.1254031372&thitnum=4
>:|
>:| Blackstone In America
>:|
>:| Lectures by An English Lawyer
>:| Become The Blueprint for a
>:| New Nation's Laws and Leaders
>:|
>:| by Greg Bailey (Early American Review, Spring 1997)
>:|
*********************************************************************************
Another view, from a previous discussion with another
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 06:01:38 GMT
"Brian Carey" <car...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>:|3. The pertinent part reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
>:|establishment of religion."
>:| The verbiage in the legal vernacular of the
>:|time clearly reflects a prohibition against the establishment of a national
>:|church.
>:| See Blackstone's 4th Volume of his commentaries on the laws of
>:|England (published a decade or so before the Constitutional Convention), in
>:|which he uses the terms "national church," "our present establishment," and
>:|"the national religion" interchangeably. See pp. 49, 52, & 53 of vol 4,
>:|assuming that you have the facsimile of the original.
>:|
>:|4. The framers themselves spoke of an "establishment" as an establishment
>:|of a national Christian church. See Henry Abbott's comment to James Iredell
>:|on July 30, 1788: "Many wish to know what religion shall be established... I
>:|am for my part against against any exclusive establishment, but if there
>:|were any, I would prefer the Episcopal." The context is a discussion
>:|concerning the ban on religious tests in the Constitution.
>:| The First Amendment prohibts the establishment of a national
>:|church, it does _not_ remove every vestige of religion from government.
=====================================================================
REBUTTAL #2
====================================================================
Some of the framers spoke as you indicate above. But as has been pointed
out to you before, such could not have happened. No denomination or sect
could have been named as a national church. You have tried in the past to
tie Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association to this same
theme and that doesn't fly either.
*Edmund Randolph of Virginia pointed out that the multiplicity of sects
would prevent "The establishment of any one sect, in prejudice to the
rest."
*Oliver Ellsworth replying to criticisms of the Constitution said at his
state's Convention that the United States would never "be disposed to
establish one religious sect, and lay all others under legal disabilities."
*JULY 30, 1788
NORTH CAROLINA RATIFYING CONVENTION
[This quote shows that while was expressing his concerns, other on that
same day were expressing thoughts quite different from his]
MR. LANCASTER. As to a religious test, had the article which excludes it
provided none but what had been in the states heretofore, I would not have
objected to it. It would secure religion. Religious liberty ought to be
provided for. I acquiesce with the Gentleman, who spoke, on this point, my
sentiments better than I could have done myself. For my part, in reviewing
the qualifications necessary for a president, I did not suppose that the
pope could occupy the President's chair. But let us remember that we form a
government for millions not yet in existence. I have not the art of
divination. In the case of four or five hundred years, I do not know how it
will work. This is most certain, that Papists may occupy that chair, and
Mahometans may take it. I see nothing against it. There is a
disqualification, I believe, in every state in the Union - it ought to be
so in this system.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Wed. July 30, 1788. North Carolina State
Constitutional Ratifying Convention debates--THE DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL
STATE CONVENTIONS
ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GENERAL
CONVENTION AT PHILADELPHIA IN 1787, VOL IV, by Jonathan Elliot
J. B. Lippincott Company 1888. Pages 215)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[The above man was farsighted enough to understand that as time passed
there would be other religions present in this nation and that at some
future time a Non-Christian may very well be president of this nation.]
*" Nicholas Collin, a Lutheran clergyman, did not think the time propitious
for a debate over amendments to the Constitution. Furthermore, he shared
the views of Federalists that the Constitution itself included guarantees
enough for civil and religious rights. In commenting he discussed the First
Amendment particularly. It would be very "unjust and pernicious to
establish any religious system in the united states." This possibility was
slight at the national level because Congress did not have by construction
or inclination any such power. Moreover, denominations would perform
themselves the office of a censor morum over each other and on the
encroachments of Congress upon the rights of conscience. (34) It was
advisable that Congress guarantee liberty of conscience in each state,
since it was "much more probable that superstition, mingled with political
faction, might corrupt a single state, than that bigotry should infect a
majority of states in congress." (35) This Congress refused to do.
Collin was strongly of the opinion in his interpretation of the amendment
that certain conduct based on religious belief should be stopped by the
civil magistrate. Religion may be a transaction between a man and his
maker; but when any person claims "from religious principle, the right of
injuring his fellow-citizens, or the community at large, he must be
restrained, and, in atrocious cases, punished. If he is a fool, or a
madman, he must not be a tyrant. It is impossible that God could order him
to be unjust, because he commands us all to be just and good." (36) No bold
and artful prophet pretending a commission from heaven ought, "from his
tender conscience, cut our throats and plunder our property." Although he
lived in a "civilized era," Collin was ready to admit that "the human
heart, is very wandering, and the fancy of mortals very whimsical ." (37)
34. Nicholas Collin in American Museum, September 1789, pp. 235-36.
Cf. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the Stare of Virginia (Paris, 1784-85), p.
293.
35. Collin, in American Museum, pp. 235-36.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: THE RELIGION OF THE REPUBLIC, edited by Elwyn A.
Smith, Fortress press, Philadelphia (1971) pages 124-125)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Of the eleven states that ratified the 1st Amendment, nine (counting
Maryland) adhered to the viewpoint that support of religion and churches
should be voluntary, that any government financial assistance to religion
constituted an establishment of religion."
(THE FIRST FREEDOMS, CHURCH AND STATE IN AMERICA TO THE PASSAGE
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, by Thomas Curry, page 220)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The First Amendment bans laws respecting an establishment of
religion. Most of the framers of that amendment very probably meant that
government should not promote, sponsor, or subsidize religion because it is
best left to private voluntary support for the sake of religion itself as
well as for government, and above all for the sake of the individual. Some
of the framers undoubtedly believed that government should maintain a close
relationship with religion, that is, with Protestantism, and that people
should support taxes for the benefit of their own churches and ministers.
The framers who came from Massachusetts and Connecticut certainly believed
this, as did the representatives of New Hampshire, but New Hampshire was
the only one of these New England states that ratified the First Amendment.
Of the eleven states that ratified the First Amendment, New Hampshire and
Vermont were probably the only ones in which a majority of the people
believed that the government should support religion. In all the other
ratifying states, a majority very probably opposed such support. But
whether those who framed and ratified the First Amendment believed in
government aid to religion or in its private voluntary support, the fact is
that no framer believed that the United States had or should have power to
legislate on the subject of religion, and no state supported that power
either.
(Source of information: The Establishment Clause and the First Amendment,
by Leonard W. Levy, pp 146-147)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
-----------------------------------------------------
Co-contributor to
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
http://www.louisville.edu/~tnpete01/church/index.htm
**********************************************
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Post history from http://x30.deja.com/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=478522087&CONTEXT=927050848.1254031372&thitnum=4
>:|
>:| Blackstone In America
>:|
>:| Lectures by An English Lawyer
>:| Become The Blueprint for a
>:| New Nation's Laws and Leaders
>:|
>:| by Greg Bailey (Early American Review, Spring 1997)
>:|
*********************************************************************************
Another view, from a previous discussion with another
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 06:01:38 GMT
"Brian Carey" <car...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>:|3. The pertinent part reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
>:|establishment of religion."
>:| The verbiage in the legal vernacular of the
>:|time clearly reflects a prohibition against the establishment of a national
>:|church.
>:| See Blackstone's 4th Volume of his commentaries on the laws of
>:|England (published a decade or so before the Constitutional Convention), in
>:|which he uses the terms "national church," "our present establishment," and
>:|"the national religion" interchangeably. See pp. 49, 52, & 53 of vol 4,
>:|assuming that you have the facsimile of the original.
>:|
>:|4. The framers themselves spoke of an "establishment" as an establishment
>:|of a national Christian church. See Henry Abbott's comment to James Iredell
>:|on July 30, 1788: "Many wish to know what religion shall be established... I
>:|am for my part against against any exclusive establishment, but if there
>:|were any, I would prefer the Episcopal." The context is a discussion
>:|concerning the ban on religious tests in the Constitution.
>:| The First Amendment prohibts the establishment of a national
>:|church, it does _not_ remove every vestige of religion from government.
====================================================================
REBUTTAL #7
=====================================================================
SEPTEMBER 27, 1789 (Amendments)
My third letter to you on the 14th. inst. will satisfy you how little is to
be expected from Congress that shall be any ways satisfactory on the
subject of Amendments. Your observation is perfectly just, that right
without power to protect it, Is of little avail. Yet small as it is, how
wonderfully scrupulous have they been in stating Rights! The English
language has been carefully culled to find words feeble in their Nature or
doubtful in their meaning! .
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Richard Henry Lee to Patrick Henry, 27 September
1789, Miscellaneous Manuscripts, DLC. CREATING THE BILL OF RIGHTS. The
Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress, Helen E. Veit, Kenneth
R. Bowling, Charlene Bangs, Bickford, eds. The John Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore & London, (1991), pp 296-97)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The English language has been carefully culled to find words feeble in
their Nature or doubtful in their meaning!"
[and that from someone who had been there]
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Post history from http://x30.deja.com/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=478522087&CONTEXT=927050848.1254031372&thitnum=4
>:|
>:| Blackstone In America
>:|
>:| Lectures by An English Lawyer
>:| Become The Blueprint for a
>:| New Nation's Laws and Leaders
>:|
>:| by Greg Bailey (Early American Review, Spring 1997)
>:|
*********************************************************************************
Another view, from a previous discussion with another
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 06:01:38 GMT
"Brian Carey" <car...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>:|3. The pertinent part reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
>:|establishment of religion."
>:| The verbiage in the legal vernacular of the
>:|time clearly reflects a prohibition against the establishment of a national
>:|church.
>:| See Blackstone's 4th Volume of his commentaries on the laws of
>:|England (published a decade or so before the Constitutional Convention), in
>:|which he uses the terms "national church," "our present establishment," and
>:|"the national religion" interchangeably. See pp. 49, 52, & 53 of vol 4,
>:|assuming that you have the facsimile of the original.
>:|
>:|4. The framers themselves spoke of an "establishment" as an establishment
>:|of a national Christian church. See Henry Abbott's comment to James Iredell
>:|on July 30, 1788: "Many wish to know what religion shall be established... I
>:|am for my part against against any exclusive establishment, but if there
>:|were any, I would prefer the Episcopal." The context is a discussion
>:|concerning the ban on religious tests in the Constitution.
>:| The First Amendment prohibts the establishment of a national
>:|church, it does _not_ remove every vestige of religion from government.
====================================================================
REBUTTAL #8
=====================================================================
>:|18. Does Mr. Alison think it a coincidence that the Framers adopted the
>:|language that Blackstone uses?
>:|
Which language?
Are you referring to such language as
National religion
national church
established church
present establishment
ecclesiastical establishment
religious establishment
true religion
false religion
national worship
that BLACKSTONE used and trying to say that each of those words had the
same meanings etc, referred to the same things, as did the following
various proposals that eventually led to the framing of the religious
clauses of the BORs. Furthermore, that such language leads one
automatically to the conclusion that because Blackstone was talking about a
country that did have an established national religion, church, etc. [ and
had laws that made support and protection of the church mandatory,
something that this nation had never had. In fact, something that some of
the colonies/states of this country had never had.] that the intention of
the framers of said amendments ONLY wanted to insure that no Christian
denomination ever got established as a national religion in this country.
The wording of the various proposed amendments were:
(1)"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious
belief, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full
and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext,
infringed."
{This goes hand in hand with the above, something Carey never mentions--
"No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or freedom of the
press, or trial by jury in criminal cases."-- but is helps establish
Madison use of the words national religion. Madison saw a need for
protection on both the level of the new central government and on the state
level.
Both the above were part of the original proposals by Madison.
(2) "No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of
conscience be infringed."
(3) "Congress shall makes no laws touching religion, or infringing the
rights of conscience"
(4) "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the
free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience"
[a stylistic change that is not explained changed the above to the
following which was then sent to the Senate.]
(5) "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.
THE NEXT ONES SHOW WHAT THE SENATE DID WITH WHAT THE HOUSE SENT THEM
(6) Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect, or society
in preference to others, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed."
(7) "Congress shall not make any law, infringing the rights of conscience,
or establishing any religious Sect or Society"
(8) "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination or
religion in preference to another, or prohibiting free exercise thereof,
not shall the rights of conscience be infringed"
(9) "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof."
(10) "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode
of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
THE HOUSE REJECTED THE ABOVE AND JOINT HOUSE/SENATE COMMITTEE MET AND
PRODUCED THE FOLLOWING:
(11) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Now, exactly what language did the framers, those nine named men [plus
whomever might of joined in the secret debates that were held in the
senate] use that Blackstone used?
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Post history from http://x30.deja.com/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=478522087&CONTEXT=927050848.1254031372&thitnum=4
>:|
>:| Blackstone In America
>:|
>:| Lectures by An English Lawyer
>:| Become The Blueprint for a
>:| New Nation's Laws and Leaders
>:|
>:| by Greg Bailey (Early American Review, Spring 1997)
>:|
*********************************************************************************
Another view, from a previous discussion with another
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 06:01:38 GMT
"Brian Carey" <car...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>:|3. The pertinent part reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
>:|establishment of religion."
>:| The verbiage in the legal vernacular of the
>:|time clearly reflects a prohibition against the establishment of a national
>:|church.
>:| See Blackstone's 4th Volume of his commentaries on the laws of
>:|England (published a decade or so before the Constitutional Convention), in
>:|which he uses the terms "national church," "our present establishment," and
>:|"the national religion" interchangeably. See pp. 49, 52, & 53 of vol 4,
>:|assuming that you have the facsimile of the original.
>:|
>:|4. The framers themselves spoke of an "establishment" as an establishment
>:|of a national Christian church. See Henry Abbott's comment to James Iredell
>:|on July 30, 1788: "Many wish to know what religion shall be established... I
>:|am for my part against against any exclusive establishment, but if there
>:|were any, I would prefer the Episcopal." The context is a discussion
>:|concerning the ban on religious tests in the Constitution.
>:| The First Amendment prohibts the establishment of a national
>:|church, it does _not_ remove every vestige of religion from government.
====================================================================
REBUTTAL #6
=====================================================================
In 1771 Thomas B. Chandler, an Anglican minister in New Jersey
involved in a heated dispute with Boston Congregationalist minister Charles
Chauncy, wrote that if Chauncy were going to continue to change the meaning
of the word "establishment," he ought to "publish a Glossary, wherein the
singularities of his Phraseology are carefully explained."(1) Given the
usage of the word in colonial America, Chandler's suggestion was eminently
practical. The ambiguities of "establishment" in the colonies stemmed from
such peculiarly American situations as that in New York, where the minority
Anglicans claimed to be the establishment, or in New England, where
Congregationalists--Dissenters within the Empire--in fact constituted the
established church.
In England "establishment" clearly referred to the Anglican Church,
officially approved and supported by the government, which excluded
non-Anglicans, who probably constituted less than 10 per cent of the
population, from positions of power, privilege, and social influence. In
America the constant need for more settlers made such exclusivity
unachievable.
Virginia, the Carolinas, Maryland, and Georgia established the
Church of England and taxed all residents for its support, but none of
those colonies confined offficeholding to Anglicans. Through their
inhabitants expressed considerable discontent with the established church,
their dissatisfaction, at least until the eve of the American Revolution
centered on the operation of that church, not the nature of principle of
establishment itself.
Delaware New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island established no
religion, provided public support for- no ministers and admitted all
Protestants on an equal basis. As a result, the kind of contention that
would have produced discussion about the nature of "establishment"
failed to arise within their boundaries.
In Massachusetts and Connecticut, however, the question of
establishment proved complicated. By laying claim to an establishment,
Congregationalists there wanted to assert their right to preeminence in New
England--especially over Anglicans--and to vindicate the work
of their forebears, who had planted the colonies at such cost. In pressing
their claims, however, again under the watchful eyes of jealous Anglicans,
they had to be careful not to give the English government cause for acting
to curb the pretensions "Dissenters."
Moreover, while asserting an establishment of their own, they
disassociated it from the type of establishment connected in their minds
with Archbishop Laud, from which their ancestors had fled and that still
oppressed their brethren in England. Consequently, their discourse
presupposed at least two kinds of establishment, i.e. one good (theirs) and
one bad (England's). The equivocation they were forced to resort to in
referring to the former introduced another element of ambiguity into the
use of the term.
New Hampshire's history followed a different path. Its
decentralized system, wherein local towns handled their own religious
affairs, did not precipitate colony-wide controversies.'l`he colony's laws
never referred to its ecclesiastical system as an establishment of
religion, and its
inhabitants found no occasion to discuss "establishment." Anglicans made
few inroads there, and Quakers received an exemption from ecclesiastical
taxes. Further, not until 1784 did New Hampshire institute the annual
Election Sermon, that vehicle for ministerial discourse before
the General Court on the relationship between Church and State.(2)
Massachusetts and Connecticut, then, together with New York the
colonies that experienced the sharpest controversies between Anglicans and
non-Anglicans, produced the most discussion of "establishment" in its
American context. Elsewhere. frequent use of the term went
unaccompained by argument as to its definition.
Still governed under- its original charter, Connecticut, as the
eighteenth-century opened, was more independent of the Mother Country than
Massachusetts and held less experience of English supervision. Nor had
Anglicans arrived there in numbers sufficient to challenge
dominant Congregationalists so strongly as to instill in them a constant
wariness of English reaction or the tendency to equivocate about their
religious situation. Consequently, the colony acknowledged its
establishment more explicitly then its neighbor to the north.
FOOTNOTES:
(1) Thomas Bradbury Chandler, The Appeal Farther Defended (New York, 1771),
226-27
(2) R. W. G. Vail, "A Check List of New England Election Sermons," American
Antiquarian Society Proceedings 45 (1935): 233. For church disputes in New
Hampshire, see George G. Kirsh, "Clerical Dismissals in Colonial and
Revolutionary New Hampshire," Church History 49 (1980): 166-69; Charles B.
Mckinney, Church and State in New Hampshire (New York, 1955)
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The First Freedoms, Church and State in America to
the Passage of the First Amendment, By Thomas J. Curry, Oxford University
Press, New York,
Oxford, (1986) pp 105-07)
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Post history from http://x30.deja.com/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=478522087&CONTEXT=927050848.1254031372&thitnum=4
>:|
>:| Blackstone In America
>:|
>:| Lectures by An English Lawyer
>:| Become The Blueprint for a
>:| New Nation's Laws and Leaders
>:|
>:| by Greg Bailey (Early American Review, Spring 1997)
>:|
*********************************************************************************
Another view, from a previous discussion with another
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 06:01:38 GMT
"Brian Carey" <car...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>:|3. The pertinent part reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
>:|establishment of religion."
>:| The verbiage in the legal vernacular of the
>:|time clearly reflects a prohibition against the establishment of a national
>:|church.
>:| See Blackstone's 4th Volume of his commentaries on the laws of
>:|England (published a decade or so before the Constitutional Convention), in
>:|which he uses the terms "national church," "our present establishment," and
>:|"the national religion" interchangeably. See pp. 49, 52, & 53 of vol 4,
>:|assuming that you have the facsimile of the original.
>:|
>:|4. The framers themselves spoke of an "establishment" as an establishment
>:|of a national Christian church. See Henry Abbott's comment to James Iredell
>:|on July 30, 1788: "Many wish to know what religion shall be established... I
>:|am for my part against against any exclusive establishment, but if there
>:|were any, I would prefer the Episcopal." The context is a discussion
>:|concerning the ban on religious tests in the Constitution.
>:| The First Amendment prohibts the establishment of a national
>:|church, it does _not_ remove every vestige of religion from government.
=====================================================================
REBUTTAL #4
====================================================================
When Madison introduced what is now the First Amendment's religion
clauses, there were several basic nationwide concerns. One dealt with the
fact that the states retained
rights pertaining to certain issues such as religion and education. The
Constitution was therefore dealing with issues of concern to the federal
government because there was a strong
conviction that the United States were a federal but not a national
government. This was spelled out in the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of
Rights.
The second issue was liberty of conscience or the free exercise of
religion because states with established religions had a history of
persecution and restriction of nonconformists. The third issue was that of
laws dealing with government
endorsement and support of religion and with religious control of
government, which were aspects of state establishments of religion.
Alexander Hamilton of New York, who played
such a large part in the formation of the Union, has provided one of the
few contemporary definitions of an established religion. In his "Remarks on
the Quebec Bill" in 1775 he
referred to "a certain writer" who defined "an established religion" as "a
religion which the civil authority engages not only to protect, but to
support."(3)
The chief political debate at the time the First Amendment was
adopted was not between those who wanted to support religion and those who
didn't. It had already been
decided in the Constitutional Convention not to give the federal government
any power to deal with religion. The problem faced by the first Congress
was one of defining a prohibition so that no future Congress would assume
an authority that had not been granted under the Constitution.
Madison tried to deal with these various issues in proposing the
following amendment: "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account
of religious belief or worship,
nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and
equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext,
infringed."(4)
Madison's reference to a national religion was rejected in
committee. It had been referred on July 21, 1789, to a committee of eleven
members, one from each state, with Madison
representing Virginia. On August 15 that committee reported to the House
the following: "no religion shall be established by law nor shall the equal
rights of conscience be infringed."(5)
Madison evidently was persuaded that the committee's deletion of the word
"national" was appropriate, for in his first remarks in the August 15
debate he said in referring to the
committee statement: "he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the
language would admit."(6)
However, Madison again proposed the word "national" after
Representative Samuel Huntington of Connecticut feared that private
agreements to support churches on the
state level would be unenforceable in federal courts as establishments of
religion.
These actions clearly show that Congress was not prepared to accept
a proposal that merely prevented preferential treatment of one denomination
over others or a proposal
that merely prevented the establishment of one religious sect. It rejected
the idea that establishment means preferment.
When the Senate on September 9 again took up the House amendment it
was changed to read: "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of
faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. .
. ."(10)
The House rejected the Senate's proposal with respect to religion
and proposed a joint conference committee, which was acceptable to the
Senate. In the compromise between the Senate and House versions of various
amendments proposed for the Bill of Rights, the House conferees, and
subsequently the House, agreed to accept the Senate amendments provided
that the Senate accept the following language for what is now the First
Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and petition the government for a redress of grievances,(11)
These compromises were accepted by the House on September 24, 1789,
and by the Senate on September 25. The language of the First Amendment as
clarified by the House debate and the Senate's motions that preceded its
adoption contribute to our understanding of separation of church and state.
The First Amendment clause, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion," means what it says. The word "respecting" means
concerning or touching upon, or in relation to, or with regard to. The word
"establishment" had at least two meanings at the time the First Amendment
was adopted and has those meanings today. One was a technical reference to
monopoly status, such as the Roman Catholic church had for many years in
Spain; or to government patronage and control of a church, such as
the Church of England; or government regulation and financial support of
one or more churches, as in some colonies and states in early America.
The other meaning of the word "establishment" is institution. The two
meanings are used interchangeably today as they were then. A religious
establishment is an institution of religion. Madison spoke of "the
establishment of the chaplainship" in Congress.'(12) He vetoed a bill to
give a parcel of land to a Baptist church with the statement that "Congress
shall make no law respecting a religious establishment."(13) Jefferson, in
drafting a "Bill for the Establishment of District Colleges and University"
and in the Regulations of the University of Virginia, provided that the
students "will be free and expected to attend religious worship at the
establishment of their respective sects."(14) Whether either or both of
these definitions apply, it is clear that the amendment does not say
"Congress shall make no law establishing religion," but does say "no law
respecting an establishment of religion." It therefore cannot be construed
as authorizing Congress to support religious institutions.
It would be illogical to suppose that an amendment expressly
designed to prohibit a power never given to Congress in the Constitution
should be construed as creating the au-
thority to enact laws benefitting religion financially.
FOOTNOTES:
(3). Anson Phelps Stokes, vol. 1, p. 510.
(4). Annals, vol. 1, p. 434.
(5). Ibid., p. 729.
(6). Ibid., p. 730.
(7). Ibid., p. 731.
(8). Ibid., p. 766.
(9). Journal of the First Session ofthe Senate . . . (Washington: Gales
and Seaton, 1820), p. 70.
(10). Ibid., p. 77.
(II). Ibid., p. 87.
(12). Leo Pfeffer, Church, Stare, and Freedom (Boston: Beacon Press,
1953), p. 140; emphasis added.
(13). Ibid.
14. Ibid.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Religious Liberty and the Secular State, The
Constitutional Concept, John M. Swomley, Prometheus Books, New York, 1987,
pp 44-45, 48-49)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|
>:|Post history from http://x30.deja.com/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=478522087&CONTEXT=927050848.1254031372&thitnum=4
>:|
>:| Blackstone In America
>:|
>:| Lectures by An English Lawyer
>:| Become The Blueprint for a
>:| New Nation's Laws and Leaders
>:|
>:| by Greg Bailey (Early American Review, Spring 1997)
>:|
*********************************************************************************
Another view, from a previous discussion with another
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 06:01:38 GMT
"Brian Carey" <car...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>:|3. The pertinent part reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
>:|establishment of religion."
>:| The verbiage in the legal vernacular of the
>:|time clearly reflects a prohibition against the establishment of a national
>:|church.
>:| See Blackstone's 4th Volume of his commentaries on the laws of
>:|England (published a decade or so before the Constitutional Convention), in
>:|which he uses the terms "national church," "our present establishment," and
>:|"the national religion" interchangeably. See pp. 49, 52, & 53 of vol 4,
>:|assuming that you have the facsimile of the original.
>:|
>:|4. The framers themselves spoke of an "establishment" as an establishment
>:|of a national Christian church. See Henry Abbott's comment to James Iredell
>:|on July 30, 1788: "Many wish to know what religion shall be established... I
>:|am for my part against against any exclusive establishment, but if there
>:|were any, I would prefer the Episcopal." The context is a discussion
>:|concerning the ban on religious tests in the Constitution.
>:| The First Amendment prohibts the establishment of a national
>:|church, it does _not_ remove every vestige of religion from government.
============================================================================
REBUTTAL #3
============================================================================
The First Federal Congress was to be made up of 26 Senators and 75
Representatives. These 101 men represented 13 states. However, the First
Session of Congress functioned with only 22 Senators and 69 Representatives
because Rhode island and North Carolina had not ratified the Constitution,
and therefore was not members of the United States. (After some dire
threats and other forms of politicing, both states were convinced it was in
their best interest to ratifiy said constitution and become members of the
United states. Therefore Senators and Represenatives from both states were
present beginning with the second session of the First federal Congress.)
Why is the above important?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
" In recent discussions of religious freedom and Church-State separation in
the United States attention has been so much centered constitutionally on
the Bill of Rights that the importance of this Provision in the original
Constitution as a bulwark of Church-State separation has been largely
overlooked. As a matter of fact it was and is important in preventing
religious tests for Federal office--a provision later extended to all the
states. It went far in thwarting any State Church in the United States; for
it would be almost impossible to establish such a Church, since no Church
has more than a fifth of the population. Congress as constituted with men
and women from all the denominations could never unite in selecting any one
body for this privilege. This has heen so evident from the time of the
founding of the government that it is one reason why the First Amendment
must be interpreted more broadly than merely as preventing the state
establishment of religion which had already been made almost impossible."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES, VOLUME I,
Anson Phelps Stokes, D.D., LL.D, Harper & Brothers Publishers (1950)
page 527)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now some additional facts.
The breakdown of representation as it existed in Congress at this time:
Conn., 2 Senators, 5 Representatives
Rhode Island (no Senators or Representatives during first session of First
Congress, 2 Senators, 1 Representative beginning with the second session of
the First Congress
Massachusetts, 2 Senators, 8 Representatives
New Hampshire, 2 Senators, 3 Representatives
Therefore the New England states (beginning with the second session of
Congress) would have a min of 8 Senators and 17 Represenatives.
New York, 2 Senators, 6 Representatives
Penna., 2 Senators, 8 Representatives
New Jersey, 2 Senators, 4 Representatives
Delaware, 2 Senators, 1 Representatives
Maryland, 2 Senators, 6 Representatives
The middle states 10 Senators, 25 Representatives
Virginia, 2 Senators, 10 Representatives
North Carolina, No members attended the first session of the First federal
Congress, beginning with the second session they had 2 Senators, 5
Representatives
South Carolina, 2 Senators, 5 Representatives
Georgia, 2 Senators, 3 Representatives
The Southern states 8 Senators, 23 Representatives.
It is clear that the New England region had the least voting power., at
least in regards to the House of Representatives.
New England region, 8 Senators, 17 Representatives
Middle region 10 Senators 25 Representatives
Southern region 8 Senators 23 Representatives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Breakdown of religion:
TABLE 2. 1
Number of Congregations per Denomination, 1776
Denomination Number of congregations
Congregational 668
Presbyterian(1) 588
Baptist(2) 497
Episcopal 495
Quakers 310
German Reformed 159
Lutheran(3) 150
Dutch Reformed 120
Methodist 65
Catholic 56
Moravian 31
Separatist and Independent 27
Dunker 24
Mennonite 16
Huguenot 7
Sandemanian 6
Jewish 5
TOTAL 3,228
SOURCE: PaulIin (1932).
(1) Includes all divisions such as New Light, Old Light, Associate
Reformed,
etc.
(2) Includes all divisions such as Separate, Six Principle, Seventh Day,
Rogerene, etc.
(3) Includes all synods.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2.2
Religious Adherence Rates by Colony, 1776 (in percent)
Colony Adherence rate White adherence rate
NEW ENGLAND 20 20
New Hampshire 20 20
Massachusetts 22 22
Rhode Island 20 20
Connecticut 20 20
MIDDLE COLONIES 19 20
New York 15 17
New jersey 26 26
Pennsylvania 24 24
Delaware 20 22
Maryland 12 17
SOUTHERN COLONIES 12 20
Virginia 12 22
North Carolina 9 14
South Carolina 14 31
Georgia 7 20
NATIONAL 17 20
SOURCE: The data in Table 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, and A.1 are based on a series of
estimation
procedures described in the text. The number of congregations is estimated
from Paullin
(1932) and Wers (1936, 1938, 1950, 1955); the number of members per
congregation is
estimated from existing denominational totals.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2.3
Denominational Percentages by Region, 1776,
Based on Number of Congregations
NEW ENGLAND (N = 1,039)
Congregationalist 63.0
Baptist 15.3
Episcopal 8.4
Presbyterian 5.5
Quaker 3.8
Other(1) 3.6
MIDDLE COLONIES (N = 1,285)
Presbyterian 24.6
Quaker 14. 1
Episcopal 12.9
German Reformed 9.8
Dutch Reformed 8.9
Lutheran 8.6
Baptist 7.6
Roman Catholic 4.2
Methodist 3.8
Moravian 1.8
Congregationalist 0.3
Other(1) 3.1
SOUTHERN COLONIES (N = 845)
Baptist 28.0
Episcopal 27.8
Presbyterian 24.9
Quaker 9.0
Lutheran 3,8
German Reformed 2.8
Methodist 1.4
Moravian 0.6
Congregationist 0.1
Roman Catholic 0.1
Other (1) 1.2
SOURCE: See Table 2.2.
NOTE: Only 3,169 of lernegan's 3,228 congregations could be located
by colony.
(1) "Other" includes Separatist and Independent, Dunker, Mennonite,
Huguenot, Sandemanian, and Jewish.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2.5
Percentage Congregationalist by Colony, 1776
Colony % Congregationalist
Massachusetts 71.6
Connecticut 64.2
New Hampshire 63.2
Rhode Island 17.2
Georgia 4.3
New York 1.8
South Carolina 1.2
New ]ersey 0.4
Pennsylvania 0.0
Delaware 0.0
Maryland 0.0
Virginia 0.0
North Carolina 0.0
SOURCE: See Table 2.2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source of information" THE CHURCING OF AMERICA 1776-1990. Winners and
losers in our religions economy, by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark, Rutgers
University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, (1994) Pages 25, 27, 29-30, 41
In addition, Table 2.1 can also be found in CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED
STATES, VOL. I Anson Phelps Stokes, D.D., LL.D> Harper & Brothers, New
York, (1950) page 273, with only a few minor variation in the numbers as
shown below:
Section 6. THE CONDITION AND PUBLIC INFLUENCE OF THE
CHURCHES DURING AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER
THE REVOLUTION
At the close of the colonial period there were something under three
million
persons in the thirteen colonies, of whom about one-sixth were slaves.
Recent
studies at the University of Chicago show somewhat over three thousand re-
ligious organizations or congregations, counting each church or chapel
sepa-
rately. These were divided about equally among New England, the Middle
Atlantic States, and the South. The total (3,005) actually
enumerated--about
one thousand more than were estimated a decade ago 49--were thus
distributed:
Congregationalists, mostly in New England ................... . 658
Presbyterians, largely in the middle colonies but becoming increas-
ingly prominent in the South ................ ............. 543
Baptists, especially in Rhode island, the middle colonies, the Care-
linas,and Virginia ........... .............. ..... ... 498
Anglicans, mainly in the South and in the larger towns elsewhere... 480
Quakers, mostly in Pennsylvania and North Carolina ........... 298
German and Dutch Reformed, mainly in the middle colonies ..... 251
Lutherans, largely in the middle colonies .. .. .............. 151
Roman Catholics, mainly in the large Eastern towns and in Mary-
land........................................................... 50
Miscellaneous minor groups ... ...... ................ .. 76
________
3,005
_____________________________________________________________________________
Nationally
Congregationalist 21.13% (Their power was only found in New England)
Presbyterian 18.33%
Baptist 16.96%
Episcopal 16.36%
Quaker 8.96%
All others 18.26%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
What does all the above mean? It simply and clearly means that there would
have been no way that any specific Christian denomination could ever have
amassed the support of the general public nor of the members of Congress in
order to be established by law as a national religion.
It means that no one denomination had the numbers (members) spread
universally throughout the 13 states ( and later increasing numbers of new
states) to command a coalition of Congressmen required to establish that
denomination as a national religion.
Congregrationalism which Carey claims the Danbury Baptist were so afraid
would be established as a national religion had no power, influence, or
numbers outside of a basically Mass., Conn., New Hampshire, and what would
become in time, Maine and Vermont. They were a minority religion in Rhode
Island, and all other existing or future states.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Post history from http://x30.deja.com/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=478522087&CONTEXT=927050848.1254031372&thitnum=4
>:|
>:| Blackstone In America
>:|
>:| Lectures by An English Lawyer
>:| Become The Blueprint for a
>:| New Nation's Laws and Leaders
>:|
>:| by Greg Bailey (Early American Review, Spring 1997)
>:|
*********************************************************************************
Another view, from a previous discussion with another
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 06:01:38 GMT
"Brian Carey" <car...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>:|3. The pertinent part reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
>:|establishment of religion."
>:| The verbiage in the legal vernacular of the
>:|time clearly reflects a prohibition against the establishment of a national
>:|church.
>:| See Blackstone's 4th Volume of his commentaries on the laws of
>:|England (published a decade or so before the Constitutional Convention), in
>:|which he uses the terms "national church," "our present establishment," and
>:|"the national religion" interchangeably. See pp. 49, 52, & 53 of vol 4,
>:|assuming that you have the facsimile of the original.
>:|
>:|4. The framers themselves spoke of an "establishment" as an establishment
>:|of a national Christian church. See Henry Abbott's comment to James Iredell
>:|on July 30, 1788: "Many wish to know what religion shall be established... I
>:|am for my part against against any exclusive establishment, but if there
>:|were any, I would prefer the Episcopal." The context is a discussion
>:|concerning the ban on religious tests in the Constitution.
>:| The First Amendment prohibts the establishment of a national
>:|church, it does _not_ remove every vestige of religion from government.
====================================================================
REBUTTAL #5
=====================================================================
James Madison never said the above, and you are fully aware of what he did
say about the matter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
" 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).
VETO MESSAGES.
FEBRUARY 21, 1811.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An act
incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in
the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the House of
Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:
Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which
governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and
religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the
Constitution of the United States which declares that "Congress shall make
no law respecting a religious establishment.'' The bill enacts into and
establishes by law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the
organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even
the election and removal of the minister of the same, so that no change
could be made therein by the particular society or by the general church of
which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. this particular
church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a
legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its
constitution and administration. Nor can it be considered that the articles
thus established are to be taken as the descriptive criteria only of the
corporate identity of the society, inasmuch as this identity must depend on
other characteristics, as the regulations established are generally
unessential and alterable according to the principles and canons by which
churches of that denomination govern themselves, and as the injunctions and
prohibitions contained in the regulations would be enforced by the penal
consequences applicable to a violation of them according to the local law.
Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority
to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children
of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the
provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for
giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into
effect a public and civil duty.
JAMES MADISON.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: A COMPILATION OF THE MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE
PRESIDENTS, VOL. II, BUREAU OF NATIONAL LITERATURE, N Y, PP 474-475)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEBRUARY 28, 1811
VETO MESSAGE
February 28, 1811.
To the House of Representatives of the United States.
Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An act for the
relief of Richard Tervin, William Coleman, Edwin Lewis, Samuel Mims, Joseph
Wilson, and the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, in the Mississippi
Territory, " I now return the same to the House of Representatives, in
which it originated, with the following objection:
Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land of the
United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and
precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use
and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the
Constitution
which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious
establishment."
JAMES MADISON.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: A COMPILATION OF THE MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE
PRESIDENTS, VOL. II, BUREAU OF NATIONAL LITERATURE, N Y, PP 474-475)
_____________________________________________________________________________
JUNE 3, 1811
TO THE BAPTIST CHURCHES IN NEAL'S CREEK AND ON BLACK
CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA.
I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to
tile Bill containing a grant of public land to the, Baptist Church at Salem
Meeting House: Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded tile 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. Among the various religious societies in our Country,
none has been more vigilant or constant in maintaining that distinction
than the Society of which you make a part, and it is an honorable proof of
your sincerity and integrity, that you are as ready to do so in a case
favoring the interest of your brethren as in other cases. It is but dust,
at the same time, to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, to remark
that their application to the National legislature does not appear to have
contemplated a grant of the land in question but on terms that might be
equitable to the public as well as to themselves.
Accept my friendly respects.
JAMES MADISON.
June 3d, 1811
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letters And Other Writings of James Madison Fourth
President Of The United States In Four Volumes Published By the Order Of
Congress, Vol..II, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, (1865) pp
511-512)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That does not sound like what you are saying at all, now does it?
====================================================================
Pay particular attention to the following excerpts from his veto messages:
Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which
governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and
religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the
Constitution of the United States which declares that "Congress shall make
no law respecting a religious establishment.''
. this particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious
establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain
articles in its constitution and administration..
Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority
to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children
of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the
provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for
giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into
effect a public and civil duty.
Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land of the
United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and
precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use
and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the
Constitution which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a
religious establishment."
These messages are not pertaining to any establishment of a national
church, sect, denomination, society, etc., yet the actions they did call
for, as far as he was concerned would violate the establishments clause of
the Constitution.
Also note the wording he used in quoting that clause. It shows, at least as
far as he was concerned, his understanding and intent as far the meaning of
the Establishment clause:
"Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment."
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Post history from http://x30.deja.com/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=478522087&CONTEXT=927050848.1254031372&thitnum=4
>:|
>:| Blackstone In America
>:|
>:| Lectures by An English Lawyer
>:| Become The Blueprint for a
>:| New Nation's Laws and Leaders
>:|
>:| by Greg Bailey (Early American Review, Spring 1997)
>:|
*********************************************************************************
Another view, from a previous discussion with another
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 06:01:38 GMT
"Brian Carey" <car...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>:|3. The pertinent part reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
>:|establishment of religion."
>:| The verbiage in the legal vernacular of the
>:|time clearly reflects a prohibition against the establishment of a national
>:|church.
>:| See Blackstone's 4th Volume of his commentaries on the laws of
>:|England (published a decade or so before the Constitutional Convention), in
>:|which he uses the terms "national church," "our present establishment," and
>:|"the national religion" interchangeably. See pp. 49, 52, & 53 of vol 4,
>:|assuming that you have the facsimile of the original.
>:|
>:|4. The framers themselves spoke of an "establishment" as an establishment
>:|of a national Christian church. See Henry Abbott's comment to James Iredell
>:|on July 30, 1788: "Many wish to know what religion shall be established... I
>:|am for my part against against any exclusive establishment, but if there
>:|were any, I would prefer the Episcopal." The context is a discussion
>:|concerning the ban on religious tests in the Constitution.
>:| The First Amendment prohibts the establishment of a national
>:|church, it does _not_ remove every vestige of religion from government.
====================================================================
REBUTTAL #14
=====================================================================
Freedom of religion in the First Amendment sense was almost totally lacking
in England of that day.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION; THE GREAT RIGHTS OF MANKIND, A History of the
American Bill of Rights, by Bernard Schwartz, Expanded edition, Madison
House, (1992) pp 195)
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Post history from http://x30.deja.com/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=478522087&CONTEXT=927050848.1254031372&thitnum=4
>:|
>:| Blackstone In America
>:|
>:| Lectures by An English Lawyer
>:| Become The Blueprint for a
>:| New Nation's Laws and Leaders
>:|
>:| by Greg Bailey (Early American Review, Spring 1997)
>:|
*********************************************************************************
Another view, from a previous discussion with another
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 06:01:38 GMT
"Brian Carey" <car...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>:|3. The pertinent part reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
>:|establishment of religion."
>:| The verbiage in the legal vernacular of the
>:|time clearly reflects a prohibition against the establishment of a national
>:|church.
>:| See Blackstone's 4th Volume of his commentaries on the laws of
>:|England (published a decade or so before the Constitutional Convention), in
>:|which he uses the terms "national church," "our present establishment," and
>:|"the national religion" interchangeably. See pp. 49, 52, & 53 of vol 4,
>:|assuming that you have the facsimile of the original.
>:|
>:|4. The framers themselves spoke of an "establishment" as an establishment
>:|of a national Christian church. See Henry Abbott's comment to James Iredell
>:|on July 30, 1788: "Many wish to know what religion shall be established... I
>:|am for my part against against any exclusive establishment, but if there
>:|were any, I would prefer the Episcopal." The context is a discussion
>:|concerning the ban on religious tests in the Constitution.
>:| The First Amendment prohibts the establishment of a national
>:|church, it does _not_ remove every vestige of religion from government.
====================================================================
REBUTTAL #10
=====================================================================
"James Madison denied that Blackstone's view of press freedom was valid
in the United States, saying in protest against the Sedition Act of 1798
that it 'can never be admitted to be the American idea .'"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Elliot's debates pp 569 (1937)
The Bill of Rights & the politics of Interpretation, By Robert S. Peck,
West Publishing Company, St Paul, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco,
(1992) pp 107)
Madison is denying that Blackstones opinions, interpretations, etc
regarding freedom of the press had any meaning in this country. Freedom of
the press, one of the parts of the same amendment that contained the
religious clauses.
Madison the same man who introduced the wording of those religious clauses,
the same wording that provided the text that was worked with throughout the
debates on said religious clauses.
Can you show that Madison was influenced in any manner by what Blackstone
wrote beginning on page 41 of Volume IV of his Commentaries?
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Post history from http://x30.deja.com/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=478522087&CONTEXT=927050848.1254031372&thitnum=4
>:|
>:| Blackstone In America
>:|
>:| Lectures by An English Lawyer
>:| Become The Blueprint for a
>:| New Nation's Laws and Leaders
>:|
>:| by Greg Bailey (Early American Review, Spring 1997)
>:|
*********************************************************************************
Another view, from a previous discussion with another
"Brian Carey" <car...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>:|3. The pertinent part reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
>:|establishment of religion."
>:| The verbiage in the legal vernacular of the
>:|time clearly reflects a prohibition against the establishment of a national
>:|church.
>:| See Blackstone's 4th Volume of his commentaries on the laws of
>:|England (published a decade or so before the Constitutional Convention), in
>:|which he uses the terms "national church," "our present establishment," and
>:|"the national religion" interchangeably. See pp. 49, 52, & 53 of vol 4,
>:|assuming that you have the facsimile of the original.
>:|
>:|4. The framers themselves spoke of an "establishment" as an establishment
>:|of a national Christian church. See Henry Abbott's comment to James Iredell
>:|on July 30, 1788: "Many wish to know what religion shall be established... I
>:|am for my part against against any exclusive establishment, but if there
>:|were any, I would prefer the Episcopal." The context is a discussion
>:|concerning the ban on religious tests in the Constitution.
>:| The First Amendment prohibts the establishment of a national
>:|church, it does _not_ remove every vestige of religion from government.
====================================================================
REBUTTAL #11
=====================================================================
>:|> >:|Sir, I have referred you to Blackstone's writings.
>:|>
>:|> Referred? So what?
>:|> What you haven't done is offer any hard valid historical evidence linking
>:|> Blackstone, the man, his thoughts, any of his writings in general,
>:|> especially his Commentaries, etc., to any member of the men who debated
>:|> the religious clauses of the BOR's.
>:|
>:|Heh. Are you going to deny Blackstone's contribution to late-18th
>:|century legal environment?
>"| You are, of course, aware that our Framers
>:|were familiar with his writings, aren't you?
>:|You think it a coincidence
>:|they adopted the language that he uses?
>:|
Can you offer any evidence that shows that at anytime during the debates on
the proposed amendments [and especially the religious clauses] to the
unamended constitution
(1) Blackstone was a member of the First Federal Congress
(2) Blackstone was a featured speaker during those debates
(3) His name was ever mentioned by anyone there
(4) His thoughts or any of his writings were ever mentioned by anyone there
(5) His Commentaries was mentioned by anyone there
(6) His definition of any word or words was mentioned, used, adopted, etc.
Evidence, that is what is required here, not speculation.
Since you have adopted the use of legal language lately,even legal language
that you are using improperly, I will share the following with you
====================================================================
A cardinal rule in the courtroom is that the lawyer conducting a cross-
Examination must limit the scope of his questions to matters raised by the
first lawyer in direct examination. if on direct, you were asked only about
what movie you saw last night, it would he improper on cross for a lawyer
to ask you what you did two weeks before. Judge Ito, Darden was saying,
not only let the defense range far beyond permissible boundaries, he also
let them ask questions on which there was no evidence to base them. "Well,
Dr. Cotton, isn't it true that if blood spilled during the testing process,
bindles could get contaminated!" The witness, forced to answer, might say,
perhaps, if blood did spill, contamination could occur. But there was no
evidence that blood did spill, and unless the lawyer can specifically prove
that it :did, such a hypothetical question is improper and the judge should
not allow it, the lawyer should not be permitted to ask it, the witness
should not answer it, and the jury should not hear the question or answer.
It is sheer speculation, and speculation is not evidence.
(Source of Information: Triumph of Justice-The Final Judgment on the
Simpson Saga, Daniel Petrocelli, with Peter Knobler, Crown Publishers, Inc.
N Y (1998) pp 75)
====================================================================
The irrelevant questions you asked fall under the heading of improper
questions.
You have supplied no evidence that Blackstone had any influence on a single
member of the Congress who took part in the debates on the religious
clauses of the proposed amendments. You are engaging in speculation.
What follows is information that is far more than mere speculation
====================================================================
First, Blackstone wrote and published his Commentaries on English Law
between 1765-1769.
The first publications of his Commentaries in this country took place in
1772.
As you shall see, the first semi official or official use of the word
establish with regards to religion took place in this country in 1772.
Was Blackstone'sdefinition of establish, established, establishment, etc,
at the root of that, I think not.
[I have definitions for establishment pertaining to religion that go back,
at least to 1731, another in 1739, not quite sure but looks like another
goes back to 1662.]
At any rate, there was a an ongoing understanding of the word and its
various forms before Blackstone wrote a word regarding it. Anything he did
write regarding it would have been the understanding and acceptance of the
word as it was in England at the time, England with its state established
Anglican Church.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Post history from http://x30.deja.com/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=478522087&CONTEXT=927050848.1254031372&thitnum=4
>:|
>:| Blackstone In America
>:|
>:| Lectures by An English Lawyer
>:| Become The Blueprint for a
>:| New Nation's Laws and Leaders
>:|
>:| by Greg Bailey (Early American Review, Spring 1997)
>:|
*********************************************************************************
Another view, from a previous discussion with another
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 06:01:38 GMT
"Brian Carey" <car...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>:|3. The pertinent part reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
>:|establishment of religion."
>:| The verbiage in the legal vernacular of the
>:|time clearly reflects a prohibition against the establishment of a national
>:|church.
>:| See Blackstone's 4th Volume of his commentaries on the laws of
>:|England (published a decade or so before the Constitutional Convention), in
>:|which he uses the terms "national church," "our present establishment," and
>:|"the national religion" interchangeably. See pp. 49, 52, & 53 of vol 4,
>:|assuming that you have the facsimile of the original.
>:|
>:|4. The framers themselves spoke of an "establishment" as an establishment
>:|of a national Christian church. See Henry Abbott's comment to James Iredell
>:|on July 30, 1788: "Many wish to know what religion shall be established... I
>:|am for my part against against any exclusive establishment, but if there
>:|were any, I would prefer the Episcopal." The context is a discussion
>:|concerning the ban on religious tests in the Constitution.
>:| The First Amendment prohibts the establishment of a national
>:|church, it does _not_ remove every vestige of religion from government.
====================================================================
REBUTTAL #13
=====================================================================
SOURCES OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Bill of Rights Guarantees-----No Establishment of Religion
First Document Protecting-----Rights of the Colonies (Boston)
First American Guarantee-----Same
First Constitutional Guarantee-----N.J. Constitution, Art. XIX
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION; THE GREAT RIGHTS OF MANKIND, A History of the
American Bill of Rights, by Bernard Schwartz, Expanded edition, Madison
House, (1992) pp 198-199)
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Post history from http://x30.deja.com/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=478522087&CONTEXT=927050848.1254031372&thitnum=4
>:|
>:| Blackstone In America
>:|
>:| Lectures by An English Lawyer
>:| Become The Blueprint for a
>:| New Nation's Laws and Leaders
>:|
>:| by Greg Bailey (Early American Review, Spring 1997)
>:|
*********************************************************************************
Another view, from a previous discussion with another
"Brian Carey" <car...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>:|3. The pertinent part reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
>:|establishment of religion."
>:| The verbiage in the legal vernacular of the
>:|time clearly reflects a prohibition against the establishment of a national
>:|church.
>:| See Blackstone's 4th Volume of his commentaries on the laws of
>:|England (published a decade or so before the Constitutional Convention), in
>:|which he uses the terms "national church," "our present establishment," and
>:|"the national religion" interchangeably. See pp. 49, 52, & 53 of vol 4,
>:|assuming that you have the facsimile of the original.
>:|
>:|4. The framers themselves spoke of an "establishment" as an establishment
>:|of a national Christian church. See Henry Abbott's comment to James Iredell
>:|on July 30, 1788: "Many wish to know what religion shall be established... I
>:|am for my part against against any exclusive establishment, but if there
>:|were any, I would prefer the Episcopal." The context is a discussion
>:|concerning the ban on religious tests in the Constitution.
>:| The First Amendment prohibts the establishment of a national
>:|church, it does _not_ remove every vestige of religion from government.
====================================================================
REBUTTAL #12
=====================================================================
The bill of rights concept is primarily American in origin. The
prior existence of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 tends to obscure this
fact. Except for the name, however, the 1689 enactment has little in common
with the later American document. In the first place, the English bill was
passed as a statute by Parliament and was thus, legally speaking, forever
subject to amendment or repeal at the discretion of the creating
legislature. The American notion of a bill of rights incorporates
guarantees of personal freedom into a constitutional document in which
articles define and limit the areas of legitimate legislative action. In
this sense the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 was the first modern
bill of rights, since it was the first to use a written constitution to
insulate individual rights from the changing winds of legislative fancy.
In addition, the English Bill of Rights was a rudimentary document
in those individual rights it did choose to guarantee. The 1689 enactment
intended to block those methods by which the last two Stuart kings had
sought to control Parliament, as well as to constrain future abuses of the
royal prerogative. The only sections relevant to a bill of rights in the
American conception dealt with prohibitions against excessive bail, fines,
and punishment. These sections would later find their way into the United
States Constitution, in the Eighth Amendment.
Moreover, by the time the English Bill of Rights was adopted, at
least two American colonial settlements had already enacted local governing
compacts providing far more complete protection of individual
rights--notably the Massachusetts Body of Liberties, 1641 (containing at
that early date detailed guarantees that anticipated many of the
fundamental liberties protected in the Federal Bill of Rights), and the
Pennsylvania Frame of Government, 1682
It would be seriously erroneous, nevertheless, to assume that only
American enactments were the precursors of the Federal Bill of Rights.
Madison and his colleagues were able to draw up in 1789 the classic
inventory of basic rights because they were the heirs of the constitutional
struggles of their English forbears. Modern Americans may fail to recognize
the extent to which our modern liberties are based upon the outcomes of
battles waged in seventeeth-century Britain. But the men who established
our constitutional system were fully aware of the significance of these
victories of Parliament over the English Crown.
Consequently, the roots of American freedom must be sought in
English constitutional history. For our purposes, this means a tracing of
the Angle-American antecedents of the Bill of Rights. The constitutional
amendments proposed by Madison represented a logical progression from what
had gone before both in England and America. The Federal Bill of Rights,
then, as new as it seems in genre, was based directly or remotely upon the
great charters of English liberty, back through history to the Magna Carta.
Without the English precedent of the two-sided compact--between king and
peers, and later, king and Parliament--one might wonder if the American
colonists, revolutionaries, and constitution makers would have or indeed
could have come up with their novel conception of a strictly defined
relationship between all those governed and all those governing.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION; THE GREAT RIGHTS OF MANKIND, A History of the
American Bill of Rights, by Bernard Schwartz, Expanded edition, Madison
House, (1992) pp 1-2)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Post history from http://x30.deja.com/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=478522087&CONTEXT=927050848.1254031372&thitnum=4
>:|
>:| Blackstone In America
>:|
>:| Lectures by An English Lawyer
>:| Become The Blueprint for a
>:| New Nation's Laws and Leaders
>:|
>:| by Greg Bailey (Early American Review, Spring 1997)
>:|
*********************************************************************************
Another view, from a previous discussion with another
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 06:01:38 GMT
"Brian Carey" <car...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>:|3. The pertinent part reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
>:|establishment of religion."
>:| The verbiage in the legal vernacular of the
>:|time clearly reflects a prohibition against the establishment of a national
>:|church.
>:| See Blackstone's 4th Volume of his commentaries on the laws of
>:|England (published a decade or so before the Constitutional Convention), in
>:|which he uses the terms "national church," "our present establishment," and
>:|"the national religion" interchangeably. See pp. 49, 52, & 53 of vol 4,
>:|assuming that you have the facsimile of the original.
>:|
>:|4. The framers themselves spoke of an "establishment" as an establishment
>:|of a national Christian church. See Henry Abbott's comment to James Iredell
>:|on July 30, 1788: "Many wish to know what religion shall be established... I
>:|am for my part against against any exclusive establishment, but if there
>:|were any, I would prefer the Episcopal." The context is a discussion
>:|concerning the ban on religious tests in the Constitution.
>:| The First Amendment prohibts the establishment of a national
>:|church, it does _not_ remove every vestige of religion from government.
====================================================================
REBUTTAL #9
=====================================================================
What you need to do is show, with documentation, etc that Madison, in
particular, but to a lesser degree, Sylvester, Vining, Gerry, Sherman,
Carroll, Huntington, Livermore, or Ames was using any meaning that
Blackstone might have meant when he was talking about the laws of England
and the meaning of said laws in England in his
Blackstone didn't invent the common meaning or common usage of Establish,
or Establishment, Respect or respecting, Religion, an, Prohibit or
prohibiting, Free, Exercise.
Nor did he invent the common meaning or common usage of the words
Christian, Christianity, National.
In the Oxford English Dictionary you can find under Conscience the
following
(6) a. Practice of, or conformity to, what is right, equity; regard to the
dictates of conscience; conscientiousness. Obs. or arch.
1767 BLACKSTONE, COMM. VOL II, p 328 A... had the legal...possession of
the land, but B... was in conscience and equity to have the profits and
disposal of it.
{In this case one of Blackstone's uses of a term was credited as giving
that word at least one of its meanings.]
Under the word Church in the same series of books (Oxford English
Dictionary) you will find the following:
b. parish, church, mother church, the cathedral church of a diocese, the
original of principle church of a parish: under church, district church.
Under that you will find the following (The first date for the above is
given as 1386)
1765-1774 BLACKSTONE, COMM. VOL I, p 112. If any great lord had a church
within his own demesnes, distinct from the mother church, in the nature of
a private chapel
In looking through the same series of books (Oxford English Dictionary) I
have found no references to BLACKSTONE or his COMM. under any of the
following words:
Establish, establishment, respect, respecting, an, thereof, national,
religion. Only that one reference to church, and the section on church is
seven pages long. Only that one reference under conscience.
"Chapter the Fourth"
"Of OFFENCES Against GOD and RELIGION "
COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND
BOOK THE FOURTH, BY SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, KNT
REPRINTED FROM THE BRITISH COPY
PAGE for PAGE with the LAST EDITION
AMERICA;
PRINTED for the SUBSCRIBERS
By ROBERT BELL at the union Library, in Third-Street
PHILADELPHIA DCCLXXII (1772) pp 41-65
You seem to forget that the BOR's, especially what is now known as the 1st
amendment, is actually quite anti-English, anti the English system, anti
Common Law, as the Common Law stood in regards to these particular rights,
etc. You also seem to forget that England had an established Church, first
the Catholic Church and then as English version of that Catholic Church
known as the Church of England. This country was renouncing that very
thing.
Here is what Bernard C. Gavit [Dean, Indiana University School of Law] had
to say on the entire subject matter of Chapter 4 of Blackstone's
Commentaries on the Law in 1892 in his publication Blackstones Commentaries
on the Law, published by the washington Law Book Co. Washington D C
====================================================================
DEAN GAVIT'S NOTES
CHAPTER IV
OFFENSES AS AGAINST GOD AND RELIGION
The Federal Constitution and state constitutions prohibit an official
state religion, with the result that most of the crimes which Blackstone
describes in this chapter cannot exist in this country. Clearly a statute
which would undertake to resurrect the crime of heresy would be
unconstitutional. It is, of course, still true that religious organizations
and activities may be protected against unlawful interference, so that one
who disturbs a religious meeting or offends the religious sensibilities of
other members of society may be guilty of a crime. Statutes providing for
the observance of Sunday as a day of rest are still common, and a person
may be guilty of a crime if he engages in. common work or other activity of
a proscribed nature on this day.
What Blackstone describes in paragraphs 10 and 11, of course, are quite
outside of the field of religion as such, and statutes today generally make
this type of conduct wrongful, because such conduct offends common
standards of morality, quite apart from any religious sanctions on the same
subject
====================================================================
I include that just for general information. I find it rather interesting.
You have to prove that any and all meanings [or understandings] that
Blackstone attached to any common words that can be found in his Chapter 4
of Volume 4 of his Comm, and any of the words that the nine aforementioned
men discussed while debating the various proposals that were offered
regarding the religious clauses of what was to become the BORs were the
same.
Then you would have to show, if that were the case, that this then
translated into your assertion that the Establishment clause was intended
and only intended to prevent a Christian denomination from being declared a
national religion.
Then, last but not least, just for fun, you would have to show [provided
you had proved the first two to be true] that it matters one single bit
today.
That the theory of original intent, provided that such an intent could even
be discovered, should and would be valid today. Today is a world totally
different from what existed then. Today is a world full of complexities,
diversities, etc that the framers or founders could not possibly have
guessed at, let alone have an intent about.
That applies in the area of religion as well.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Post history from http://x30.deja.com/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=478522087&CONTEXT=927050848.1254031372&thitnum=4
>:|
>:| Blackstone In America
>:|
>:| Lectures by An English Lawyer
>:| Become The Blueprint for a
>:| New Nation's Laws and Leaders
>:|
>:| by Greg Bailey (Early American Review, Spring 1997)
>:|
*********************************************************************************
Another view, from a previous discussion with another
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 06:01:38 GMT
"Brian Carey" <car...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>:|3. The pertinent part reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
>:|establishment of religion."
>:| The verbiage in the legal vernacular of the
>:|time clearly reflects a prohibition against the establishment of a national
>:|church.
>:| See Blackstone's 4th Volume of his commentaries on the laws of
>:|England (published a decade or so before the Constitutional Convention), in
>:|which he uses the terms "national church," "our present establishment," and
>:|"the national religion" interchangeably. See pp. 49, 52, & 53 of vol 4,
>:|assuming that you have the facsimile of the original.
>:|
>:|4. The framers themselves spoke of an "establishment" as an establishment
>:|of a national Christian church. See Henry Abbott's comment to James Iredell
>:|on July 30, 1788: "Many wish to know what religion shall be established... I
>:|am for my part against against any exclusive establishment, but if there
>:|were any, I would prefer the Episcopal." The context is a discussion
>:|concerning the ban on religious tests in the Constitution.
>:| The First Amendment prohibts the establishment of a national
>:|church, it does _not_ remove every vestige of religion from government.
====================================================================
REBUTTAL #15
=====================================================================
THE RIGHTS OF THE COLONISTS AND A LIST OF
INFRINGEMENTS AND VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS, (Boston) 1772
Commentary
As the conflict between the colonies and the mother country grew In
intensity during the next decade, the focus of resistance centered in
Massachusetts, with Samuel Adams and his Sons of Liberty playing a dominant
role in radicalizing that Colony. In 1772, the new Governor of
Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson, announced that his salary and those of
Massachusetts judges would thenceforth be paid by the Crown. This was
bitterly opposed by the colonists, for it would render the officials
concerned free from local control. At Boston Town Meeting, the Governor was
questioned about the matter and replied in a letter that said, in effect,
that it was none of the colonists' business. Adams then moved that a
Committee of Correspondence be appointed "to state the Rights of the
Colonists and of this Province in particular, as men, as Christians, and as
subjects; and to communicate the same to the several towns in this
Province, and to the World." The Committee prepared a report in two parts:
the first the Rights of the Colonists, the second a List of Infringements
and Violations of Rights. Sam Adams himself played the major role in the
draft of this document.
The Boston document is noteworthy as an indication of the rights
considered fundamental by the colonists on the eve of the Revolution,
stated both in affirmative form (in the Rights of the Colonists) and in
negative form (in the List of Infringements). Among the rights stated as
fundamental are ones which have recurred in earlier Colonial documents:
freedom of conscience; the right to "all the natural essential, inherent
and inseparable Rights Liberty, and Privileges of Subjects born in Great
Britain"; the right not to have troops quartered without consent:';their
inestimable right to tryals by Juries."
Even more significant is the assertion of rights not previously
provided for in Colonial Charters, enactments, and Declarations. Foremost
among these is the right against unreasonable searches and seizures that
was to ripen into the Fourth Amendment. This was apparently the first
legislative assertion of the right and is explained by the abuses suffered
by the colonists from writs of assistance and general warrants, under which
"Officers . .. break thro' the sacred rights of the Domicil, ransack men's
houses, destroy their securities, carry off their property, and ... commit
the most horred murders." In addition, the right of the colonists to Life,
Liberty, and Properly is declared in ringing terms. This was, of course,
the Lockean trilogy later to be protected by perhaps the most important
provision of the Bill of Rights--the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment. Also stated was a right to be free from the attempts "which
have been made and are now making to establish an American Espiscopate."
Here we have for the first time an assertion of a right to be free of a
particular established Church. This was to develop into the general
prohibition against an establishment of religion in the First Amendment.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Roots of The Bill Of Rights, Bernard Schwartz,
Edwin D. Webb, Professor of Law, New York University, Vol. I, Chelsea House
Publishers, New York, (1980) pp 199-200)
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Post history from http://x30.deja.com/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=478522087&CONTEXT=927050848.1254031372&thitnum=4
>:|
>:| Blackstone In America
>:|
>:| Lectures by An English Lawyer
>:| Become The Blueprint for a
>:| New Nation's Laws and Leaders
>:|
>:| by Greg Bailey (Early American Review, Spring 1997)
>:|
*********************************************************************************
Another view, from a previous discussion with another
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 06:01:38 GMT
"Brian Carey" <car...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>:|3. The pertinent part reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
>:|establishment of religion."
>:| The verbiage in the legal vernacular of the
>:|time clearly reflects a prohibition against the establishment of a national
>:|church.
>:| See Blackstone's 4th Volume of his commentaries on the laws of
>:|England (published a decade or so before the Constitutional Convention), in
>:|which he uses the terms "national church," "our present establishment," and
>:|"the national religion" interchangeably. See pp. 49, 52, & 53 of vol 4,
>:|assuming that you have the facsimile of the original.
>:|
>:|4. The framers themselves spoke of an "establishment" as an establishment
>:|of a national Christian church. See Henry Abbott's comment to James Iredell
>:|on July 30, 1788: "Many wish to know what religion shall be established... I
>:|am for my part against against any exclusive establishment, but if there
>:|were any, I would prefer the Episcopal." The context is a discussion
>:|concerning the ban on religious tests in the Constitution.
>:| The First Amendment prohibts the establishment of a national
>:|church, it does _not_ remove every vestige of religion from government.
====================================================================
REBUTTAL #16
=====================================================================
least to 1599 according to the Oxford English Dictionary.
There are various meanings given to the word by the late 1700's. Some
refer to churches or religion, others do not. An institution is one type of
meaning and or legal support, protection, benefits, recognition or
acknowledgement, etc, by the state/Government, of a religion, church,
sect, denomination, is another type of meaning.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY--1776
(in regards to religion only)
XIX. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this
Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of
this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on
account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a
belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves
peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of
being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of
either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every
privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then of course, one has to look at the man who introduced the wording that
first contained any form of the word we are now dealing with. He introduced
the word established.
He relied on the Va Declaration of Rights and Va Constitution,
constitutions from several other states, published records of the debates
in the various state ratifying conventions, and one would have to assume
his own beliefs and experiences to formulate the wording of the various
amendments he proposed to the Congress.
I have never run across any reference to him using anything thoughts,
expressions, writings, etc by Blackstone in this process.
Someone else already responded to you offering the Jefferson rejection of
Blackstone, at least in regards to his, "Christianity is part and parcel of
the English Common Law," thinking. Let me just add to that, Jefferson was
not the only one who did not hold Blackstone in some sort of special high
regard. There were others who looked down upon Blackstone trained lawyers
[Blackstone trained meaning read Blackstone for some or most of their law
background, etc]
Most if not all who studied law prior to 1767-1770 were not exposed to
Blackstone in any great degree. After 1770, the numbers would increase. I
would suggest you might want to check out the ages of the lawyers who made
up the first Congress, and especially those who actually debated the
proposed wording for the religious clauses. That might at least give you a
starting point.
====================================================================
Mike Curtis
>====================================================================
>REBUTTAL #16
>=====================================================================
I can't help but notice that the title of this thread has also been
distorted all out of shape. Not by you at all. But suddenly we have
Blackstone in a thread that was originally mean to discuss Locke and
the Calvinistic Theories of Resistance. Whew!
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|
>:|
>:|>====================================================================
>:|>REBUTTAL #16
>:|>=====================================================================
>:|
>:|I can't help but notice that the title of this thread has also been
>:|distorted all out of shape. Not by you at all. But suddenly we have
>:|Blackstone in a thread that was originally mean to discuss Locke and
>:|the Calvinistic Theories of Resistance. Whew!
>:|
>:|
Yep, but we must remember that according to someone, BLackstone, along with
just about anyone else would habe been parrots of Calvin, and let's not
forget Luther.
And on the eigthth day God created Luther and Calvin.