The History of our Constitution.

"gafinfan wrote:

I'll open this with three links which I find very good, I hope anyone who wants to learn will join me on this journey. No politics, PLEASE!!!

http://www.nccs.net/freedom_defined/index.htm?const.html&2

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/artconf.shtml

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/mclaughlin/chus.htm

Be advised the third link is very long but quite good. Enjoy.

Ron, If you think this link is worthy, would you please add it to your list of links?

http://www.f-f-a.com/comlaw.htm#1

I believe it will be a good learning tool for us to realize what anchors the constitution to the people, and through a little research (really a lot of research) we might get the spirit of the founders.

Our judicial system has cancer! It goes by the name of civil law or roman law.

I don't have time to dive into this tonight, but if the rain comes tomorrow like they say I will have plenty of time then. Thanks ga for starting this thread.:up:

"Themole wrote:

Ron, If you think this link is worthy, would you please add it to your list of links?

http://www.f-f-a.com/comlaw.htm#1

I believe it will be a good learning tool for us to realize what anchors the constitution to the people, and through a little research (really a lot of research) we might get the spirit of the founders.

Our judicial system has cancer! It goes by the name of civil law or roman law.

Ron thats a great site, thanks!

The second of my 4 links is a copy of the Articles of Confederation.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/artconf.shtml

1.
The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".

I've only found one mistake with this copy and it should be noted that the word united is not capitalized. The reason being that it shows the proper standing of the several states to eachother and to the union thereof.

Why bring up the Articles? First of all we won't fully understand where we are going if we don't understand where we've been. Secondly is everything we've been told about this time period true? Modern history would have us believe that after only 6 years it wasn't working, is this true? Several good things came about during this period yet some felt it left to much power in the hands of the several states which thus made the federal system to weak to be properly responsive to the needs of the union. Is this true? Or is there some middle ground that would have made it better than what we now have?

In any account those men met and hammered out what we now have. In a manner of speaking they threw the baby out with the bathwater. Here is that story and it was no simple or easy act to do:

http://www.history.army.mil/books/RevWar/ss/ch4.htm

You will see the the Federalist were much better organized yet it was touch and go for it seems that our founders had a real fear of to strong central government.

"gafinfan wrote:

The second of my 4 links is a copy of the Articles of Confederation.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/artconf.shtml

I've only found one mistake with this copy and it should be noted that the word united is not capitalized. The reason being that it shows the proper standing of the several states to eachother and to the union thereof.

Why bring up the Articles? First of all we won't fully understand where we are going if we don't understand where we've been. Secondly is everything we've been told about this time period true? Modern history would have us believe that after only 6 years it wasn't working, is this true? Several good things came about during this period yet some felt it left to much power in the hands of the several states which thus made the federal system to weak to be properly responsive to the needs of the union. Is this true? Or is there some middle ground that would have made it better than what we now have?

In any account those men met and hammered out what we now have. In a manner of speaking they threw the baby out with the bathwater. Here is that story and it was no simple or easy act to do:

http://www.history.army.mil/books/RevWar/ss/ch4.htm

You will see the the Federalist were much better organized yet it was touch and go for it seems that our founders had a real fear of to strong central government.

Wow! Ron, that last link you gave is a plate full. I'll be a while reading that. I started with the Constitution, but I'm going back to the beginng and read all of it.

Thanks brother!

I'm sorry this has taken so long, it was not my intention in the begining. Some health issues came up but thats now over with so on we go.

The First Amendment; I was taught in school that this was the Free speech and separation of church and state amendment. It just so happened that I was in high school when most of the bruhaha went down on prayer in public schools. I'm honest when I say in all of my years in school I was never forced to pray in school, now each morning before starting our first class we did recite the pledge of Allegiance which of course has those words "under God" but as a typical kid that meant about as much to me as the rest of the pledge (next to nothing,:wink2:). I can't speak as to what might have happened in Maryland or anywhere else save the schools I attented in Georgia and Florida but I can tell you this, most of my friends in HS thought all of the blow up was just so much BS over nothing and we went about our business as usual including a prayer before every Football game with the hope that it would be played by the book and no one get hurt, may the best man win. The school band also played that terrible tune "Dixie" too!:lol: That was the extent of religion in my schools. I went to church to get the training and learning that I needed for my belief system.

Anyway I give you the First Amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Although the First Amendment only explicitly applies to the Congress, the Supreme Court has interpreted it as applying to the executive and judicial branches. Additionally, in the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the limitations of the First Amendment to each state, including any local government within a state.

A note and question on the 14th for future debate. Is it legal?

Two other links concerning separation and what it truly means.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_pra9.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_pray.htm

At this point in time with so much PC within our midst IMHO there is no tolerance concerning the christian faith where as other faiths/views are fully embraced.

GA now you and I can have a discussion that I will be very interested in as this is the area of American history I love.

Now first I disagree with your statement that Christianity is not tolerated because that simply is not true. Christianity is still by far the dominant religion in this country and the separation laws are just putting it on fair ground with others (remember that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"). If anything in American culture Christianity is still by far more tolerated than any other religion (imagine a Qur'an passage being used in a school/courthouse). Although culturally we are clearly a Christian nation, the importance of keeping one religious and government as separate as possible is paramount (the only time we actually see them mix is when politicians need votes). :wink2:

Most of the Founding Fathers never liked the influence the Anglican Church held on the Colonies and some authors such as Patricia Bonomi have argued that religious teachings, the power of upstart Christian sects (Baptists, Congregationalists, etc.) and the First Enlightenment (the rise of evangelism and an the increasing influence of preachers) were a large part of the Revolution. Now I don't necessarily think that was totally right but I do think England's control on religion helped push the people. Founding Fathers like Jefferson, Madison, and Washington all agreed with this sentiment and that's why you see Jefferson and Madison working so hard to secure religious freedom. There was never a war against Christianity by these Founding Fathers and that argument is largely BS. Most of them considered themselves Christian (yes even Mr. Jefferson) although they were not typical Christians of the time or even today. We also have to remember that most of the nation were Christians at the time so the thought of Christianity not being tolerated is not true. Basically they wanted to make sure that any one sect did not take over another, although there is evidence that they applied this to other religious groups (like Washington's Hebrew Congregation Letter or Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (both of which I think I can find for you GA)).

From the beginning Christianity wasn't being attacked, the Founding Fathers were fighting against one group getting too much power (in fact all were fond of the Christian religion most of all, but most like Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Washington were Deists). So when we see separation of Church and State we are not seeing really a battle of secular and religious but really a battle to keep any one group from becoming a monopoly. That's why you hear the words "establishment of religion" basically. I will say that religious vs. secular has become the debate today but no matter if it is that the basic idea is that no one religion should be supported over another in any government supported facility, because that is against the Constitution.

I agree that sometimes things get blown out of proportion but their shouldn't be any religion mixed into our schools, courts, etc. in my opinion and that goes for all not just Christianity. The reason Christianity gets picked on the most is because it's the most popular religion and so when anything happens against religion in the government it will regard Christianity. So Christians feel they are being picked on and not being tolerated but I would argue that if the dominant religion was Islam it would be Muslims feeling like they were not being tolerated.

Now let me also address the kind of religion these men portrayed to the people. Washington basically created the civil religion that we see today by invoking; God, Providence, The Almighty, etc. in his speeches and letters. He knew that religion was a bonding agent for the nation and others followed in his footsteps (notice how today politicians will talk of God but not Jesus, Mohammed, the Buddha, etc.). They all have done this because God is so all inclusive whereas words like Jesus define a particular group. Looking at the letters of Washington especially you will rarely (in fact I have never found) Jesus mentioned. So from the beginning politicians want to include religion but not to a huge level (except like I said when campaigning where being a Christian is pretty much a must-take the case of President Obama and the flack he took over being possibly a Muslim and if that didn't show that Christianity is the dominant religion/is very much tolerated and that other religions like Islam are still not fully tolerated/accepted in this country I don't see what does). The point is too include religion but not offend, so religion has always been integrated in this nation but more of a civil religion/non-descriptive even though clearly Christianity has been the favorite by both the people and the presidents.

In the end, although religion has always been included in a broad fashion starting with the Founding Fathers their has always also been the idea that one religious sect/religion should not gain too much power (going back to the rebellion against England/the Anglican Church). Hence we have the First Amendment and other Acts (especially Jefferson's and Madison's works). Today and in the beginning the dominant religion has been Christianity and it has been shown favoritism because of that (why Christian prayer was in schools rather than Islamic for example). Separation laws are only keeping the religion in it's place and not letting it get too much power not condemn the religion and I think that is often misunderstood. Separation of Church and State is not condemning religion but rather keeping any one group from becoming too powerful and ending up controlling the government and the people (take a look at Medieval history if you want an example of that).

Now GA hopefully argument has been summed up in that last argument and I want you to know I believe in the acceptance of all religions but that our country from the beginning has had a stance against any one getting too much power and so I must stand against any attempt to favor any one religion in any government facility even if it is a simple prayer. It's not that I think religion is bad, in fact religion in the right hand's is beautiful much as the Founding Fathers believed. Now however I promised links and I will give a few although I have many more and can discuss this topic for years. :up:

Jefferson:

Letter to Danbury Baptists:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_jefferson/letter_to_baptists.html

Quote:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom (wonderful stuff here including all I've mentioned):
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_jefferson/virginia_act.html

Notes on the State of Virginia (just great all around on this states first man :wink2:)
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefVirg.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all

University of Virginia's archives of Jefferson works (just great all around):
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/

Washington:

Washington's Response to Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island:
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/hebrew/reply.html

Quote:

May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.

Washington on religion's (not any specific one) influence on the United States:
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/farewell/transcript.html

Quote (from page 20):

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens.

Link to George Washington papers:
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/index.html

James Madison: One good website should suffice for him since it has many links
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm

Look at all the links GA on Madison they are great and Madison is probably the most important figure on how separation of Church and State was decided.

Remember GA my argument is that Separation of Church and State is of utmost importance to keep any one religious sect or religion from getting too much power. I think this is what the Founding Fathers intended and that although it may have started as a power struggle within Christianity to now multiple religions the main idea of power limitation still holds. Like you fear the Federal government GA, I fear a powerful national religion so we are not so different. Also my argument is that Christianity is and always has been the dominant religion in this country and because of that, that is why any Church and State battle seems as if its directed at Christianity when its really only about limiting power.

Looking forward to your reply and we can probably disagree on this forever.
:up:

I also will be willing to elaborate on anything if I was too vague and I know this response isn't wonderfully setup and written but for a message board post I hope long run-on sentences, like this one, don't offend too much. :wink2:

Once again awaiting your response. :yes:

"sking29 wrote:

GA now you and I can have a discussion that I will be very interested in as this is the area of American history I love.

Now first I disagree with your statement that Christianity is not tolerated because that simply is not true. Christianity is still by far the dominant religion in this country and the separation laws are just putting it on fair ground with others (remember that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"). If anything in American culture Christianity is still by far more tolerated than any other religion (imagine a Qur'an passage being used in a school/courthouse). Although culturally we are clearly a Christian nation, the importance of keeping one religious and government as separate as possible is paramount (the only time we actually see them mix is when politicians need votes). :wink2:

Most of the Founding Fathers never liked the influence the Anglican Church held on the Colonies and some authors such as Patricia Bonomi have argued that religious teachings, the power of upstart Christian sects (Baptists, Congregationalists, etc.) and the First Enlightenment (the rise of evangelism and an the increasing influence of preachers) were a large part of the Revolution. Now I don't necessarily think that was totally right but I do think England's control on religion helped push the people. Founding Fathers like Jefferson, Madison, and Washington all agreed with this sentiment and that's why you see Jefferson and Madison working so hard to secure religious freedom. There was never a war against Christianity by these Founding Fathers and that argument is largely BS. Most of them considered themselves Christian (yes even Mr. Jefferson) although they were not typical Christians of the time or even today. We also have to remember that most of the nation were Christians at the time so the thought of Christianity not being tolerated is not true. Basically they wanted to make sure that any one sect did not take over another, although there is evidence that they applied this to other religious groups (like Washington's Hebrew Congregation Letter or Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (both of which I think I can find for you GA)).

From the beginning Christianity wasn't being attacked, the Founding Fathers were fighting against one group getting too much power (in fact all were fond of the Christian religion most of all, but most like Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Washington were Deists). So when we see separation of Church and State we are not seeing really a battle of secular and religious but really a battle to keep any one group from becoming a monopoly. That's why you hear the words "establishment of religion" basically. I will say that religious vs. secular has become the debate today but no matter if it is that the basic idea is that no one religion should be supported over another in any government supported facility, because that is against the Constitution.

I agree that sometimes things get blown out of proportion but their shouldn't be any religion mixed into our schools, courts, etc. in my opinion and that goes for all not just Christianity. The reason Christianity gets picked on the most is because it's the most popular religion and so when anything happens against religion in the government it will regard Christianity. So Christians feel they are being picked on and not being tolerated but I would argue that if the dominant religion was Islam it would be Muslims feeling like they were not being tolerated.

Now let me also address the kind of religion these men portrayed to the people. Washington basically created the civil religion that we see today by invoking; God, Providence, The Almighty, etc. in his speeches and letters. He knew that religion was a bonding agent for the nation and others followed in his footsteps (notice how today politicians will talk of God but not Jesus, Mohammed, the Buddha, etc.). They all have done this because God is so all inclusive whereas words like Jesus define a particular group. Looking at the letters of Washington especially you will rarely (in fact I have never found) Jesus mentioned. So from the beginning politicians want to include religion but not to a huge level (except like I said when campaigning where being a Christian is pretty much a must-take the case of President Obama and the flack he took over being possibly a Muslim and if that didn't show that Christianity is the dominant religion/is very much tolerated and that other religions like Islam are still not fully tolerated/accepted in this country I don't see what does). The point is too include religion but not offend, so religion has always been integrated in this nation but more of a civil religion/non-descriptive even though clearly Christianity has been the favorite by both the people and the presidents.

In the end, although religion has always been included in a broad fashion starting with the Founding Fathers their has always also been the idea that one religious sect/religion should not gain too much power (going back to the rebellion against England/the Anglican Church). Hence we have the First Amendment and other Acts (especially Jefferson's and Madison's works). Today and in the beginning the dominant religion has been Christianity and it has been shown favoritism because of that (why Christian prayer was in schools rather than Islamic for example). Separation laws are only keeping the religion in it's place and not letting it get too much power not condemn the religion and I think that is often misunderstood. Separation of Church and State is not condemning religion but rather keeping any one group from becoming too powerful and ending up controlling the government and the people (take a look at Medieval history if you want an example of that).

Now GA hopefully argument has been summed up in that last argument and I want you to know I believe in the acceptance of all religions but that our country from the beginning has had a stance against any one getting too much power and so I must stand against any attempt to favor any one religion in any government facility even if it is a simple prayer. It's not that I think religion is bad, in fact religion in the right hand's is beautiful much as the Founding Fathers believed. Now however I promised links and I will give a few although I have many more and can discuss this topic for years. :up:

Jefferson:

Letter to Danbury Baptists:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_jefferson/letter_to_baptists.html

Quote:

The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom (wonderful stuff here including all I've mentioned):
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_jefferson/virginia_act.html

Notes on the State of Virginia (just great all around on this states first man :wink2:)
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefVirg.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all

University of Virginia's archives of Jefferson works (just great all around):
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/

Washington:

Washington's Response to Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island:
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/hebrew/reply.html

Quote:

Washington on religion's (not any specific one) influence on the United States:
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/farewell/transcript.html

Quote (from page 20):

Link to George Washington papers:
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/index.html

James Madison: One good website should suffice for him since it has many links
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm

Look at all the links GA on Madison they are great and Madison is probably the most important figure on how separation of Church and State was decided.

Remember GA my argument is that Separation of Church and State is of utmost importance to keep any one religious sect or religion from getting too much power. I think this is what the Founding Fathers intended and that although it may have started as a power struggle within Christianity to now multiple religions the main idea of power limitation still holds. Like you fear the Federal government GA, I fear a powerful national religion so we are not so different. Also my argument is that Christianity is and always has been the dominant religion in this country and because of that, that is why any Church and State battle seems as if its directed at Christianity when its really only about limiting power.

Looking forward to your reply and we can probably disagree on this forever.
:up:

I also will be willing to elaborate on anything if I was too vague and I know this response isn't wonderfully setup and written but for a message board post I hope long run-on sentences, like this one, don't offend too much. :wink2:

Once again awaiting your response. :yes:

Wow, what a great post, thanks so much. Let me first say the truth can/should never offend anyone, surely not me. Give me a day or two and I'll be back. I can see this is going to be good!:wink2::hi5:

"gafinfan wrote:

Wow, what a great post, thanks so much. Let me first say the truth can/should never offend anyone, surely not me. Give me a day or two and I'll be back. I can see this is going to be good!:wink2::hi5:

Well its what I love. :D

Remember GA I'm not attacking Christianity but arguing against letting any one religion become dominant by becoming too entangled with the government. I support anyone worshiping any way they want.

Also another note is that many Christians of the time (around the time of the Constitution being created) in the US wanted religious freedom. The new evangelical groups that I mentioned earlier, Congregationalists, Baptists, etc., wanted a chance to grow and they knew the only way to do that was to have a free market place of religious ideas. Obviously if states were able to officially support a religion these newer smaller groups would be stomped out so many Christians supported the separation argument.

Here is the part you will find interesting GA. We both know that largely until the Civil War and the 14th Amendment the US was basically a loose alliance of states. When regarding state supported religion this was no different as areas with less religious diversity had state supported religions and others with more diversity did not. Strangely enough it was the northern states that tended to support state religions whereas states like Virginia (Madison and Jefferson's home state) and other southern states supported more of a tolerant approach. Although Pennsylvania was a freak all its own and was closest to what we now know today as a religious conscience state. So once again the Federal Constitution was sparsely obeyed (much like we have debated before). However here religion was explicitly discussed giving us an idea of how religion was to be treated whereas the secession topic was vague at best. By 1831 (I believe but I know it was in the 1830s) the last state supported religion ceased to exist quietly (it did not need a war to settle it showing that religion had a more accepted role among all Americans). When the Federal government did take over after the Civil War that is where we begin seeing the separation of church and state being applied more strictly. The key to this argument is that religion in terms of what the Founders wanted is discussed and if we are part of a nation that is bonded together as a nation and not a loose alliance of states under a Federal Constitution then what they said should be followed. We can argue until we are blue in the face about if we should be state governed or federally governed but the fact is that we are now a federally governed nation bonded under a single Constitution and so it should be followed. Once again because religion is addressed explicitly we already know what to do. In the end we have to make sure that there is a free market place of religion and no one religion gets control. The nation has always been an unofficial Christian nation however and I don't see how it has not been tolerated but maybe you can enlighten me here. :up:

Also the Election of 1800 is very crucial to this debate, but we can save that for later if you wish to talk about it. :wink2:

First let me say It is a great pleasure to debate these ideas with you. I only hope you learn half as much as you seem to be teaching me.

Now to the meat of our talk. I can see just how you might take my meaning the way you did. I have a feeling that we are going to get into a James Madison versus George Mason kind of discussion on religious freedom.

These two quotes seem most relevent here:

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/memorial.htm - James Madison

1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.

This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator.

It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign.

http://www.gunstonhall.org/georgemason/essays/dreisbach_essay.html

George Mason (who IMHO isn't given nearly enough credit among our founding fathers)

Mason was a deft, untiring strategist in the bitter contests to guarantee religious freedom and to end the legal favors enjoyed by the established church in Virginia. Few among the founding generation have had such an enduring impact on the rights of conscience and yet, received so little public recognition as George Mason.

Both men are true to their beliefs that they felt that what ever a man believed was between him and his creator and the Government (and everyone else) needed to stay out of it all together. I agree!:wink2:

What I find most odd about the whole debate about religion, this same something that both these men were against, is the fact that our Congress goes thru the trappings of religion on a daily basis and by doing so open up this whole line where as if they were to hold themselves accountable to our Constitution this would be dropped like a hot potato. I'm sure me saying this surprises you but really it shouldn't. I think to be strickly true to the first Amendment no display would have been the best way to deal with the matter, What say you?

I do understand where you are coming from concerning my use of the word "tolerance" and you may be right. When writing that my mind was on those rooms given over to the muslim students for their prayer which included having a teacher present (my guess is to maintain order); if Government is to be truly civil then let it be civil in every way. Also I feel that there is alot of misinformation out there as to just what is and isn't allowed. The School Admin is more to blame here than anyone because, as I see it, they care more for PC than they do about getting it right by knowing the law. JMHO.

And other than George Mason; George Washington is not given anywhere near the recognition that he deserves. The link you posted on his farewell address is something that every president we elect should be required to read and heed.

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/farewell/transcript.html

He was a truly great man with wisdom beyond his years. It is said that when the congress was drafting our Constitution and they were having discussions about the Office of President they couldn't even look him in the eye for fear they might upset this great man yet he never said a word.

The other thing you pointed out, and I agree with BTY, is that all of these men took great pains to not pay homage to any one religion.

I see you have posted again so I'll end this post, see what you've said, and then continue.

Ron

sking29 wrote:

Here is the part you will find interesting GA. We both know that largely until the Civil War and the 14th Amendment the US was basically a loose alliance of states. When regarding state supported religion this was no different as areas with less religious diversity had state supported religions and others with more diversity did not. Strangely enough it was the northern states that tended to support state religions whereas states like Virginia (Madison and Jefferson's home state) and other southern states supported more of a tolerant approach. Although Pennsylvania was a freak all its own and was closest to what we now know today as a religious conscience state. So once again the Federal Constitution was sparsely obeyed (much like we have debated before). However here religion was explicitly discussed giving us an idea of how religion was to be treated whereas the secession topic was vague at best.

I think because religious freedom was so uppermost in everyones mind it had to be addressed first and that is IMHO the very reason for the first amendment, free speech and assembly were the natural byproducts of that fact. Most had seen with their own eyes how Europe handled religion and we wanted to make sure there was no war between us over religion. They saw it as the one way this country would never be a union save in name only. Where as the War between the States was bound to happen sooner or later for the simple reason you stated, the topic was vague and we were still trying to find our boundries. Should it or shouldn't it have been fought; that debate will go on long after I'm dead and I'll leave it at that.

You are right about Northern versus Southern religion is concerned. The Religious right of today is the outgrowth of our puritan past which even now is the intolerant branch of the Christian faith JMHO.

Rabbi Sherwin Wine

There are two visions of America. One precedes our founding fathers and finds its roots in the harshness of our puritan past. It is very suspicious of freedom, uncomfortable with diversity, hostile to science, unfriendly to reason, contemptuous of personal autonomy. It sees America as a religious nation. It views patriotism as allegiance to God. It secretly adores coercion and conformity. Despite our constitution, despite the legacy of the Enlightenment, it appeals to millions of Americans and threatens our freedom.

The other vision finds its roots in the spirit of our founding revolution and in the leaders of this nation who embraced the age of reason. It loves freedom, encourages diversity, embraces science and affirms the dignity and rights of every individual. It sees America as a moral nation, neither completely religious nor completely secular. It defines patriotism as love of country and of the people who make it strong. It defends all citizens against unjust coercion and irrational conformity.

This second vision is our vision. It is the vision of a free society. We must be bold enough to proclaim it and strong enough to defend it against all its enemies.

While I don't completely agree with the Rabbi's quote his overall statement isn't far off.

AS to State versus Federal, as much as I hate to say it because of the way it was forced into being, the 14th has truly helped to rein in State Governments from becoming to overeaching in their powers. Now if the states would show a little backbone and resist with the 9th and 10th a little better I could be a really happy man.

As to the election of 1800 let me just say this the fight for just who has the power in this country was settled by force of arms in 1865. The in fighting started IMHO the very day the Constitution was signed into law. Everyone got a little of what they wanted while still being unhappy enough for political in fighting. Hamilton had as much to do with that as anyone and more than most. He was a weird sort, he didn't want to be the man but wanted to be the man who controlled the man.

I'm going to say goodnight for now, I'll see you later.

Ron

Well GA it seems we don't really disagree on much of this so I don't see much more that I can say. :up:

"sking29 wrote:

Well GA it seems we don't really disagree on much of this so I don't see much more that I can say. :up:

Thanks, I agree.

Next up The Second Amendment. I'll be back!:up:

And to everyone else, please feel free to join in.

"gafinfan wrote:

Thanks, I agree.

Next up The Second Amendment. I'll be back!:up:

And to everyone else, please feel free to join in.

Ah the Second Amendment should be fun, but I think we'll agree on that one. :yes:

While my plan is to still study the 2nd Amendment next; while doing research on an old PBS program of Harvard law Prof. A. Miller's held back in the 70's, I think, I came across this link which I find to be a wonderful thought provoking piece. I hope you'll enjoy, I did.

http://sheridan_conlaw.typepad.com/sheridan_conlaw/false_accusations_child_abuse/

Salem witch hunts are still with us!!:up::yes:

The Second Amendment

Alright guys, next up is the Second Amendment to our Constitution and it reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Madison did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment—the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions."[23] In contrast, historian Jack Rakove suggests that Madison's intention in framing the Second Amendment was to provide assurances to moderate Anti-Federalists that the militias would not be disarmed.[24]

One aspect of the gun control debate, is the conflict between gun control laws and the right to lawfully rebel against unjust governments.[25] This right was exercised within the Declaration of Independence.[26] This tradition continued after the American Revolution. In 1784, for example, New Hampshire adopted Article 10 of its Bill of Rights, which recognizes a "Right of Revolution."[27] In 1788, Alexander Hamilton also recognized a Lockean right of revolution:

f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.[28]

Hamilton used this argument to rally support for ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

With that bottom notation I believe that our founding fathers were far better at seeing into our future than many here believe. Those who use the pat answer of the Constitution has outlived its self or is laws are in a sort of flux to be reshaped to fit a majority desire IMHO are way off base and the proper way to amend it Is by an amendment process which is the legal and only proper way to make sure that the very bedrock of this wonderful document remains true to the will of the People.

"gafinfan wrote:

With that bottom notation I believe that our founding fathers were far better at seeing into our future than many here believe. Those who use the pat answer of the Constitution has outlived its self or is laws are in a sort of flux to be reshaped to fit a majority desire IMHO are way off base and the proper way to amend it Is by an amendment process which is the legal and only proper way to make sure that the very bedrock of this wonderful document remains true to the will of the People.

Wonderfully said GA. :yes:

I've given the "Second" more than enough time and it seems that all agree that it is just what it says it is. Not one soul has come to argue against it so we will move on. I'll be back with the next installment-a surprise.

"gafinfan wrote:

I've given the "Second" more than enough time and it seems that all agree that it is just what it says it is. Not one soul has come to argue against it so we will move on. I'll be back with the next installment-a surprise.

The next topic I will disagree with whatever you say just to get this place alive again. So if you like puppies I will argue kittens are better. :lol: :hi5:

"sking29 wrote:

The next topic I will disagree with whatever you say just to get this place alive again. So if you like puppies I will argue kittens are better. :lol: :hi5:

What part of East Tennessee are you from sking? My wifes 1st cousin is the OL coach of the Smokey Bears at Sevierville HS.

I would like us to next tackle the 13th and 14th Amendments and their interaction coming as it were after the WONA as to their legality and baring on our freedoms.

Two links to help in this process:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Amendment_process

Amending the Constitution is a two-part process: amendments must be proposed and then they must be ratified. Amendments can be proposed one of two ways. The only way that has been used to date is through a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress. Alternatively, two-thirds of the legislatures of the States can call a Constitutional Convention to consider one or more amendments. This second method has never been used, and it is unclear exactly how, in practice, such a Constitutional Convention would work.

Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states, a process called ratification. Depending on the amendment, this requires either the state legislatures or special state conventions to approve the amendment by simple majority vote. Amendments generally go to state legislatures to be ratified, only the Twenty-first Amendment called for special state conventions.

Unlike many other constitutions, amendments to the U.S. constitution are appended to the existing body of the text without altering or removing what already exists. There is no provision for deleting either obsolete text or rescinded provisions, including passages that are directly contradicted by subsequent amendments (for example, the 18th and 21st).

And:

http://www.constitutionfacts.com/index.cfm?section=constitution&page=letterOfTransmittal.cfm

In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important consideration

IMHO there is a very fine line drawn here between our indiviual freedoms and our collective safety. Sometimes when you make a mistake it ends up being the right thing to do, such is life.:wink2:

"Themole wrote:

What part of East Tennessee are you from sking? My wifes 1st cousin is the OL coach of the Smokey Bears at Sevierville HS.

I am around the Knoxville area and live about an hour and a half from Sevierville. LaFollette is the actual name of the city I live in. :up:

Also my high school plays Sevierville every year...Campbell County... maybe they might recognize that name. :yes:

"sking29 wrote:

I am around the Knoxville area and live about an hour and a half from Sevierville. LaFollette is the actual name of the city I live in. :up:

Also my high school plays Sevierville every year...Campbell County... maybe they might recognize that name. :yes:

Did you ever eat at either of the S & S Cafeterias in Knoxville? I Managed both at different times in my career. Sorry for the OT but inquiring minds want to know.

"sking29 wrote:

I am around the Knoxville area and live about an hour and a half from Sevierville. LaFollette is the actual name of the city I live in. :up:

Also my high school plays Sevierville every year...Campbell County... maybe they might recognize that name. :yes:

Coach Bill Galloway, he was formally OL coach for the Lakeland, Fl. HS "Dreadnoughts" under head coach Bill Castle, until he retired and moved to Sevierville, to be close to his grandchildren.

Sorry Ron. No more hijacking your thread.