| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
13 Nov 2003 06:09:17 AM |
| Object: |
Re: church/state seperation |
(Ryanshort1) wrote:
:|If he does somehow get a political office out of this, you can be that
:|it is in an attempt to right the wrongs that are clearly being done
:|now. And believe me, I know some folks who are in AL with the CJ now
:|and he is one genuine fellow. You did bring up a good point- that the
:|definitions of words used such as "church", "religion", "Congress",
:|and "separation" have a lot to do with this battle. The documents (The
:|US and AL constitutions) clearly use some "religious" terminology and
:|or refer to documents that clearly appeal to Almighty God for the
:|source of their rights, authority, and jurisdiction to create those
:|very documents, and the position that those opposed to Judge Moore is
:|very disturbing. They believe in a very dangerous evolving view of the
:|Constitution and other documents that (as seen now) twists their
:|original meanings completely around and is being used exactly opposite
:|to what the Founding Fathers would have meant.
:|BTW. An interesting site related to this issue is at
:|www.visionforum.org
As or more interesting is the following:
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
Christian Orthodoxy And The Founders
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/orthodox.htm
The word Religion does not mean Christian.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/minor.htm
**************************
OCTOBER 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions, etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more
adapted to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory between
the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has been made by
a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently distinguish the
nature of the one acquisition from that of the other, and seems to imply
that the acquisition from France was wholly on the other side of the
Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor. The
jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will be
less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
[The principle referred to above was the principle of Church (religion)
state (govt) separation.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see Ford,
VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty from the
Kaskaskia Indians; see
Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian treaty
requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the stipulations
in the treaty to "the competence of both
houses.... as soon as the senate shall have advised its ratification"; see
ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Oct.
1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.],
The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison, 1776- 1826, Edited by James Morton Smith, Vol. II, 1790
-1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London, (1995) pp 1297-98)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and
Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm
and
************************************************************
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmadison.htm
----------------------------------------
OCTOBER 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions, etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more
adapted to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory between
the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has been made by
a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently distinguish the
nature of the one acquisition from that of the other, and seems to imply
that the acquisition from France was wholly on the other side of the
Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor. The
jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will be
less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
[The principle referred to above was the principle of Church (religion)
state (govt) separation.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see Ford,
VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty from the
Kaskaskia Indians; see
Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian treaty
requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the stipulations
in the treaty to "the competence of both
houses.... as soon as the senate shall have advised its ratification"; see
ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Oct.
1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.],
The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison, 1776- 1826, Edited by James Morton Smith, Vol. II, 1790
-1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London, (1995) pp 1297-98)
---------------------------------------------------
JUNE 3, 1811
"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I
have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the
Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem
Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical
distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the
purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,
I could not have other wise discharged my duty on the
occasion which presented itself"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June
3, 1811. 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)
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 2, 1819
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excert of a letter to Robert Walsh from James
Madison. MARCH 2, 1819 Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
----------------------------------------------------------
1817-1833
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished
in their short history"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda. This
document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a
biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand
sometime between 1817 and 1832. The entire document was published by
Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
JULY 10, 1822
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Edward Livingston from James
Madison, July 10, 1822. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 273-276. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 1833
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to
trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil
authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on
unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other
or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded
against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way
whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting
each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others".
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper
Adams, September, 1833.Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard Hunt,
[not sure what the volume number is but have enough information presented
here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488. )
*********************************************************************
Some Thoughts on Religion and Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bthot-lr.htm"
.
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
29 Nov 2003 12:10:57 AM |
|
|
He was not "the people." He was "a person."
The 2nd amendment doesn't identify any right of any person(s), but
only a right of the "people".
No objection from me.
Only losers are tried for violations of the law of conscience. Might
makes right in international law,
Wrong.
"Right makes might, not might makes right"
Harold Hongju Koh, International Law Professor, Yale University
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
29 Nov 2003 09:17:35 AM |
|
|
(ambrose searle) wrote:
He was not "the people." He was "a person."
The 2nd amendment doesn't identify any right of any person(s), but
only a right of the "people".
No objection from me.
Only losers are tried for violations of the law of conscience. Might
makes right in international law,
Wrong.
"Right makes might, not might makes right"
Harold Hongju Koh, International Law Professor, Yale University
Much as I think that the US is one of the more virtuous among nations,
I don't think that our might comes from anything other than our size
and the ensuing resources, coupled with the million people that died
when some tried to split the country into pieces, a bloody total that
no doubt has deterred others who might otherwise have tried. (I think
the Union was in the "right" too, but they again won because of
resources rather than virtue.)
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
29 Nov 2003 05:02:27 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message news:<iudhsvgn7gnolknsbqah3li2ion9kt90q1@4ax.com>...
ambrosesearle@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
He was not "the people." He was "a person."
The 2nd amendment doesn't identify any right of any person(s), but
only a right of the "people".
No objection from me.
Only losers are tried for violations of the law of conscience. Might
makes right in international law,
Wrong.
"Right makes might, not might makes right"
Harold Hongju Koh, International Law Professor, Yale University
Much as I think that the US is one of the more virtuous among nations,
No way, Jose. I just don't buy your Marxist approach to morality:
whoever has the biggest stick, makes the rules.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
29 Nov 2003 05:19:47 PM |
|
|
(ambrose searle) wrote:
Bob LeChevalier < > wrote in message news:<iudhsvgn7gnolknsbqah3li2ion9kt90q1@4ax.com>...
(ambrose searle) wrote:
Only losers are tried for violations of the law of conscience. Might
makes right in international law,
Wrong.
"Right makes might, not might makes right"
Harold Hongju Koh, International Law Professor, Yale University
Much as I think that the US is one of the more virtuous among nations,
No way, Jose. I just don't buy your Marxist approach to morality:
whoever has the biggest stick, makes the rules.
I don't care whether you "buy" it. Nor did I claim that it is moral;
indeed, it is quite thoroughly amoral despite the claims of Bush and
company. Reality has its way of going blindly along without giving a
damn whether we think it is moral or not.
Unless I specifically say that I approve of something or agree with
something, don't presume that I do. On the Internet, I post data, not
opinions; I share that "vice" with jalison.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
29 Nov 2003 11:19:01 PM |
|
|
On the Internet, I post data, not
opinions; I share that "vice" with jalison.
ROTFLMAO!
Allison has never posted an opinion about me, has he??
Still LOL.
Do you realize how stupid you look when you say make such false assertions.
Searle
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
27 Nov 2003 04:03:05 AM |
|
|
On 26 Nov 2003 18:18:28 -0800, (ambrose
searle) wrote:
There is nothing in the 2'nd amendment that expresses that idea.
It's a simple matter of understanding the history and context of the
2nd amendment. Similarly, "Separation of Church and State" are not the
precise words of the 1st amendment, but it is the STATED PURPOSE of
it.
It's a simple matter of being educated.
It is a simple matter of lying. The 2'nd amendment says nothing to
support that idea, but you more than implied that it specifically
supported it.
Are you truly that hardheaded?
The idea that the 2nd amendment was written to protect the people from
the power of the central government is agreed to be the thrust of the
2nd amendment, both by Alan Keyes on the Right, AND the ACLU on the
left. That kind of agreement is rare, and only seen in the cases where
the issue is a NO-BRAINER!
The fact remains that you lied about what the amendment said.
KEYES: http://www.renewamerica.tv/archives/media/interviews/00_01_25hardball.htm
ACLU:
http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html
Do you believe that Separation of Church and State is one of the
stated purposes of the 1st amendment?
No
Hmmmm... well, I think you are wrong. I think that the 1st amendment
does explicitly separate church and state.
I figured you would try for a distortion of what I said here. The
1'st amendment forbids the government from promoting any religion or
taking a position on the validity of any religion. The phrase
"separation of church and state" is not in the amendment and is often
misused.
I believe you were lying when you implied that the 2'nd amendment
said or implied anything about overthrowing the government. The words
are not there and you will find no court decision to support your
interpretation.
As I said above, it's simply common knowledge, and promoted by the
most credentialed constitutional scholars:
It is common knowledge here that you lied. You are now in the process
of distorting what your claim was originally. The amendment refers to
the need of a well ordered militia for the protection of a free state
not the overthrow of a state.
I will educate you.
No thank you. I find your constant lying and distortions of truth to
be tedious.
snip
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
27 Nov 2003 10:52:03 AM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<r2dbsv0tkaigd0nocde5i1o181jhr2ff3q@4ax.com>...
The fact remains that you lied about what the amendment said.
The wording of an amendment and what it says are not synonymous.
The first amendment says that church and state are to be separated,
the explicity wording does not include that precise phrase.
Do you believe that Separation of Church and State is one of the
stated purposes of the 1st amendment?
No
Hmmmm... well, I think you are wrong. I think that the 1st amendment
does explicitly separate church and state.
I figured you would try for a distortion of what I said here. The
1'st amendment forbids the government from promoting any religion or
taking a position on the validity of any religion. The phrase
"separation of church and state" is not in the amendment and is often
misused.
Are you one of David Barton's followers (cf. "the Myth of
Separation")?
As I said above, it's simply common knowledge, and promoted by the
most credentialed constitutional scholars:
It is common knowledge here that you lied. You are now in the process
of distorting what your claim was originally. The amendment refers to
the need of a well ordered militia for the protection of a free state
not the overthrow of a state.
Protection from what? The founders were clear: 1) protection from
external invaders, AND 2) protection against tyrants who may have the
reigns of our government.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
I will educate you.
No thank you.
I didn't think you had any interest in learning. Continue in your
ignorance, then.
Searle
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
27 Nov 2003 02:10:07 PM |
|
|
On 27 Nov 2003 08:52:03 -0800, (ambrose
searle) wrote:
tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk wrote in message news:<r2dbsv0tkaigd0nocde5i1o181jhr2ff3q@4ax.com>...
The fact remains that you lied about what the amendment said.
The wording of an amendment and what it says are not synonymous.
First of all you claimed words that were not in it. Secondly the
amendment contradicts your interpretation of it.
The first amendment says that church and state are to be separated,
the explicity wording does not include that precise phrase.
There is a state. Where is the church that is to be separated from
it?
Do you believe that Separation of Church and State is one of the
stated purposes of the 1st amendment?
No
Hmmmm... well, I think you are wrong. I think that the 1st amendment
does explicitly separate church and state.
I figured you would try for a distortion of what I said here. The
1'st amendment forbids the government from promoting any religion or
taking a position on the validity of any religion. The phrase
"separation of church and state" is not in the amendment and is often
misused.
Are you one of David Barton's followers (cf. "the Myth of
Separation")?
As I said above, it's simply common knowledge, and promoted by the
most credentialed constitutional scholars:
It is common knowledge here that you lied. You are now in the process
of distorting what your claim was originally. The amendment refers to
the need of a well ordered militia for the protection of a free state
not the overthrow of a state.
Protection from what? The founders were clear: 1) protection from
external invaders, AND 2) protection against tyrants who may have the
reigns of our government.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
Perhaps because the amendment specifically says that the militia is
for the protection of the state. It says exactly the opposite of why
you are claiming for it.
I will educate you.
No thank you.
I didn't think you had any interest in learning. Continue in your
ignorance, then.
In short I will not buy your silly lies.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
27 Nov 2003 09:28:24 PM |
|
|
tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk wrote in message news:<r2dbsv0tkaigd0nocde5i1o181jhr2ff3q@4ax.com>...
The fact remains that you lied about what the amendment said.
The wording of an amendment and what it says are not synonymous.
First of all you claimed words that were not in it.
Which words did I claim were in it? Please provide a cite to that
post.
Secondly the
amendment contradicts your interpretation of it.
"My" interpretation? or the interpretation of the preponderance of
Constitutional Scholars?
The first amendment says that church and state are to be separated,
the explicity wording does not include that precise phrase.
There is a state. Where is the church that is to be separated from
it?
Man, you really aren't educated are you?
The church that they had in mind is the 3rd Presbyterian Church of
Dubuque, Iowa.
Protection from what? The founders were clear: 1) protection from
external invaders, AND 2) protection against tyrants who may have the
reigns of our government.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
Perhaps because the amendment specifically says that the militia is
for the protection of the state. It says exactly the opposite of why
you are claiming for it.
The security of a state can be threatened from without or within. When
the founders of the U.S., who were British citizens, took up arms
against Britain, they felt they were protecting their own state.
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God, they said. We must be
willing to protect our country from our government they said.
I will educate you.
No thank you.
I didn't think you had any interest in learning. Continue in your
ignorance, then.
In short I will not buy your silly lies.
Everything I have said to you is documented.
Searle
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
28 Nov 2003 01:37:13 AM |
|
|
On 27 Nov 2003 19:28:24 -0800, (ambrose
searle) wrote:
tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk wrote in message news:<r2dbsv0tkaigd0nocde5i1o181jhr2ff3q@4ax.com>...
The fact remains that you lied about what the amendment said.
The wording of an amendment and what it says are not synonymous.
First of all you claimed words that were not in it.
Which words did I claim were in it? Please provide a cite to that
post.
Secondly the
amendment contradicts your interpretation of it.
"My" interpretation? or the interpretation of the preponderance of
Constitutional Scholars?
Please name one court case in which armed insurrection was found to be
a constitutional right. The entire concept is absurd.
The first amendment says that church and state are to be separated,
the explicity wording does not include that precise phrase.
There is a state. Where is the church that is to be separated from
it?
Man, you really aren't educated are you?
The church that they had in mind is the 3rd Presbyterian Church of
Dubuque, Iowa.
In other words you have no answer. Your phony sarcasm does not hide
that.
Protection from what? The founders were clear: 1) protection from
external invaders, AND 2) protection against tyrants who may have the
reigns of our government.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
Perhaps because the amendment specifically says that the militia is
for the protection of the state. It says exactly the opposite of why
you are claiming for it.
The security of a state can be threatened from without or within.
Yes, by rebellion for example.
When
the founders of the U.S., who were British citizens, took up arms
against Britain, they felt they were protecting their own state.
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God, they said. We must be
willing to protect our country from our government they said.
They may have said many things. The amendment in question does not
give people the right of insurrection.
I will educate you.
No thank you.
I didn't think you had any interest in learning. Continue in your
ignorance, then.
In short I will not buy your silly lies.
Everything I have said to you is documented.
Distortions are also lies. Your lie about Moore was based on
documented quotes for example.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
29 Nov 2003 12:35:51 AM |
|
|
Secondly the
amendment contradicts your interpretation of it.
"My" interpretation? or the interpretation of the preponderance of
Constitutional Scholars?
Please name one court case in which armed insurrection was found to be
a constitutional right. The entire concept is absurd.
Insofar as many Supreme Court cases acknowledge the legitimacy,
authority, and national foundation of the U.S.: The Declaration of
Independence, each of those cases implicitly acknowledged the right to
"alter or abolish" any government that becomes destructive of the ends
for which it exists.
Do you want me to cite the number of S.C. cases that cite the DOI as a
legitimate authority?
The first amendment says that church and state are to be separated,
the explicity wording does not include that precise phrase.
There is a state. Where is the church that is to be separated from
it?
Man, you really aren't educated are you?
The church that they had in mind is the 3rd Presbyterian Church of
Dubuque, Iowa.
In other words you have no answer. Your phony sarcasm does not hide
that.
The "church" that is separated from the state are religious
institutions in general.
Please tell me that you knew that already. Please.
The security of a state can be threatened from without or within.
Yes, by rebellion for example.
Or, as Supreme Court Chief Justice Joseph Story said, from a tyrant.
When
the founders of the U.S., who were British citizens, took up arms
against Britain, they felt they were protecting their own state.
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God, they said. We must be
willing to protect our country from our government they said.
They may have said many things. The amendment in question does not
give people the right of insurrection.
The right to alter or abolish any government which is destructive of
the ends for which Government is created among men is fundamental to
our constitution.
It is a right stated in the Declaration of Independence. The Second
Amendment was written with the same concept in view.
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before
them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must
be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their
power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed
by the next article [2nd Amendment] in their right to keep and bear
their private arms."
Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal
Constitution, Moved on the 8th Instant in the House of
Representatives, Fed. Gazette & Phila. Evening Post, June 18, 1789.
Searle
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
29 Nov 2003 10:38:10 AM |
|
|
(ambrose searle) wrote:
:|Do you want me to cite the number of S.C. cases that cite the DOI as a
:|legitimate authority?
Legitimate authority for what? BTW what exactly does legitimate authority
mean and how does that stack up with legal authority
One does have to ask since you do so enjoy playing little word games.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have cited one case that might or might not be actual authority, of any
kind, in the case of the DOI and that involves only one thing: alienage
:|"Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote in message
:|> Searle, you tried to pull a fast one and got caught. In effect, the DoI
:|> has NO binding legal force except in ONE case --- alienage. The
:|> Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Accept it and try to get your
:|> life in order.
:|
:|Even if it has binding legal force in "just one case," than that is
:|one case, and the fact remains that it has been accorded binding legal
:|force by the Supreme Court. Accept it and take some ritalin.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The constitutional and legal status of the Declaration of
Independence is curiously ambiguous.
John Hancock (in his capacity as president of the Second Continental
Congress) and James Madison both considered it to be, in Madison's words,
"the fundamental Act of Union of these States."
Reflecting that view, Congress has placed it at the head of
the United States Code, under the caption, "The Organic Laws of the United
States of America."
The Supreme Court has INFREQUENTLY accorded it binding legal force, for
example, in resolving questions of alienage (Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's
Snug Harbour, 1830).
YET LAWYERS GENERALLY, AND THE SUPREME COURT IN PARTICULAR,
HAVE BEEN RELUCTANT TO TREAT THE DECLARATION AS PART OF AMERICAN
ORGANIC LAW, OR EVEN TO ACCORD IT THE RESTRICTED STATUS OF THE PREAMBLE TO
THE CONSTITUTION.
Conservatives like Daniel Webster denied that there is a constitutionally
recognized right of revolution, and those state supreme courts that have
addressed the issue in the twentieth century have adopted Webster's view.
Reformers, such as antebellum abolitionists, insisted that the
Declaration was part of the constitutional order, while their opponents,
including John C. Calhoun, denigrated its authority and validity.
The adoption of the 'Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments allayed the
urgency of that question by incorporating concepts of equality, freedom,
and citizenship into the operative constitutional text.
SOURCE: The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United
States, Kermit Hall, editor (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992),
p. 223,
***********************************
Concluding Remarks: The Declaration in Modern Context
What place does the Declaration of independence have in modern political
discourse? Is it a basis for the formulation of law and public policy? Are
its principles still binding? Are its themes preserved in the Constitution?
Does it aid in interpreting the religion clauses? What does it contribute
to the debate over original intent?
The first thing that can clearly be stated about the Declaration is that it
is not law. That is, none of its provisions can be law unless enacted into
law. The Declaration is inspiring, but its most inspirational parts today
remain in the realm of politics, not law. It mostly represents a ringing
statement of political philosophy from a past age. The Declaration did not
purport to create a new government or to enact any new laws. The bulk of it
is exactly what it claimed to be: an announcement to the world of American
reasons for renouncing its ties to Great Britain. New governments and new
laws were created later-in state constitutions and the Articles of
Confederation.
The present Constitution depends on the Declaration's theory that the
people are empowered to alter their form of government. The Constitution
was not ratified under the procedures for amending the Articles of
Confederation but instead by a new and independent act of the American
people. . .
Constitutional interpretation is aided little by the Declaration. The
thirteen years between the adoption of the Declaration and the ratification
of the Constitution was a period of intense political change. The
Declaration's loose, free-wheeling philosophy of the people's "rights,"
preserved to a large degree in the Articles of Confederation, gradually
gave way to the Constitution's more structured framework that was necessary
to support a strong national government. . . .
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Religion and the Continental
Congress, 1774-1789, Contributions to original Intent. Derek H. Davis.
Oxford University Press, (2000) pp 112-113)
*********************************
The Nature of legal Authority
Legal authority is any published source of law setting forth legal rules,
legal doctrine, or legal reasoning that can be used as a basis for
legal decisions.
When the term is used to describe types of information, legal authority
can be categorized as PRIMARY or SECONDARY. Primary authorities are
authorized statements of the law by governmental institutions (it is the
law)
Secondary authorities are statements ABOUT the law, and is not the law,
per se.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Fundamentals of Legal Research, 5th Edition, J.
Myron Jacobstein, Roy M. Mersky, University Textbook Series.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Type of Primary Authority
(2) When and Where Mandatory
(3)When and Where Persuasive
___________________________________________________________ _____________
(1) U.S. Constitution
(2) Always mandatory on all federal and state courts (and Local courts)
(3) N/A
____________________________________________________________
(1) U.S. Supreme Court decision interpreting and applying federal law
(2) Always mandatory on all federal and state courts (and local courts)
(3)N/A
___________________________________________________________
(1) Federal statute*
(2) Always mandatory on all federal and state courts (and local courts)
(3)N/A
___________________________________________________________
(1) Federal administrative regulation**
(2) Always mandatory on all federal and state courts (and local courts)
(3) N/A
______________________________________________________________
(1) U.S. Court of Appeals decision Interpreting and applying federal law
(2) Always mandatory on federal courts within the jurisdictional
boundaries of the Court of Appeals issuing the decision
(3) May be regarded as persuasive by federal and state courts that
do not need to treat the decision as mandatory (would apply as well to
local courts)
________________________________________________________________
(1) U.S. District Court decision interpreting and applying federal
law
(2) Always mandatory on specialized lower federal courts, if any,
within the jurisdictional boundaries of the District Court issuing
the decision and over which the District Court has appellate
jurisdiction
(3) May be regarded as persuasive by federal and state courts that
do not need to treat the decision as mandatory (would apply to local
courts as well)
_________________________________________________________________
(1) State constitution***
(2) Always mandatory on all state courts within the given state (and local
courts)
(3) N/A
_________________________________________________________________
(1) Decision of a state's highest court interpreting and applying
that state's law***
(2) Always mandatory on all lower state courts within the given
state (and local courts)
(3) May be regarded as persuasive by federal and state courts
that do not need to treat the decision as mandatory
___________________________________________________________________
(1) Decision of a state's intermediate appellate court interpreting
and applying that state's law
(2)Always mandatory on all lower state courts within the jurisdictional
boundaries of the intermediate appellate court issuing the decision; (and
local courts)
in some states, may also be mandatory on lower state courts outside
those jurisdictional boundaries (and local courts)
(3) May be regarded as persuasive by federal and state courts that
do not need to treat the decision as mandatory
____________________________________________________________________
(1) State statute#
(2) Always mandatory on all state courts within the given state (and local
courts)
(3) N/A
_____________________________________________________________________
(1) State administrative regulation##
(2) Always mandatory on all state courts within the given state (and local
courts)
(3) N/A
_____________________________________________________________________
The additional comments in the following footnotes bear only on the
validity of the authority, not on its mandatory or persuasive character:
* Assuming there is no conflict with the U.S. Constitution
** Assuming there is no conflict with the U.S. Constitution or a federal
statute
***Assuming there is no conflict with the U.S. Constitution, a federal
statute, or federal administrative law
# Assuming there is no conflict with the U.S. Constitution, a federal
statute, federal administrative law, or that state's constitution
## Assuming there is no conflict with the U.S. Constitution, a federal
statute, federal administrative law, that state's constitution, Or
any of that state's statutes
Source:
THE LEGAL RESEARCH MANUAL, A Game Plan For Legal Research and Analysis, By
Christopher G. Wren & Jill Robinson Wren, Pages 42-43
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
29 Nov 2003 09:30:12 AM |
|
|
(ambrose searle) wrote:
Secondly the
amendment contradicts your interpretation of it.
"My" interpretation? or the interpretation of the preponderance of
Constitutional Scholars?
Please name one court case in which armed insurrection was found to be
a constitutional right. The entire concept is absurd.
Insofar as many Supreme Court cases acknowledge the legitimacy,
authority, and national foundation of the U.S.: The Declaration of
Independence, each of those cases implicitly acknowledged the right to
"alter or abolish" any government that becomes destructive of the ends
for which it exists.
Show any case that specifically mentions that as a "right".
If such had really been acknowledged, I'm sure that the lawyers for
McVeigh and other militia types in the past would have used it and
gotten something citeable.
Do you want me to cite the number of S.C. cases that cite the DOI as a
legitimate authority?
No, because even if your number was correct, it would not be relevant.
You have to show that they agree that this particular principle is in
the DofI AND that they agree that the principle citeable precedent
during the constitutional era.
In other words you have no answer. Your phony sarcasm does not hide
that.
The "church" that is separated from the state are religious
institutions in general.
Please tell me that you knew that already. Please.
Define "religious institution" in a way that is not circular. This of
course requires a definition of "religious", something that the USSC
has eschewed.
The security of a state can be threatened from without or within.
Yes, by rebellion for example.
Or, as Supreme Court Chief Justice Joseph Story said, from a tyrant.
But can the US (or any state) security be threatened by a tyrant,
given our system of checks and balances?
The Confederacy felt that Lincoln would be a tyrant and they seceded.
They lost, and no court ever acknowledged their right to rebel, and
their states were reconstructed during and after the war.
BTW, whether you argue "right makes might" or "might makes right", the
Confederacy lost, and therefore were not mighty enough, and therefore
were not "right" enough in their claim of the right to rebel; that
logic works which ever way you prefer the adage to work.
They may have said many things. The amendment in question does not
give people the right of insurrection.
The right to alter or abolish any government which is destructive of
the ends for which Government is created among men is fundamental to
our constitution.
The only way authorized in the Constitution to do so is by a
convention of at least 3/4 of the states.
It is a right stated in the Declaration of Independence. The Second
Amendment was written with the same concept in view.
So you claim, but there is a different interpretation which is more
consistent with present law.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
29 Nov 2003 05:05:00 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message news:<65ehsvcktrcfallc65jclsh7eetv3t7ehu@4ax.com>...
ambrosesearle@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
Secondly the
amendment contradicts your interpretation of it.
"My" interpretation? or the interpretation of the preponderance of
Constitutional Scholars?
Please name one court case in which armed insurrection was found to be
a constitutional right. The entire concept is absurd.
Insofar as many Supreme Court cases acknowledge the legitimacy,
authority, and national foundation of the U.S.: The Declaration of
Independence, each of those cases implicitly acknowledged the right to
"alter or abolish" any government that becomes destructive of the ends
for which it exists.
Show any case that specifically mentions that as a "right".
The American Revolution, 1775-1783
That's what it was all about.
If, like the Tories of that time, you wish to suggest that the
Revolution was illegitimate, feel free to apply for citizenship under
the Queen in the U.K.... I imagine she'll probably have you...
But do keep in mind that there is no separation of Church and State in
England.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
29 Nov 2003 02:12:44 AM |
|
|
On 28 Nov 2003 22:35:51 -0800, (ambrose
searle) wrote:
Secondly the
amendment contradicts your interpretation of it.
"My" interpretation? or the interpretation of the preponderance of
Constitutional Scholars?
Please name one court case in which armed insurrection was found to be
a constitutional right. The entire concept is absurd.
Insofar as many Supreme Court cases acknowledge the legitimacy,
authority, and national foundation of the U.S.: The Declaration of
Independence, each of those cases implicitly acknowledged the right to
"alter or abolish" any government that becomes destructive of the ends
for which it exists.
Do you want me to cite the number of S.C. cases that cite the DOI as a
legitimate authority?
No, I want you to name one court case in which armed insurrection was
found to be a constitutional right.
The first amendment says that church and state are to be separated,
the explicity wording does not include that precise phrase.
There is a state. Where is the church that is to be separated from
it?
Man, you really aren't educated are you?
The church that they had in mind is the 3rd Presbyterian Church of
Dubuque, Iowa.
In other words you have no answer. Your phony sarcasm does not hide
that.
The "church" that is separated from the state are religious
institutions in general.
No, the amendment does not talk about institutions or an institution.
It is religion that is mentioned.
Please tell me that you knew that already. Please.
You are a pretentious, lying *****.
snip
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
29 Nov 2003 10:04:39 AM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<q5lgsvsp9c3cem15kqa8d3oi8saiquib9r@4ax.com>...
On 28 Nov 2003 22:35:51 -0800, (ambrose
searle) wrote:
Secondly the
amendment contradicts your interpretation of it.
"My" interpretation? or the interpretation of the preponderance of
Constitutional Scholars?
Please name one court case in which armed insurrection was found to be
a constitutional right. The entire concept is absurd.
Insofar as many Supreme Court cases acknowledge the legitimacy,
authority, and national foundation of the U.S.: The Declaration of
Independence, each of those cases implicitly acknowledged the right to
"alter or abolish" any government that becomes destructive of the ends
for which it exists.
Do you want me to cite the number of S.C. cases that cite the DOI as a
legitimate authority?
No, I want you to name one court case in which armed insurrection was
found to be a constitutional right.
Your logic is awful. There have been no Supreme Court cases that have
determined the third amendment (the prohibition against quartering
troops during peacetime) is a constitutional right.
Do you throw that out the window too?
The founders unanimously believed that the right to alter or abolish a
government that is destructive of the peoples' divine rights, is a
DIVINE RIGHT as well.
No court has ever said "the argument of the Declaration of
Independence is null and void." On the contrary, the DOI is cited in
court opinions frequently as the foundation of our national existence.
Man, you really aren't educated are you?
The church that they had in mind is the 3rd Presbyterian Church of
Dubuque, Iowa.
In other words you have no answer. Your phony sarcasm does not hide
that.
The "church" that is separated from the state are religious
institutions in general.
No, the amendment does not talk about institutions or an institution.
It is religion that is mentioned.
"the *establishment* of religion"
Apparently you don't know what that phrase meant to the founders.
What was an "establishment of religion?"
Historically, it meant a state church like the Church of England.
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.' 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.".
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."
(Religious Liberty And The Secular State, the Constitutional Context,
by John Swomley, pages 48-49)
Please tell me that you knew that already. Please.
You are a pretentious, lying *****.
You seem to not be able to rise above insults.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Violent Christians (was Re: church/state seperation) |
30 Nov 2003 03:10:21 AM |
|
|
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
The founders unanimously believed that the right to
alter or abolish a government that is destructive of
the peoples' divine rights, is a DIVINE RIGHT as
well.
George Washington, who presided over our constitutional convention,
Totally disagreed with your nonsense. He and the other founding
fathers strove to produce a constitution that did away with the need
for revolutions -- by granting the people to alter that very constitution.
Alterting or abolishing a CONSTITUTIONAL government, in the eyes
of our founders, could only be done within the terms/limitations
provided by the constitution:
"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make
and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution
which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act
of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea
of the power and the right of the people to establish government
presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established
government."
You have a SACRED obligation to the constitution, according to
our founding fathers....
"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the
constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by
an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let
there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may
be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free
governments are destroyed."
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Proprclr" |
|
| Title: Re: Violent Christians (was Re: church/state seperation) |
05 Dec 2003 12:21:00 PM |
|
|
To get off topic here, any violent goon that comes after me, Christain or not,
might have to meet Mr. Glock and Mr. Remington.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Violent Christians (was Re: church/state seperation) |
05 Dec 2003 01:29:02 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:21:00 -0600, Proprclr wrote:
To get off topic here, any violent goon that comes after me, Christain or
not,
might have to meet Mr. Glock and Mr. Remington.
Wow!
That's certainly witty!
Well, maybe halfway.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
I think the boy/girl/thing just fell
off the turnip wagon earlier today.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
29 Nov 2003 12:07:04 PM |
|
|
(ambrose searle aka richard Gardiner) wrote:
:|"the *establishment* of religion"
Actually, "respecting" an establishment of religion
:|Apparently you don't know what that phrase meant to the founders.
:|
:|What was an "establishment of religion?"
:|Historically, it meant a state church like the Church of England.
Not in this country which is after all what we are talking about:
Here are some clues (grin)
1771
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."' 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 establishedchurch.
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 to 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.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The First Freedoms, Church and State in America to
the Passage of the First Amendment. Thomas J. Curry. Oxford University
Press. (1986) pp 105 - 107)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of the word "establishment" in the First Amendment is
unique to constitutions of this period. No state constitution used this
particular term, preferring to make specific provisions which prohibited
tax monies for churches, discrimination against minority sects, and other
measures which might establish a church. The use of the vague term in the
Bill of Rights indicates the belief that the national government had no
power in these specific areas, so that a general prohibition towards
matters of religion was sufficient.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Religion Under State Constitutions, John K. Wilson.
Journal Of Church and State, Volume 32, Autumn 1990, Number 4, pp 753-773.)
==========================================================
"Congress (which now means any level of government) shall make no law
RESPECTING (touching, helping, supporting touching upon, touching, aiding,
hindering, applying to, have to do with, etc) an ESTABLISHMENT
(institution) of RELIGION (any religious sect, society, denomination,
religion), . . . "
The use of public monies, the taxing of individuals to support religion was
considered a form of religious establishment at the time of the founding of
this nation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Hamilton defined establishment of religion as the government
support and protection
of religion.
"Remarks on the Quebec Bill," in Hamilton Papers, 1:169-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
''[F]or the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment the
'establishment' of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and
active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity."
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/02.html#1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the eleven states that ratified the First 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 and violated its free
exercise.(78) Some had done so from their earliest foundations; some
arrived at that stance after the American Revolution. The Maryland
constitution permitted a general assessment to support religion, but
Marylanders firmly rejected a proposal to enact one. Of the ratifying
states, only Vermont and New Hampshire adhered to the view that states
could or should provide for tax-supported religion. On a whole range of
other applications, however, Americans inherited traditions of government
interference in religious matters.
The meaning of free exercise of religion and establishment of
religion in 1789 must be examined within the historical matrix that
produced these concepts. just as Puritan demands for religious liberty take
on a different hue when seen against the pattern of Puritan belief, and
just as the sweeping proclamations of anti-subscriptionists of the
seventeenth century were not at all what they seemed on their face, so the
meaning of the First Amendment must arise out of its historical context
rather than from a literalist reading. It meant at least this: that each
citizen had a right to the free exercise of his or her religion as long as
it did not "break out into overt acts against peace and order." Further,
the people of almost every state that ratified the First Amendment believed
that religion should be maintained and supported voluntarily. They saw
government attempts to organize and regulate such support as a usurpation
of power, as a violation of liberty of conscience and free exercise of
religion, and as falling within the scope of what they termed an
establishment of religion.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The First Freedoms, Church and State in America to
the Passage of the First Amendment. Thomas J. Curry. Oxford University
Press. (1986) pp 202 - 222)
===========================================================
" 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."
(The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment, By Leonard W
Levy, page 146-147)
==========================================================
BACKGROUND COMMENTARY
" 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 been 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,
Anton Phelps Stokes, D.D., LL.D, Harper & Brothers Publishers (1950) page
527)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
o James Madison And National Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madnational.htm
Ahhhh, how nice, you even used one of my usual examples. isn't that sweet
of you?
:|
:|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.' 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.".
:|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."
:|
:|(Religious Liberty And The Secular State, the Constitutional Context,
:|by John Swomley, pages 48-49)
**************************
Now for Ambrose Searle AKA Richard Gardiner's rambling discourse I add
this:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
(Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dave Thompson" said to another but it can be applied to Ambrose Searle
AKA Richard Gardiner as well
Ummmm, you are a historical troll that has been posting this dreck for a
while now. It doesn't matter if you stopped for a while or not. None of
your posts are new, they're just the same thing you've posted before and
have been shown to be baseless. You obviously don't like it when you've
been caught right in the beginning. I'm sure it won't stop you but at least
it serves notice to others that aren't familiar with you who they are
dealing with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take anything that Ambrose Searle aka Richard Gardiner types with a grain
of salt. As he has demonstrated time and time again in the past of several
years ago, the past of a year and half ago and finally quite recently,
truth and him with regards to posting are not on speaking terms.
MY EVIDENCE:
*************************
Gardiner AKA Searle's church state posting history covering 3-99 to 902,
5/02 - 7/02 and this current year
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N16F22596
http://snurl.com/2ws8
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q54F21596 (up to date as of 11/18/03)
*************************
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I2AF32596
http://snurl.com/2wsb
*************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
29 Nov 2003 05:26:44 PM |
|
|
(ambrose searle) wrote:
Do you want me to cite the number of S.C. cases that cite the DOI as a
legitimate authority?
No, I want you to name one court case in which armed insurrection was
found to be a constitutional right.
Your logic is awful. There have been no Supreme Court cases that have
determined the third amendment (the prohibition against quartering
troops during peacetime) is a constitutional right.
Do you throw that out the window too?
The founders unanimously believed that the right to alter or abolish a
government that is destructive of the peoples' divine rights, is a
DIVINE RIGHT as well.
Who cares whether they so believed? They did not write any such thing
into the constitution and indeed explicitly wrote against
establishments of religion. A legal recognition of a divine right
would be an establishment of religion.
No court has ever said "the argument of the Declaration of
Independence is null and void." On the contrary, the DOI is cited in
court opinions frequently
"Frequently", my eyebrow.
Meanwhile, I suspect that Shakespeare is cited even more, and yet we
don't consider the bard to be a legal authority.
The "church" that is separated from the state are religious
institutions in general.
No, the amendment does not talk about institutions or an institution.
It is religion that is mentioned.
"the *establishment* of religion"
AN establishment of religion.
Apparently you don't know what that phrase meant to the founders.
What was an "establishment of religion?"
Historically, it meant a state church like the Church of England.
In the context of Madison's remonstrance, and other versions of the
amendment that were debated, it is quite clear that they did not
merely mean a "state church", because they chose not to say merely
that.
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.
That is three meanings already.
Clearly the latter is the relevant one for American law.
Please tell me that you knew that already. Please.
You are a pretentious, lying *****.
You seem to not be able to rise above insults.
You seem to be unable to rise above insultable levels of discourse.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
29 Nov 2003 05:40:35 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:hdaisvsjr3kj214mcflduu4mjku9747182@4ax.com...
ambrosesearle@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
Do you want me to cite the number of S.C. cases that cite the DOI as a
legitimate authority?
No, I want you to name one court case in which armed insurrection was
found to be a constitutional right.
Your logic is awful. There have been no Supreme Court cases that have
determined the third amendment (the prohibition against quartering
troops during peacetime) is a constitutional right.
Do you throw that out the window too?
The founders unanimously believed that the right to alter or abolish a
government that is destructive of the peoples' divine rights, is a
DIVINE RIGHT as well.
Who cares whether they so believed?
For starters everyone who knows better. Including the USSC as what the
founders thought is of prime importance when interpreting the Constitution
when cases are bought before the USSC.
They did not write any such thing
into the constitution and indeed explicitly wrote against
establishments of religion. A legal recognition of a divine right
would be an establishment of religion.
But yet that is exactly what are founders believed, and under which they
wrote our Constitution, under the basis that our rights do not come from
men, or man made constructs, but our rights come from above and beyond the
control of man.
No court has ever said "the argument of the Declaration of
Independence is null and void." On the contrary, the DOI is cited in
court opinions frequently
"Frequently", my eyebrow.
Your denial is nothing new.
The "church" that is separated from the state are religious
institutions in general.
No, the amendment does not talk about institutions or an institution.
It is religion that is mentioned.
"the *establishment* of religion"
Apparently you don't know what that phrase meant to the founders.
What was an "establishment of religion?"
Historically, it meant a state church like the Church of England.
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.
Please tell me that you knew that already. Please.
You are a pretentious, lying *****.
You seem to not be able to rise above insults.
--
"Nietzsche said that G-D is dead, but G-d says that Nietzsche is dead!"
-Anonymous
--
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
29 Nov 2003 11:33:38 PM |
|
|
The founders unanimously believed that the right to alter or abolish a
government that is destructive of the peoples' divine rights, is a
DIVINE RIGHT as well.
Who cares whether they so believed? They did not write any such thing
into the constitution
Your thick headedness on the second amendment is not going to change
the reality of it.
The following cannot be ignored:
1. Professor Sanford Levinson (Ph.D. Harvard, J.D., Stanford) of the
University of Texas, said:
"the Second Amendment was created because people believed guns
provided an important way of protecting their liberty against the
potential tyranny of government."
http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/faculty/sl1/profile.htm
http://www.rice.edu/projects/reno/rn/20021205/guncontrol.html
See also, Sanford Levinson, THE EMBARRASSING SECOND AMENDMENT, Yale
Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659.
2. Hon. Congressman Bernard Sanders, formerly on the faculty of
Harvard University, who wishes to repeal the 2nd Amendment:
"One of the founding principles of the Revolution had been that the
people had the right to overthrow the government if they believed it
to be unworthy. One of the most effective means to overthrow the
government was, of course, with firearms and so the Second Amendment
was born."
http://www.house.gov/bernie/town_meeting/1997/daniel_luzor.html
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=S000033
3. Scott Bursor, lawyer and editor of the legal journal, Texas Law
Review, who is on the other side of the issue, writes:
"The belief that an armed citizenry would subdue aggressive rulers and
keep them sensitive to the rights of the people was perhaps the most
important motivation for the inclusion of the right to keep and bear
arms in the Constitution. Thus, the continued vitality of an armed
populace as a check on the modern state should have important
implications on our interpretation of the Second Amendment."
74 Texas Law Rev. 1125-1151 (1996).
5. Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, wrote:
"The next amendment is '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.' ... The right of the citizens to keep
and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the
liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against
the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even
if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to
resist and triumph over them."
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,
Vol. 3 at pp. 746-747 (1833).
6. Alan Keyes (Ph.D. Harvard University), who disagrees with Levinson
and Sanders, wrote--
"It is right there in the Declaration that if a government becomes
subversive of liberty, and in the end a design is evinced to destroy
the liberty of the people, 'they have the right,' he said, 'they have
the duty'--okay?--'to alter or abolish it.' And that means that
ultimately the people of the country are the arbiters. And they must
be prepared to defend themselves if push comes to shove. That is why
the Second Amendment is there. We can be timid about it if we like,
but that is the truth of it."
http://www.renewamerica.us/keyes/whois.htm
http://www.renewamerica.tv/archives/media/interviews/00_01_25hardball.htm
4. This is how the Second Amendment was defended by its supporters in
1789!!--
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before
them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must
be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their
power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed
by the next article [2nd Amendment] in their right to keep and bear
their private arms."
Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal
Constitution, Moved on the 8th Instant in the House of
Representatives, Fed. Gazette & Phila. Evening Post, June 18, 1789.
A legal recognition of a divine right
would be an establishment of religion.
A legal denial of divine rights would be an admission that the
American Revolution, and thus, the United States as a nation, was
illegitimate.
This point is fully proven by Dr. Gerber,
http://www.nyupress.org/product_info.php?products_id=1103
No court has ever said "the argument of the Declaration of
Independence is null and void." On the contrary, the DOI is cited in
court opinions frequently
"Frequently", my eyebrow.
Thanks to Jim Allison, this is a demonstrable fact:
1793
Chisholm v. State of Ga., 2 U.S. 419 (1793)
1796
Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199 (1796)
1824
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)
1830
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830)
1837
Mayor, Aldermen And Commonalty of City of New York v., 36 U.S. 102
(1837)
Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors Of, 36 U.S. 420
(1837)
1838
State of Rhode Island v. Com. Of Massachusetts, 37 U.S. 657 (1838)
1841
The Amistad, 40 U.S. 518 (1841)
1847
Waring v. Clarke, 46 U.S. 441 (1847)
Thurlow v. Com of Mass, 46 U.S. 504 (1847)
1849
Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849)
Smith v. Turner, 48 U.S. 283 (1849)
1872
In Re Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)
1879
Ex Parte State of Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1879)
1882
U S v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882)
1885
Ex Parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417 (1885)
Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U.S. 487 (1885)
1886
Mackin v. U S, 117 U.S. 348 (1886)
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
1888
In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888)
1891
Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U.S. 240 (1891)
1893
Monongahela Nav. Co. v. U S, 148 U.S. 312 (1893)
Hill v. U. S., 149 U.S. 593 (1893)
1894
Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1 (1894)
1895
Sparf v. U. S., 156 U.S. 51 (1895)
1896
Hamilton v. Brown, 161 U.S. 256 (1896)
Lowe v. State of Kansas, 163 U.S. 81 (1896)
1897
Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 (1897)
1898
Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, 170 U.S. 283 (1898)
Ely's Adm'r v. U. S., 171 U.S. 220 (1898)
1899
Missouri, K. & T. Trust Co. v. Krumseig, 172 U.S. 351 (1899)
Merrill v. National Bank of Jacksonville, 173 U.S. 131 (1899)
1900
Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581 (1900)
Contzen v. U S, 179 U.S. 191 (1900)
State of Missouri v. State of Illinois, 180 U.S. 208 (1900)
| | | | | | | | | | |
