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.
Is what you're doing called the trap of false choices ?
Madison vetoed laws that incorporated churches. OTOH, pre- and post Madison there's been prayer, chaplains in Congress. More like a picket fence than a wall pf separation. Anything from Madison on the 1st amend. and the states ?
Besides, Madison isn't the be all, end all. There were others who contributed.
While it is true that others contributed, Madison is generally given credit for authoring the Bill of Rights.
In addition, being a lawyer made him somewhat better equipped to understand how the Constitution and its Amendments would be viewed by courts and judges. His views are pretty high on the credibility chart.
Last edited by mensaguy; 12-19-2011 at 10:58 AM..
Reason: added more
Is what you're doing called the trap of false choices ?
Madison vetoed laws that incorporated churches. OTOH, pre- and post Madison there's been prayer, chaplains in Congress. More like a picket fence than a wall pf separation. Anything from Madison on the 1st amend. and the states ?
Besides, Madison isn't the be all, end all. There were others who contributed.
Its a trap? No, you feel trapped because you can't just go out and continue with the rhetoric as it would be blatantly in disagreement with Madison's take on the subject as it relates to the US Constitution.
James Madison is the be all, end all, when it comes to the US Constitution and its understanding of. Or, is this another way for you to claim that he doesn't understand what is in the US Constitution?
The only TRULY FAIR way to determine "how things should be"...is to poll all the citizens, and enforce the majority view. True Democracy.
You can't ever satisfy everyone...so the best you can do is satisfy the most possible.
Anything else is "less fair".
We have the technology to be able to actually manifest a Country that is REALLY "of The People, by The People, and for The People".
Seriously? Majority Rule has to be stopped from abrogating the rights of the minority. Otherwise you would have all kinds of *less fair* rules.
The will of the many does NOT necessarily make things right.
Seriously? Majority Rule has to be stopped from abrogating the rights of the minority. Otherwise you would have all kinds of *less fair* rules.
The will of the many does NOT necessarily make things right.
As if the current system has prevented "abrogating the rights of the minority" and giving us "less fair rules".
Of course, no system is "fool proof", and "the will of the many" can't assure fairness...but "the will of the few" is MORE of a risk.
MOF, "the will of the few" got us 100+ years of slavery, 150+ years of female oppression, a near annihilation of the Native People, and lots of other "less fair" stuff.
Well, if a discussion of the framers' intent and the 1st amend. is pointless and a mere academic exercise, feel free to not participate. It's an interesting topic to me.
When I read the historical and legally innacurate comment that the 1st amend. created a 'wall of separation' between religion and gov't., I sometimes respond with facts.
Of course their intent is important, but and amendment is an amendment.
If you don't want the Constitution to ever change, then you'll have to pass an amendment outlawing amendments.
Facts?
You have your interpretation and play your own games with semantics. I think modern interpretations are very much in line with the intent of the framers, as applied to 21st century facts.
So they created an independent judiciary with the power to interpret the law in light of changing facts and circumstances - a common law system.
Doing otherwise means relying on an unchanging, narrow and soon outdated interpretation that will inevitably become either useless or produce an absurd or unjust result.
As if the current system has prevented "abrogating the rights of the minority" and giving us "less fair rules".
The current system is less fair only to collectivists, who want to rule by force, imposing their whims on others. Not being able to do so, is something they're bound to hate. Ultimately, it is what has kept us afloat from falling into an abyss, consequences of which easily visible in ANY theocratic society at ANY given time in history and present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel
Of course their intent is important, but and amendment is an amendment.
Jazzarama didn't like the intent as quoted through Madison's own words on the subject either. The denial only demanded calling him... but he was just one of many.
Of course their intent is important, but and amendment is an amendment.
If you don't want the Constitution to ever change, then you'll have to pass an amendment outlawing amendments.
Facts?
You have your interpretation and play your own games with semantics. I think modern interpretations are very much in line with the intent of the framers, as applied to 21st century facts.
So they created an independent judiciary with the power to interpret the law in light of changing facts and circumstances - a common law system.
Doing otherwise means relying on an unchanging, narrow and soon outdated interpretation that will inevitably become either useless or produce an absurd or unjust result.
The 21st century facts are court decisions based on a 19th century amendment, which I'm glad happened. That does not change what should be a non-controversial statement--- the 1st amendment's religion clause didn't apply to the states until 65 years ago. Madison's opinions notwithstanding.
How the religion clauses have been interpreted over time is a different issue, maybe more relevant, but not the original question.
The article's author seems obsessed with the idea that Paul lied by saying God is REFERRED to in the Constitution & Declaration of Independence.
The word "Lord" is mentioned in the US Constitution.
And in ALL 50 US State preambles, "God" or "God Almighty" is mentioned...
Declaration of Independence... starts with: "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..."
I don't think Paul is pushing religion on the state but rather, he's making the point that despite this country being founded on religious freedom rights, people were not anal about it. I've never read of anyone during the 1700's freaking out about or boycotting these non-religious-specific references to God in government documents. Infact, several of the US founding fathers were Deists (which makes God essentially as irrelevant as he is to an atheist). These Deists signed these documents which mentioned Lord, Creator or God.
Last edited by SuperSoul; 12-19-2011 at 05:32 PM..
The current system is less fair only to collectivists, who want to rule by force, imposing their whims on others. Not being able to do so, is something they're bound to hate. Ultimately, it is what has kept us afloat from falling into an abyss, consequences of which easily visible in ANY theocratic society at ANY given time in history and present.
As if "the current system" doesn't "rule by force".
The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, mostly minorities, because the "rule by force" of the present system that has laws put into place by "the few", that would never be enacted if they had to pass the muster of "the many".
I'm not talking about this country being a theocracy...just a simple Democracy where the will of The People is determinative as respects the laws they are subject to.
As if "the current system" doesn't "rule by force".
The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, mostly minorities, because the "rule by force" of the present system that has laws put into place by "the few", that would never be enacted if they had to pass the muster of "the many".
Certainly not to the extent your ideas suggest and guarantee. Even with protections, the world's highest incarceration rate can be largely attributed to religion based law making. That minorities make a substantial chunk of it, is a side effect of similar policies instituted throughout the history of this nation. It would only get worse under uncontrolled rule of the mob.
Quote:
I'm not talking about this country being a theocracy...just a simple Democracy where the will of The People is determinative as respects the laws they are subject to.
You may not like the idea of a theocracy, but that is exactly where the mob would carry it. If not for the genius who recognized the problem early, and had to fight it out as well, we would be a mess today. Religion has been a key issue throughout history, between factions within Christianity to Christian collectivism against other religions.
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.
