| 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: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
02 Dec 2003 12:09:17 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34OdnTgt9YFQuVGiRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote
Is that you have no idea of our history and what bought
about our founding
The first blatantly obvious fact
Is that you have no idea of what you are talking about.
But below is what you cannot refute, and it states very clearly that it is
our duty to abolish our government when it no longer has our interests in
mind.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to
which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect
to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes
which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure
these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed
for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn,
that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than
to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide
new Guards for their future security.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
02 Dec 2003 02:51:04 PM |
|
|
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote
But below is what you cannot refute, and it states very clearly
that it is our duty to abolish our government when it no longer
has our interests in mind.
The first blatantly obvious fact that you're ignoring is that
the Declaration of Independence came more than a decade
before our constitutional government, and they did some
thinking during those years.
Seriously.
The second blatantly obvious fact that you're ignoring is that,
had the English crown granted the rights in our constitution,
there wouldn't have been a revolution. The crown simply did
not offer any alternatives to a revolution.
The third blatantly obvious fact that you're ignoring is the
constitution itself. It does provide an alternative.
The fourth blatantly obvious fact that you're ignoring is the words
of the "founding fathers" themselves. Take George Washington,
for example, who addressed your brand of corruption in his
farewell address. It's a bit lengthy, and no doubt will prove to be
too much for one so intellectually challenged as yourself:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
02 Dec 2003 07:34:22 AM |
|
|
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote:
But below is what you cannot refute, and it states very clearly that it is
our duty to abolish our government when it no longer has our interests in
mind.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to
which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect
to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes
which impel them to the separation.
...
Main Entry: re·fute
Pronunciation: ri-'fyüt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): re·fut·ed; re·fut·ing
Etymology: Latin refutare to check, suppress, refute
Date: 1597
1 : to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2 : to deny the truth or accuracy of <refuted the allegations>
- re·fut·able /-'fyü-t&-b&l/ adjective
- re·fut·ably /-blE/ adverb
- re·fut·er noun
Since the D of I is a statement of opinion, and opinions by their
nature cannot be "proven" wrong or false or erroneous, because one is
not required to opine logically, meaning 2 must be the appropriate
definition applicable to your usage.
That being the case, by the fact that JTEM stated that
The second blatantly obvious fact that you're ignoring is that,
had the English crown granted the rights in our constitution,
there wouldn't have been a revolution. The crown simply did
not offer any alternatives to a revolution.
It is quite apparent that JTEM *does* "deny the truth or accuracy of"
the D of I. Furthermore s/he denies that it is true or accurate for
the later time when the constitution was in effect:
The first blatantly obvious fact that you're ignoring is that
the Declaration of Independence came more than a decade
before our constitutional government, and they did some
thinking during those years.
The third blatantly obvious fact that you're ignoring is the
constitution itself. It does provide an alternative.
Therefore in fact by the definition of the word, JTEM has indeed
"refuted" the quoted text.
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 |
02 Dec 2003 08:17:39 AM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:or4psv8m6jhju32fgigfkp71htd3cjb0ke@4ax.com...
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote:
But below is what you cannot refute, and it states very clearly that it
is
our duty to abolish our government when it no longer has our interests in
mind.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people
to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and
to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to
which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent
respect
to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes
which impel them to the separation.
...
Since the D of I is a statement of opinion,
Wrong again bob,
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
03 Dec 2003 06:25:23 PM |
|
|
It is quite apparent that JTEM *does* "deny the truth or accuracy of"
the D of I.
If so, in 1776, he would have been known as a "Tory," a "Loyalist," a
"traitor to the United States."
Tar & Feathers was usually the antidote.
My sense is that DPR realizes that someone can refuse to acknowledge
the truth as set forth in the Declaration of Independence (as King
George III did), but to do so is not only irrational, but also
fundamentally unAmerican.
Thus, the Supreme Court said:
"It is to be remembered, that the government of the United States is
based on the principles promulgated in the Declaration of
Independence, by the congress of 1776; 'that all men are created
equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness; and that to secure these rights, governments are
instituted.'" (Amistad, 1841).
and that the
"Declaration of Independence, which was the first political act of the
American people in their independent sovereign capacity, lays the
foundation of our National existence" (Slaughterhouse, 1872).
etc.
Probably one of the silliest arguments that you and Allison have ever
tried to make is that the Declaration of Independence is not the birth
certificate of the United States.
I look forward to your response in which you make this silly argument
one more time.
Searle
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
03 Dec 2003 10:20:33 PM |
|
|
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
If so, in 1776, he would have been known as a "Tory," a
"Loyalist," a "traitor to the United States."
Actually, people who know for certain what torrow will
bring are you described as "prophets," not "Traitors."
1776 came & left. The world didn't stand still in 1776 and
neither did the "Founding Fathers" you so enjoy
misrepresenting. They responded to an unjust, tyrannical
government the only way they could, back in 1776, and more
than 10 years later they produced a new government that
rendered such measures obsolete.
They moved on, and so should you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
04 Dec 2003 08:11:02 PM |
|
|
1776 came & left. The world didn't stand still in 1776 and
neither did the "Founding Fathers" you so enjoy
misrepresenting. They responded to an unjust, tyrannical
government the only way they could, back in 1776, and more
than 10 years later they produced a new government that
rendered such measures obsolete.
LOL. In 1787 the founders executed another revolution: they altered
and even abolished the form of government provided under the articles
of Conf.
The very act of the Constitutional Convention was a revolutionary act.
Searle
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
05 Dec 2003 12:36:27 AM |
|
|
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
LOL. In 1787 the founders executed another revolution: they
altered and even abolished the form of government provided
under the articles of Conf.
They held a constitutional convention, if that's what you mean.
The very act of the Constitutional Convention was a
revolutionary act.
You're being dishonest. The new constitution was not a given. Each
and every state had to ratify it on it's own. At best, the constitutional
convention resulted in a proposal which was then left for the states
to adopt or reject.
Once again, you misrepresent the facts in order to promote your
agenda.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
05 Dec 2003 11:00:12 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<o5CdnYyFres2u02iRVn-sA@comcast.com>...
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
LOL. In 1787 the founders executed another revolution: they
altered and even abolished the form of government provided
under the articles of Conf.
They held a constitutional convention, if that's what you mean.
And it was viewed by many of the founders as an overthrow of the
Articles of Confederation whereas it was only given the power to
propose "revisions" thereto, viz., it was an illegal and
unconstitutional measure. Why do you think they went to such great
measures to keep the convention secretive, clandestine, and private?
http://www.hfac.uh.edu/gl/usconst3.htm
The very act of the Constitutional Convention was a
revolutionary act.
You're being dishonest.
Nope, just relaying what the Chairman of the Constitutional Convention
said.
http://www.hfac.uh.edu/gl/usconst3.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
05 Dec 2003 04:30:03 PM |
|
|
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
They held a constitutional convention, if that's what you mean.
And it was viewed by many of the founders as an overthrow of the
Articles of Confederation
No it wasn't. All the constitutional convention managed to produce
was a proposal that was then sent to the states to be voted on. They
didn't overthrow anything. They proposed that the states reject one
form of government and adopt another, but the convention itself did
not alter the government.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
09 Dec 2003 05:46:25 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<m9mdnfOkisC3m0yiRVn-jg@comcast.com>...
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
They held a constitutional convention, if that's what you mean.
And it was viewed by many of the founders as an overthrow of the
Articles of Confederation
No it wasn't. All the constitutional convention managed to produce
was a proposal that was then sent to the states to be voted on. They
didn't overthrow anything.
Let me get you straight: do you reject Allison's silly argument that
an entirely new nation was created by the U.S. Constitution? Or do you
maintain that the constitution was an evolutionary development in the
foundation of the United States which originated in 1776?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
09 Dec 2003 06:26:50 PM |
|
|
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
No it wasn't. All the constitutional convention managed to
produce was a proposal that was then sent to the states to
be voted on. They didn't overthrow anything.
Let me get you straight: do you reject Allison's silly argument that
an entirely new nation was created by the U.S. Constitution?
The new government was created by the states, as they ratified the
new constitution.
*Duh*!
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
10 Dec 2003 02:29:32 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Ge6dnXHUu9AR-kuiRVn-sQ@comcast.com>...
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
No it wasn't. All the constitutional convention managed to
produce was a proposal that was then sent to the states to
be voted on. They didn't overthrow anything.
Let me get you straight: do you reject Allison's silly argument that
an entirely new nation was created by the U.S. Constitution?
The new government was created by the states, as they ratified the
new constitution.
What happened to the old government? You said nothing was overthrown.
*Duh*!
That's what I expected you to say.
Searle
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
12 Dec 2003 09:49:52 AM |
|
|
(ambrose searle aka richard gadiner) wrote:
:|What happened to the old government? You said nothing was overthrown.
:|
:|> *Duh*!
:|
:|That's what I expected you to say.
:|
:|Searle aka Gardiner
It ceased to exist as you already know dippy.
Let me get this straight: Are you saying that when the Articles of
Confederation were framed and finally passed the intent was that they would
serve as a step between what came before and what was already in the
planning stage of what would come later, i.e. the real government?
Just for you a present, this is the gift giving season:
**************************************************
------------------------------------------------
I'll give you another history text in response. The Oxford History of
the US: The Glorious Cause, by Robert Middlekauff, is considered one
of the best books on the Revolutionary War period. From the beginning
of Chapter 26:
"What had happened in the Constitutional Convention? A fairly common
opinion in 1787 had it that there had been a withdrawal of the
original commitment to the principles of the American Revolution.
Those of this persuasion pointed out that the Constitution virtually
destroyed the old Confederation of sovereign states and replaced it
with what they called "consolidated" government. In this government,
power and sovereignty lay at the center - not in the individual
states. In the year following the close of the federal Convention
there were to be many variations on the meaning of consolidation."
That was the opinion at the time - the author then goes on to pose
some alternative interpretations that came later, mostly in terms of
providing checks and balances against the tyranny of the majority.
But nowhere is "states' rights" a significant issue.
**************************************************
Madison left Annapolis an ardent convert to the idea of a
convention. He stopped off at Mount Vernon to recruit Washington to the
proposal-it was the beginning of along wooing process that would finally
break down Washington's reluctance to leave Mount Vernon. Madison had
completed his three years of rotation out from the Continental Congress,
and he returned to it now with a determination to head off any objections
to the convention. Congress authorized the meeting, but only for proposing
amendments to the Articles (which, remember, required ratification by all
the states in the confederation). By now, Madison had larger purposes in
mindand that was clear to Washington, who realized that if anything
effectual were to be done, it would have to break the terms of the
Articles.1 Among the many reasons Washington had for resisting the project,
this was the greatest-it would involve its participants in the breaking of
their oaths of allegiance to the Articles. That was-in one plausible
interpretation of what they were up to treason. We call the meeting in
Philadelphia, retrospectively, the Constitutional Convention, since it
produced a new constitution. Its participants could not have called it
that, since they could not admit they were up to any such nefarious
business. While the meeting was being held, "the constitution" was still
the word regularly used for the Articles. What they were holding was really
an anticonstitutional convention.
If other delegates, less clearheaded than Washington, showed up at
Philadelphia in 1787 unaware of the meeting's subversive nature, they had a
rude awakening when Edmund Randolph presented the "Virginia Plan" for
consideration. This was based on a draft by Madison, and it recommended
abrogation of the Articles, not amendment of them. For a start, it proposed
that a new constitution must be ratified by special conventions, not by
state legislatures (the only means allowed under the Articles). Even more
stunning, the federal government would be empowered to veto laws passed by
state legislatures, a denial of the state sovereignty expressly reserved in
the Articles (10.16-17). The pretense that this was a plan to "correct" the
Articles was transparently false. The convention had to go into secret
session, and remain there for its whole time of meeting. It even had to
move to the second floor of the State House, so no one could overhear what
they were doing. (The delightful musical 1776 errs when it has the tense
debates take place in the downstairs legislative chamber, with the windows
wide open.) If the state legislatures that had sent these delegates found
out what was going on, they would have recalled them for breaking their
instructions.
Against a drumbeat of criticism directed at "the dark conclave,"
Washington himself, as presiding officer, strictly monitored the secrecy
provision until the final document was released, and the delegates scuttled
nervously away from the scene of the crime. Critics of the document were
probably right when they said that the members of the convention would have
been denounced for treason had not "great names" given them
cover-Franklin's name and, especially, Washington's. It would take great
temerity to call them enemies of their country. One of Madison's greatest
services to America was his help in ensuring Washington's attendance at the
convention. He negotiated the matter with great delicacy. When Washington
turned down a first request that he attend, Madison cooperated with Edmund
Randolph (then the governor of Virginia) to appoint the general as leader
of the Virginia delegation. He urged Washington, even if he did not plan to
accept the offer, not to reject it immediately, in case some emergency
should arise that would make him reconsider (9.224). Madison knew that if
Washington's name were standing as the presumed head of delegation, that
might convince other states that this was a serious endeavor. If this ploy
did not work, the convention would be called off, and Washington would not
have committed himself to a failure. If, on the other hand, other states
came aboard (and Madison was working in Congress to bring that about), this
fact could be reported to Washington as a spur for his attendance (9.31 S).
SOURCE: James Madison Garry Wills Times Books, (2002) pp. 25-26
****************************************
And to go along with that:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y2B312AC6
There was a thread a couple of threads that ran in Usenet June?july 2003
one being Subject: Re: Is God a Part of U.S. History? A person can look
them up on Google for the details, especially paying attention to the posts
by Martin McPhillips and any and all replies back to him.
Probably a dozen or more different people made the valid case, usually
using evidence, documenting the founding of this nation including the
rejection of the old and establishment of the new with the Constitution of
1787.
One can also do a Google search looking for Richard Gardiner in the time
period of 3-99 to 9-00 and find him making the same invalid points that
McPhillips has made and the same basic evidence being offered showing how
incorrect he is.
However, this isn't about real discussions, this is about Richard Gardiner
AKA Ambrose Searle employing his M.O. that he so dearly loves which is fine
so long as those who decidce to "play" with him knowns ahead of time,
serious valid discussions are not part of the package with Gardiner AKA
Searle.
SEE:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C32312AC6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
12 Dec 2003 02:14:39 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 9:49:52 -0600, wrote
(in message <psojtv048gqom7gmv5g8710s4mvaa12hlo@4ax.com>):
Let me get this straight: Are you saying that when the Articles of
Confederation were framed and finally passed the intent was that they would
serve as a step between what came before and what was already in the
planning stage of what would come later, i.e. the real government?
Well, actually (in a psychopathic sort of way), the XIX Amendment (and all
the stuff in between) had beern planned by Virginia Dare but then she up and
run off with that Iroquois Traveling Salesman who was selling tobacco off
from the reservation with no taxes.
So all those wars and documents and riots and deaths and such were - in the
mind of Virginia Dare - solely for the purpose of female suffrage and to slap
John Knight upside his head.
This must be true cuz no one has ever disproved it.
Gray Shockley
-----------------------------------------
That I can remember, anyway.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
12 Dec 2003 07:47:54 AM |
|
|
(ambrose searle) wrote:
:|Let me get you straight: do you reject Allison's silly argument that
:|an entirely new nation was created by the U.S. Constitution? Or do you
:|maintain that the constitution was an evolutionary development in the
:|foundation of the United States which originated in 1776?
Let me get this straight: Are you saying that when the Articles of
Confederation were framed and finally passed the intent was that they would
serve as a step between what came before and what was already in the
planning stage of what would come later, i.e. the real government?
Just for you a present, this is the gift giving season:
**************************************************
------------------------------------------------
I'll give you another history text in response. The Oxford History of
the US: The Glorious Cause, by Robert Middlekauff, is considered one
of the best books on the Revolutionary War period. From the beginning
of Chapter 26:
"What had happened in the Constitutional Convention? A fairly common
opinion in 1787 had it that there had been a withdrawal of the
original commitment to the principles of the American Revolution.
Those of this persuasion pointed out that the Constitution virtually
destroyed the old Confederation of sovereign states and replaced it
with what they called "consolidated" government. In this government,
power and sovereignty lay at the center - not in the individual
states. In the year following the close of the federal Convention
there were to be many variations on the meaning of consolidation."
That was the opinion at the time - the author then goes on to pose
some alternative interpretations that came later, mostly in terms of
providing checks and balances against the tyranny of the majority.
But nowhere is "states' rights" a significant issue.
**************************************************
Madison left Annapolis an ardent convert to the idea of a
convention. He stopped off at Mount Vernon to recruit Washington to the
proposal-it was the beginning of along wooing process that would finally
break down Washington's reluctance to leave Mount Vernon. Madison had
completed his three years of rotation out from the Continental Congress,
and he returned to it now with a determination to head off any objections
to the convention. Congress authorized the meeting, but only for proposing
amendments to the Articles (which, remember, required ratification by all
the states in the confederation). By now, Madison had larger purposes in
mindand that was clear to Washington, who realized that if anything
effectual were to be done, it would have to break the terms of the
Articles.1 Among the many reasons Washington had for resisting the project,
this was the greatest-it would involve its participants in the breaking of
their oaths of allegiance to the Articles. That was-in one plausible
interpretation of what they were up to treason. We call the meeting in
Philadelphia, retrospectively, the Constitutional Convention, since it
produced a new constitution. Its participants could not have called it
that, since they could not admit they were up to any such nefarious
business. While the meeting was being held, "the constitution" was still
the word regularly used for the Articles. What they were holding was really
an anticonstitutional convention.
If other delegates, less clearheaded than Washington, showed up at
Philadelphia in 1787 unaware of the meeting's subversive nature, they had a
rude awakening when Edmund Randolph presented the "Virginia Plan" for
consideration. This was based on a draft by Madison, and it recommended
abrogation of the Articles, not amendment of them. For a start, it proposed
that a new constitution must be ratified by special conventions, not by
state legislatures (the only means allowed under the Articles). Even more
stunning, the federal government would be empowered to veto laws passed by
state legislatures, a denial of the state sovereignty expressly reserved in
the Articles (10.16-17). The pretense that this was a plan to "correct" the
Articles was transparently false. The convention had to go into secret
session, and remain there for its whole time of meeting. It even had to
move to the second floor of the State House, so no one could overhear what
they were doing. (The delightful musical 1776 errs when it has the tense
debates take place in the downstairs legislative chamber, with the windows
wide open.) If the state legislatures that had sent these delegates found
out what was going on, they would have recalled them for breaking their
instructions.
Against a drumbeat of criticism directed at "the dark conclave,"
Washington himself, as presiding officer, strictly monitored the secrecy
provision until the final document was released, and the delegates scuttled
nervously away from the scene of the crime. Critics of the document were
probably right when they said that the members of the convention would have
been denounced for treason had not "great names" given them
cover-Franklin's name and, especially, Washington's. It would take great
temerity to call them enemies of their country. One of Madison's greatest
services to America was his help in ensuring Washington's attendance at the
convention. He negotiated the matter with great delicacy. When Washington
turned down a first request that he attend, Madison cooperated with Edmund
Randolph (then the governor of Virginia) to appoint the general as leader
of the Virginia delegation. He urged Washington, even if he did not plan to
accept the offer, not to reject it immediately, in case some emergency
should arise that would make him reconsider (9.224). Madison knew that if
Washington's name were standing as the presumed head of delegation, that
might convince other states that this was a serious endeavor. If this ploy
did not work, the convention would be called off, and Washington would not
have committed himself to a failure. If, on the other hand, other states
came aboard (and Madison was working in Congress to bring that about), this
fact could be reported to Washington as a spur for his attendance (9.31 S).
SOURCE: James Madison Garry Wills Times Books, (2002) pp. 25-26
****************************************
And to go along with that:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y2B312AC6
There was a thread a couple of threads that ran in Usenet June?july 2003
one being Subject: Re: Is God a Part of U.S. History? A person can look
them up on Google for the details, especially paying attention to the posts
by Martin McPhillips and any and all replies back to him.
Probably a dozen or more different people made the valid case, usually
using evidence, documenting the founding of this nation including the
rejection of the old and establishment of the new with the Constitution of
1787.
One can also do a Google search looking for Richard Gardiner in the time
period of 3-99 to 9-00 and find him making the same invalid points that
McPhillips has made and the same basic evidence being offered showing how
incorrect he is.
However, this isn't about real discussions, this is about Richard Gardiner
AKA Ambrose Searle employing his M.O. that he so dearly loves which is fine
so long as those who decidce to "play" with him knowns ahead of time,
serious valid discussions are not part of the package with Gardiner AKA
Searle.
SEE:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C32312AC6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
12 Dec 2003 01:14:52 PM |
|
|
(aanonymous) wrote:
Let me get you straight: do you reject Allison's silly argument that
an entirely new nation was created by the U.S. Constitution?
Well, sorta, but not completely. I reject all the "silly" parts but
completely embrace all those positions which an intellegent and truly wise
person wouold take based upon a consensus of wisdom and a consultation with
the Magic 8 Ball.
Or do you
maintain that the constitution was an evolutionary development in the
foundation of the United States which originated in 1776?
No. But, then, do you honestly and truly believe that a flashlight provides
illumination or that a darksucker banishes darkness. [Gulliver would have
expostulated on this but he owned stock in a candle corporation and had
refused to buy stock in MagLite when it was going for 8.6).
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 7:47:54 -0600, wrote:
Let me get this straight: Are you saying that when the Articles of
Confederation were framed and finally passed the intent was that they would
serve as a step between what came before and what was already in the
planning stage of what would come later, i.e. the real government?
No. That would be downright silly to anyone who is not a conscious pawn of
the chess-playing Illuminati ("Illuminati", of course, being a conspiracy
involving all of the people one doesn't like and none of the people one does
like.)
--------------------------------------------------------
The big advanatage of "theorizing" inexact conclusions from imprecise
premises is that one can't be proved wrong as this would involve -
essentially - proving a negative (which is against my religion {and a tip of
the hat to Lois McMaster Bujold})
A much more convincing (and, to me, realistic) view of history is that - as
highly-paid civilians and high-ranking officers state - "Excrement Occurs".
[It is quite easy to surmise what this school of history is known as but,
since it's naughty and shouldn't be stated bluntly in a forum in which "The
family that reads groups together consists of all wackos", let's go to a more
polite theory.
Welcome to Charles Fort, food eater and air breather:
"It steam engines when it comes steam engine time".
I submit that this is a totally unassailable position ranking right up there
with "Air is good" and "If the sun had exploded today, all of our plans would
have to be changed".
--------------------------------------------------------
"So, in conclusion" [this phrase is used by Protestant ministers to signify
that s/he/it is just getting into the sermon and there's a /lot/ more to
come] let us look, again, at these musical questions.
1. >>>> Let me get you straight: do you reject Allison's silly argument that
an entirely new nation was created by the U.S. Constitution?
2. >>>> Or do you
maintain that the constitution was an evolutionary development in the
foundation of the United States which originated in 1776?
3. > Let me get this straight: Are you saying that when the Articles of
Confederation were framed and finally passed the intent was that they would
serve as a step between what came before and what was already in the
planning stage of what would come later, i.e. the real government?
Now, let's see if we can treat these three whatevertheyares as one group
rather than three separate statements.
Is there any are of commonality between them?
Well, yes, asa matter of fact ("fact" being what I see, half-truths, lies and
distortion, being what "you" (the impersonal "you", of course) see.
None of these three stastements is based on "fact" but based on how one
defines and interprets events and surmises what people thought a long time
ago based on, apparently, astrology and The Will to Power.
That is to say, who gives a rat's posterior.
A buncha stuff happened, people did things and these things caused other
things to happen and, I betcha, not a single participant would recognize
those three "statements" as anything but something about which to argue
incessantly cuz there are no "answers" but only only definitions and
opinions.
It should be obvious to anyone why Jefferson, Washington, Burr, Madison and
all their finely-feathered friends used aliases when they went up on - as
they called it in those days - UseLessNet.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
Articles - poof!
Constitution - poof!
Bill of Rights - poof!
Eveyone should believe in soimething,
I believe I'll have another gin and tonic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
12 Dec 2003 08:21:30 AM |
|
|
wrote:
(The delightful musical 1776 errs when it has the tense
debates take place in the downstairs legislative chamber, with the windows
wide open.) If the state legislatures that had sent these delegates found
out what was going on, they would have recalled them for breaking their
instructions.
Just as a note about this, as evidenced by the title, "1776" is
entirely about the Declaration and not the Constitutional Convention.
I haven't heard anything that says that the DofI was debated upstairs.
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: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
05 Dec 2003 05:57:51 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote:
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
They held a constitutional convention, if that's what you mean.
And it was viewed by many of the founders as an overthrow of the
Articles of Confederation
No it wasn't. All the constitutional convention managed to produce
was a proposal that was then sent to the states to be voted on. They
didn't overthrow anything. They proposed that the states reject one
form of government and adopt another, but the convention itself did
not alter the government.
Searle is technically correct here, because the mechanism for amending
the Articles of Confederation required unanimous approval, whereas the
Constitution was considered ratified when only 9 states had approved
it. The convention was indeed viewed by many to be illegitimate, but
the Confederation Congress chose to hold its collective nose and pass
it to the states for their decision.
In Jackson Turner Main's book THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS - CRITICS OF THE
CONSTITUTION 1781-1788 on page 126 we find this:
All of these things taken together, the Antifederalists asserted,
proved that the Constitution created not a federation but a
consolidated government,* and if this were so, the members of the
Philadelphia Convention had violated their instructions. The vast
changes which the Constitution represented were authorized neither by
the letter nor the spirit of these instructions; indeed, to alter the
general frame of government was precisely what many of the delegates
had been forbidden to do. Here was no mere revision, no mere reform of
the old, but the imposition of "a new political fabric, essentially
and fundamentally distinct," no federation of states, but "a
consolidation of them into one government." The convention had acted
illegally.**
* see Farrand, ed Records of the Federal Convention, III, 192.
** See Farrand, ed., Records of the Federal Convention, III, 560-86
and Elliot, ed., Debates, IV, 203.
Thus, relative to the then-existing system of government, the
Constitutional convention instituted a bloodless revolution.
ON THE OTHER HAND, Searle has in prior discussions argued against
jalison's and my statements to this effect, in support of his claims
that the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution marked
the founding of this nation. Thus you are correct as to his
dishonesty.
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: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
05 Dec 2003 07:36:00 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:lh52tv0s6ps4f146q7srtich0328hdbkp1@4ax.com...
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote:
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
They held a constitutional convention, if that's what you mean.
And it was viewed by many of the founders as an overthrow of the
Articles of Confederation
No it wasn't. All the constitutional convention managed to produce
was a proposal that was then sent to the states to be voted on.
They
didn't overthrow anything. They proposed that the states reject one
form of government and adopt another, but the convention itself did
not alter the government.
Searle is technically correct here, because the mechanism for
amending
the Articles of Confederation required unanimous approval, whereas
the
Constitution was considered ratified when only 9 states had approved
it. The convention was indeed viewed by many to be illegitimate,
but
the Confederation Congress chose to hold its collective nose and
pass
it to the states for their decision.
Typical of Bob's ignorant rube commentary. There's no evidence
that the Confederation Congress "h[e]ld its collective nose" when
it passed the proposed Constitution onto the states, none whatsoever.
That's just an ignorant rube prejudicial statement. Furthermore,
all 13 state legislatures agreed to submit the proposed Constitution
to state conventions as called for in Article VII of the proposed
Constitution. What that all means is that the Congress and the
state legislatures agreed to amend the amending process of the
Articles of Confederation. Further, the union formed by the
ratification of 9 states only included those states so ratifying. As
it turned out, all 13 state conventions ratified the proposed
Constitution, and the Confederation Congress oversaw the
transfer of power from itself to the new government.
In Jackson Turner Main's book THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS - CRITICS OF THE
CONSTITUTION 1781-1788 on page 126 we find this:
All of these things taken together, the Antifederalists asserted,
proved that the Constitution created not a federation but a
consolidated government,* and if this were so, the members of the
Philadelphia Convention had violated their instructions. The vast
changes which the Constitution represented were authorized neither
by
the letter nor the spirit of these instructions; indeed, to alter
the
general frame of government was precisely what many of the
delegates
had been forbidden to do. Here was no mere revision, no mere reform
of
the old, but the imposition of "a new political fabric, essentially
and fundamentally distinct," no federation of states, but "a
consolidation of them into one government." The convention had
acted
illegally.**
* see Farrand, ed Records of the Federal Convention, III, 192.
** See Farrand, ed., Records of the Federal Convention, III, 560-86
and Elliot, ed., Debates, IV, 203.
Thus, relative to the then-existing system of government, the
Constitutional convention instituted a bloodless revolution.
ON THE OTHER HAND, Searle has in prior discussions argued against
jalison's and my statements to this effect, in support of his claims
that the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution marked
the founding of this nation. Thus you are correct as to his
dishonesty.
As an ignorant rube, Bob, you continue to be willfully confused
about the difference between a nation and its form of government.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
06 Dec 2003 09:38:09 AM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" < > wrote in message
news:lh52tv0s6ps4f146q7srtich0328hdbkp1@4ax.com...
Searle is technically correct here, because the mechanism for amending
the Articles of Confederation required unanimous approval, whereas the
Constitution was considered ratified when only 9 states had approved
it. The convention was indeed viewed by many to be illegitimate, but
the Confederation Congress chose to hold its collective nose and pass
it to the states for their decision.
Typical of Bob's ignorant rube commentary. There's no evidence
that the Confederation Congress "h[e]ld its collective nose" when
it passed the proposed Constitution onto the states, none whatsoever.
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_073800_ratification.htm
On September 28, 1787, after three days of bitter debate, the
Confederation Congress sent the Constitution to the states with
neither an endorsement nor a condemnation. This action, a compromise
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
engineered by Federalist members, disposed of the argument that the
convention had exceeded its mandate; in the tacit opinion of
Congress, the Constitution was validly before the people. The state
legislatures' decisions to hold ratifying conventions confirmed the
Constitution's legitimacy.
That was not the necessary "agreement" of the Congress, but merely a
transmission.
That's just an ignorant rube prejudicial statement. Furthermore,
all 13 state legislatures agreed to submit the proposed Constitution
to state conventions as called for in Article VII of the proposed
Constitution.
The Articles of Confederation required same, the Congress having so
instructed them:
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual;
nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of
them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United
States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
State.
Since the constitutional convention had been called by the Congress,
even though it violated its instructions, the issue had indeed been
submitted to Congress.
What that all means is that the Congress and the
state legislatures agreed to amend the amending process of the
Articles of Confederation.
An alteration had to be CONFIRMED by the legislature. Passing the
buck to a convention of the people is not confirmation. Furthermore,
the Constitution was ratified before all states had acted. Indeed
North Carolina's convention rejected the Constitution in July 1788,
and therefore there was not yet the unanimity of the states as to this
so-called alteration of the amending process at the time that the
Congress declared that the new constitution had been ratified.
http://www.barefootsworld.net/constit9.html
http://revolution.h-net.msu.edu/essays/bernstein.argument.html
Thus, when the Federal Convention dissolved on 17 September 1787, it
sent the proposed Constitution and its accompanying resolutions to
the Confederation Congress. That body debated the matter on 26-28
September. It fended off the demands of opponents of the proposed
Constitution (such as Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, Abraham Yates,
Jr., of New York, and Nathan Dane of Massachusetts) that the
Confederation Congress rewrite the proposed Constitution, or propose
a set of amendments to it, or reject it out of hand as exceeding the
Convention's power. At the same time, the Confederation Congress did
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
not pass a formal endorsement of the Constitution, as its supporters
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(including Alexander Hamilton of New York and James Madison of
Virginia) had hoped for. Instead, Congress silently forwarded the
proposal (thus conveying an implied endorsement of the Constitution's
legitimacy) to the states, which in turn held elections for the
ratifying conventions -- all except Rhode Island, which of course had
refused to send any delegates to the Federal Convention at all.
So Rhode Island at the time took no action at all.
Further, the union formed by the
ratification of 9 states only included those states so ratifying.
Correct, though it put rather severe pressure on the remaining states
not to be islands in a sea of opposition.
It was also understood by the framers that they were not abiding by
the Confederation process:
http://revolution.h-net.msu.edu/essays/bernstein.argument.html
When the delegates met in Philadelphia as the Federal Convention, they
remembered that both the Articles of Confederation and any amendments
that might be proposed to them had to be adopted, or ratified, by all
thirteen states' legislatures. All attempts to amend the Articles
thus
failed, as would the proposed Constitution if it were subjected to
the procedure codified in Article 13 of the Articles. There were
three reasons why both earlier amendments to the Articles and the
proposed Constitution would fail under Article 13's procedures:
First, it was simply impossible to secure unanimous endorsement by
all thirteen states of even the most modest amendment -- and the
proposed Constitution was far more than a modest amendment to the
Articles. Second, the framers of the Constitution realized that the
state legislatures would not accept a system that diminished their
authority.
As
it turned out, all 13 state conventions ratified the proposed
Constitution, and the Confederation Congress oversaw the
transfer of power from itself to the new government.
You describe the process out of order, since the Confederation
Congress oversaw the transfer of power before the states had all
ratified the proposed constitution. Thus it acted contrary to the
Articles of Confederation.
As an ignorant rube, Bob, you continue to be willfully confused
about the difference between a nation and its form of government.
In July 1788 a nation consisting of 9 states was born, and others were
added later. In July 1788, North Carolina rejected the Constitution,
so it most clearly was NOT part of the Nation formed by the
Constitution during the years 1788 and 1789, though it was part of the
nation governed by the Articles of Confederation, which by its own
terms was a perpetual union.
You have to perform some silly logical gyrations to explain how North
Carolina could be part of the nation, then not part of it and then
part of it again, without having approved any change to the "perpetual
union". Easier to recognize that the Constitution instituted a new
nation.
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: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
06 Dec 2003 10:21:10 AM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:63r3tvk3ej1s9e1rvb12kktv58ju7f65l2@4ax.com...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:lh52tv0s6ps4f146q7srtich0328hdbkp1@4ax.com...
Searle is technically correct here, because the mechanism for
amending
the Articles of Confederation required unanimous approval,
whereas the
Constitution was considered ratified when only 9 states had
approved
it. The convention was indeed viewed by many to be illegitimate,
but
the Confederation Congress chose to hold its collective nose and
pass
it to the states for their decision.
Typical of Bob's ignorant rube commentary. There's no evidence
that the Confederation Congress "h[e]ld its collective nose" when
it passed the proposed Constitution onto the states, none
whatsoever.
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_073800_ratification.htm
On September 28, 1787, after three days of bitter debate, the
Confederation Congress sent the Constitution to the states with
neither an endorsement nor a condemnation. This action, a
compromise
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^
engineered by Federalist members, disposed of the argument that
the
convention had exceeded its mandate; in the tacit opinion of
Congress, the Constitution was validly before the people. The
state
legislatures' decisions to hold ratifying conventions confirmed
the
Constitution's legitimacy.
That was not the necessary "agreement" of the Congress, but merely a
transmission.
You can't even read your own cite, which is improperly quoted
by you -- because you were no doubt too lazy to remove
them -- with the inclusion of additional quote-back brackets
so that it now would appear to the unwary reader as
a quote-back from my prior post. What that earns you is the
deletion of the rest of your response, which you can re-do
properly if you're serious enough to want your point read.
What you quote -- which as I said appears to be from my
prior post because of your inclusion of additional quote-back
brackets -- contradicts your unwarranted conclusion "[t]hat
[the action taken by Congress] was not the necessary
"agreement" of the Congress, but merely a transmission."
You tagged that conclusion at the end of a paragraph that
you quoted which includes this:
"This action [by Congress]...disposed of the argument that the
convention had exceeded its mandate; in the tacit opinion of
Congress, the Constitution was validly before the people. The state
legislatures' decisions to hold ratifying conventions confirmed the
Constitution's legitimacy."
Further, if you'd bother to read the actual resolution by
Congress, you would see that it implicitly approves
the method of ratification outlined in the proposed
Constitution and specifies that method as the action to
be approved, or not, by the state legislatures:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ressub02.htm
<<Congress having received the report of the Convention lately
assembled
in Philadelphia
Resolved Unanimously that the said Report with the resolutions and
letter accompanying the same be transmitted to the several
legislatures in Order to be submitted to a convention of Delegates
chosen in each state by the people thereof in conformity to the
resolves of the Convention made and provided in that case.>>
<rest deleted because of the mess created by improperly
quoted material>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
06 Dec 2003 07:28:30 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
:|Thus, relative to the then-existing system of government, the
:|Constitutional convention instituted a bloodless revolution.
:|
:|ON THE OTHER HAND, Searle has in prior discussions argued against
:|jalison's and my statements to this effect,
as well as the statements and evidence presented by Jeff Sinclair, Mike
Curtis, Scott Erb IIRC, Steve Krulick, Carol Lee Smith, and a host of
other people at various times over the past 4 years when he "argued" as
himself (Richard Gardiner ) or as Ambrose Searle.
:|in support of his claims
:|that the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution marked
:|the founding of this nation. Thus you are correct as to his
:|dishonesty.
:|
:|lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Natasha" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
06 Dec 2003 02:37:45 AM |
|
|
http://fourthreich666.012webpages.com/
Bush - Nazi Link Confirmed
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi%20Link
"Bush - Nazi Dealings Continued Until 1951" - Federal Documents
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2
Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
Case for war confected, say top US officials
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=461953
Security collides with civil liberties
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/projects/liberty/story/7457444p-8400138c.html
CIA Finds No Evidence Hussein Sought to Arm Terrorists
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46460-2003Nov15.html
Uncle Sam's lucky finds
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,669961,00.html
http://fourthreich666.012webpages.com/
911 the new Reichstag Fire?
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/burns.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
05 Dec 2003 02:54:42 PM |
|
|
On 5 Dec 2003 09:00:12 -0800, (ambrose searle)
wrote:
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<o5CdnYyFres2u02iRVn-sA@comcast.com>...
"ambrose searle" < > wrote
LOL. In 1787 the founders executed another revolution: they
altered and even abolished the form of government provided
under the articles of Conf.
They held a constitutional convention, if that's what you mean.
And it was viewed by many of the founders as an overthrow of the
Articles of Confederation whereas it was only given the power to
propose "revisions" thereto, viz., it was an illegal and
unconstitutional measure. Why do you think they went to such great
measures to keep the convention secretive, clandestine, and private?
http://www.hfac.uh.edu/gl/usconst3.htm
The very act of the Constitutional Convention was a
revolutionary act.
You're being dishonest.
Nope, just relaying what the Chairman of the Constitutional Convention
said.
Nope, you are being dishonest. Above you ignored and clipped that
part that mentioned the Constitution only came into force after each
state voted on it. That is not much of a revolution.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
16 Dec 2003 02:14:22 AM |
|
|
wrote:
:|On 5 Dec 2003 09:00:12 -0800, (ambrose searle)
:|wrote:
:|
:|>"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<o5CdnYyFres2u02iRVn-sA@comcast.com>...
:|>> "ambrose searle" <> wrote
:|>>
:|>> > LOL. In 1787 the founders executed another revolution: they
:|>> > altered and even abolished the form of government provided
:|>> > under the articles of Conf.
:|>>
:|>> They held a constitutional convention, if that's what you mean.
:|>
:|>And it was viewed by many of the founders as an overthrow of the
:|>Articles of Confederation whereas it was only given the power to
:|>propose "revisions" thereto, viz., it was an illegal and
:|>unconstitutional measure. Why do you think they went to such great
:|>measures to keep the convention secretive, clandestine, and private?
:|>
:|>http://www.hfac.uh.edu/gl/usconst3.htm
:|>
:|>> > The very act of the Constitutional Convention was a
:|>> > revolutionary act.
:|>>
:|>> You're being dishonest.
:|>
:|>Nope, just relaying what the Chairman of the Constitutional Convention
:|>said.
:|>
:|
:|Nope, you are being dishonest. Above you ignored and clipped that
:|part that mentioned the Constitution only came into force after each
:|state voted on it. That is not much of a revolution.
:|None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
:|"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Well, actually, in this case he (Gardiner AKA Searle) is basically correct.
I guess it gets down to words again.
The convention that met in Philly 1787 had a mandate from the Cont.
Congress to amend the Articles of Confederation.
Some people who were delegates to that convention had other ideas.
The bottom line is, the delegates who hammered out a Constitution staged a
bloodless revolution. They acted illegally and could possibly have been
tried as traitors. What probably saved them on that point was Geo.
Washington's involvement.
They literally overthrew the existing government and established a new
government.
Now, the ironic part of this is the fact that Gardiner AKA Searle has
gotten great delight arguing the Constitution didn't establish a new
government but rather was just an evolutionary step. he has argued that
little jewel since 1999, but every once in awhile he becomes honest as in
this case, but only because it serves his purpose at this moment as he
plays his M.O. game .
Tomorrow he will be arguing the old argument again.
************************************************
Madison left Annapolis an ardent convert to the idea of a
convention. He stopped off at Mount Vernon to recruit Washington to the
proposal-it was the beginning of along wooing process that would finally
break down Washington's reluctance to leave Mount Vernon. Madison had
completed his three years of rotation out from the Continental Congress,
and he returned to it now with a determination to head off any objections
to the convention. Congress authorized the meeting, but only for proposing
amendments to the Articles (which, remember, required ratification by all
the states in the confederation). By now, Madison had larger purposes in
mind and that was clear to Washington, who realized that if anything
effectual were to be done, it would have to break the terms of the
Articles.1 Among the many reasons Washington had for resisting the project,
this was the greatest-it would involve its participants in the breaking of
their oaths of allegiance to the Articles. That was-in one plausible
interpretation of what they were up to treason. We call the meeting in
Philadelphia, retrospectively, the Constitutional Convention, since it
produced a new constitution. Its participants could not have called it
that, since they could not admit they were up to any such nefarious
business. While the meeting was being held, "the constitution" was still
the word regularly used for the Articles. What they were holding was really
an anticonstitutional convention.
If other delegates, less clearheaded than Washington, showed up at
Philadelphia in 1787 unaware of the meeting's subversive nature, they had a
rude awakening when Edmund Randolph presented the "Virginia Plan" for
consideration. This was based on a draft by Madison, and it recommended
abrogation of the Articles, not amendment of them. For a start, it proposed
that a new constitution must be ratified by special conventions, not by
state legislatures (the only means allowed under the Articles). Even more
stunning, the federal government would be empowered to veto laws passed by
state legislatures, a denial of the state sovereignty expressly reserved in
the Articles (10.16-17). The pretense that this was a plan to "correct" the
Articles was transparently false. The convention had to go into secret
session, and remain there for its whole time of meeting. It even had to
move to the second floor of the State House, so no one could overhear what
they were doing. (The delightful musical 1776 errs when it has the tense
debates take place in the downstairs legislative chamber, with the windows
wide open.) If the state legislatures that had sent these delegates found
out what was going on, they would have recalled them for breaking their
instructions.
Against a drumbeat of criticism directed at "the dark conclave,"
Washington himself, as presiding officer, strictly monitored the secrecy
provision until the final document was released, and the delegates scuttled
nervously away from the scene of the crime. Critics of the document were
probably right when they said that the members of the convention would have
been denounced for treason had not "great names" given them
cover-Franklin's name and, especially, Washington's. It would take great
temerity to call them enemies of their country. One of Madison's greatest
services to America was his help in ensuring Washington's attendance at the
convention. He negotiated the matter with great delicacy. When Washington
turned down a first request that he attend, Madison cooperated with Edmund
Randolph (then the governor of Virginia) to appoint the general as leader
of the Virginia delegation. He urged Washington, even if he did not plan to
accept the offer, not to reject it immediately, in case some emergency
should arise that would make him reconsider (9.224). Madison knew that if
Washington's name were standing as the presumed head of delegation, that
might convince other states that this was a serious endeavor. If this ploy
did not work, the convention would be called off, and Washington would not
have committed himself to a failure. If, on the other hand, other states
came aboard (and Madison was working in Congress to bring that about), this
fact could be reported to Washington as a spur for his attendance (9.31 S).
SOURCE: James Madison Garry Wills Times Books, (2002) pp. 25-26
****************************************
(1) My copy of the Constitution says:
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States.
(2) During the ratification period, who ratified the Constitution?
(a) Was it the various state legislatures, or
(b) was it the members specially elected/selected state ratification
conventions
[in other words who actually debated and voted yea or nay to ratification?]
Patrick Henry, and others. were a bit restless at the use of the words WE
THE PEOPLE , and a bit restless that the members of the Convention in
Philly had CHANGED the government.
"And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed
a part of the late federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed
with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a
confederation. That this is a consolidated government, instead of a
consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger
of such a government is, to my mind, very striking. I have the highest
veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What
right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive
of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, lends me to ask, Who
authorized them to speak the language of; We, the people, instead of,
| | | | | | | | | |
