Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess if you think like a "Progressive" it has no "legal weight." Sounds a little like something Woodrow Wilson would have said. It certainly seems to be in alignment with "Progressive" thought.
However, the Declaration forms the basis for government by consent of the governed, that we have unalienable rights, and the government is established to protect those rights.
That is reality, like it or not. No law, no taxes, no treaty, no trade agreement, no official declarations, absolutely nothing that was legal under the Articles of Confederation remained legal after the US Constitution was ratified.
The US Constitution changed everything. Starting a whole new nation has a tendency to do that sort of thing.
This is where you could have cited some sort of authoritative source instead of saying "Take a class and get as smart as me". Except that the only sources claiming the DoI has binding legal authority in matters beyond US independence are invariably Christian Dominionists, and that's a bit of a problem, of course.
The DoI establishes the US as an independent nation. It does not establish rights, duties and liabilities, that's the Constitution. Yes, they're both part of the US Code, but they serve different purposes. The Supreme Court does not judge on laws being "undeclarational".
And if you maintain there was no intent on the Framer's part to have a secular government, I'd still like a quick primer on how the First Amendment could be encoded by people who held to the First Commandment?
I suppose it depends on to what extent you mean "secular." But, bear in mind, virtually all the Founders and Framers were Christians of one sect or another, and virtually all the Colonists were Christians of one sect or another. It's pretty hard to make the case that they attempted to keep all vestiges of their Faith from influencing the work of drafting the Constitution, and from forming a basis of Law and Justice. You could say "But they drew from the English Common Law." To which I say, "Yes, and even England was Christian in those days."
As for the Declaration of Independence, it clearly states that our rights, those specified unalienable rights, come from God. "We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights ... and to protect these rights, Governments are formed"
So, was the Constitution not written to form a government to protect those rights?
I did cite an authoritative source. Hillsdale College and Constitution 101 taught by Professors of the Constitution. I can't think of any source more authoritative than a course taught by Professors who have made it their life work to study and teach the Constitution.
10-26-2014, 02:17 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Right there.
The Constitution allows it and yes, that covers everyone.
WTF is it opposite day again? Did you actually read and understand what you quoted? Apparently not.
How do you get "you only want your beliefs promoted" from "everyone gets to take a shot at it"? That doesn't even begin to have a hint of making any sense at all.
What exactly are legitimate religions, those based on the writings of people that lived a few thousand years ago with their own biases. Starting legitimate and religion in one sentenced is laughable since they are based on belief not facts.
The last thing the courts or a school district wants to get involved in is the definition, that is exactly why religions should be kept out of the classroom.
This. What exactly is an illegitimate religion? How do we know Satanism isn't the only legitimate religion? Or Wicca? Or Hinduism? Or any of the thousands of others? Either keep all religions out of the classroom (the best option) or allow all of them.
I suppose it depends on to what extent you mean "secular." But, bear in mind, virtually all the Founders and Framers were Christians of one sect or another, and virtually all the Colonists were Christians of one sect or another. It's pretty hard to make the case that they attempted to keep all vestiges of their Faith from influencing the work of drafting the Constitution, and from forming a basis of Law and Justice. You could say "But they drew from the English Common Law." To which I say, "Yes, and even England was Christian in those days."
Not hard at all actually. The creators of the US Constitution took great pains to ensure that no religious belief was reflected in the document. It was indeed their intent to establish a secular nation. As the Treaty of Tripoli further demonstrates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
As for the Declaration of Independence, it clearly states that our rights, those specified unalienable rights, come from God. "We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights ... and to protect these rights, Governments are formed"
So, was the Constitution not written to form a government to protect those rights?
No, it was not.
The US Constitution, as it was originally written and ratified by the colonies, did not include the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was added two years later at the insistence of the States. The founding fathers did not write the US Constitution to protect anyone's rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
I did cite an authoritative source. Hillsdale College and Constitution 101 taught by Professors of the Constitution. I can't think of any source more authoritative than a course taught by Professors who have made it their life work to study and teach the Constitution.
You should actually consider taking the course you mentioned above, because it is very obvious that you have not.
I see the conflict, government schools worship the state and there shall be no other gods before it.
Get your children out of those mind numbing detention centers if you care.
Ah, yes - please do. Teachers in that "mind numbing detention center" will be ever so grateful...
I think that is itself, mythology. Besides, there is no "mythological 'mumbo-jumbo'" in the New Testament. It is largely the testimony of men who were with Jesus.
What "mythology" do you refer too?
It's obvious that you have never read any of the New Testament. You "have heard this," and you "have heard that," but you have never read it, and I have not found any documentation to support the myth that Jefferson cut out large portions of the New Testament.
The first scriptures were not written until @ 300 years after the death of Jesus - hardly an eyewitness account. What Jefferson did was to remove from the NT everything except the words that Jesus allegedly spoke. There are several different companies that have done printings of only the "red letter" portions of the NT. I have one here.
I have read the Christian Bible through a couple of times. I also have a NT in Gullah that I love, but the meanings of some things change with the translation. I have also read the Quran, some of the Hindu scriptures, and assorted commentaries. The latest book I read on the subject of religion was "Zealot" by Dr. Reza Aslan, and it was an excellent work. heavily footnoted.
At the end of the day I can state conclusively only that I personally do not know, and will continue to seek. Those who say they know for sure need to provide empirical evidence.
The first scriptures were not written until @ 300 years after the death of Jesus - hardly an eyewitness account. What Jefferson did was to remove from the NT everything except the words that Jesus allegedly spoke. There are several different companies that have done printings of only the "red letter" portions of the NT. I have one here.
I have read the Christian Bible through a couple of times. I also have a NT in Gullah that I love, but the meanings of some things change with the translation. I have also read the Quran, some of the Hindu scriptures, and assorted commentaries. The latest book I read on the subject of religion was "Zealot" by Dr. Reza Aslan, and it was an excellent work. heavily footnoted.
At the end of the day I can state conclusively only that I personally do not know, and will continue to seek. Those who say they know for sure need to provide empirical evidence.
There is a slight flaw in your logic. One can only provide empirical evidence of something that actually exists. If something does not exist, then there can never be "empirical evidence" of non-existence.
Hence, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim that something exists, not with those who claim the opposite.
For example, if you claim that apples exist, and I claim that there is no such thing as an apple. All you have to do to prove me wrong is provide empirical evidence that an apple exists.
How about you write a thesis on that premise and give your reasons for such a view.
Okay. Here ya go:
The US Constitution is a legal document - an outline as opposed to a complete legal code - defining the structure, operation, and boundaries of our Federal government as well as its relation to the States and the People that was adopted and codified after ratification by the States.
The Declaration of Independence was a document that listed grievances with England and declared our independence as well as our reasoning for doing so. It was then copied and distributed across the land to gain support for the insurrection - i.e. used as propaganda. It's not - nor has it ever been - a legal instrument.
These really aren't opinions. They're more like facts.
Last edited by hammertime33; 10-26-2014 at 02:59 PM..
The US Constitution is a legal document - an outline as opposed to a complete legal code - defining the structure, operation, and boundaries of our Federal government as well as its relation to the States and the People that was adopted and codified after ratification by the States.
The Declaration of Independence was a document that listed grievances with England and declared our independence as well as our reasoning for doing so. It was then copied and distributed across the land to gain support for the insurrection - i.e. used as propaganda. It's not - nor has it ever been - a legal instrument.
These really aren't opinions. They're more like facts.
Not quite. Declarations, like Resolutions today, were/are legally binding if passed by those with legal authority. Under the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence was legally binding on everyone who signed the document.
However, with the ratification of the US Constitution the Articles of Confederation ceased to be the legal authority. Instead the newly ratified US Constitution became the legal authority, and nothing enacted under the Articles of Confederation remained legally binding.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
