jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (108 posts)

That Constitutional Thingie

  1. Doug Hughes profile image62
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”

    First Amendment – in that Constitution thingie.

    Granted, the prohibition is against *Congress* making any law which prohibits the free exercise of your religous beliefs, but I don’t think any state or local ordiance local ordinance against Jews or Mormons would be upheld.

    We have wingnuts protesting a mosque in Tennesee and the GOP candidates out there trying to out-wingnut each other in oposition to the 'free exercise therof'. And now the wingnuts are trying to tell NYC they shold find a legal excuse to prohibit a Muslim Center (not a mosque) over 2 blocks from Ground Zero. What planet are these fascists from?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Your argument hurts to read. You demand that we follow the Constitution, and then you demand that we SHOULDN'T follow the Constitution.

      If a state passes a racist law, it wouldn't be the first time. Religious intolerance and racial issues were common in the olde thymes.

      If you wish to prevent States from passing racist laws, then USE the Constitution to AMEND the darn thing.

      DO NOT just say "oh, I don't like that, I'll elect in someone who will ignore the Constitution for me", because then we get things like the Patriot Act.

      AMEND the constitution - Amendments were MEANT to be hard to do because the Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

      1. LiamBean profile image88
        LiamBeanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You haven't read the constitution have you?

        Laws within the constitution apply to all states. That's why there's a tenth amendment that states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

        I'm sure you don't know this, but it means that the laws within apply to all states unless it's not covered in the constitution.

        You folks really need to read the thing at least once.

        1. lxxy profile image60
          lxxyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "What planet are these fascists from?"

          Just to clarify, you're not mixing the religion issue with the concept of fascism are you? I'm sure it's just a jab at GM stock, bank bailouts, and health care bills.. wink

          You know, if they're protesting a Muslim center...well, I'll never agree with everyone's opinion but I'll agree on their right to express it. wink

          @Evan
          "AMEND the constitution - Amendments were MEANT to be hard to do because the Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND."

          Amending a document defeats the purpose of it's creation.

          Fifty different states, fifty different flavors of democracy.

          Ahahah, if only it was true...here's looking at you, Woody Wilson.

          1. 61
            gryffonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I would have to beg to differ with you on this point of amending a document. Stop and think about what you wrote.

            The Constitution is the guide to those who are in positions to run the government. It's their "How To" manual. So the founders went about putting in the document how each aspect of the government was to be conducted and then detailed their precise responsibilities and the limits of their responsibilities. They even went so far as to detail how to go about amending the document, even though it had not been ratified yet. Then at the very end of the document, they themselves put in ten Amendments to the document that they just wrote.

            Now I do not claim to know what it was that they were thinking at the time, but I would like to believe that they were concerned more about the Government operating on the premise that it had more power than the founders originally granted it. So these amendment were added to amplify the limits of the government, to ensure that government understood that it was itself governed by the people and was therefore held to a higher standard and expected to conform.

            I would also like to think that our founders were aware of the fact some laws in time will become obsolete and therefore unnecessary. It for that reason, I believe, that they allowed for the Constitution to amended when necessary. They didn't make it easy, but they did allow for the need over time.

            1. lxxy profile image60
              lxxyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Well, I agree with you to a point. I believe one way or another we're going to have to create a new document, a larger set of accords between our country and the world over. Soon.

              I'd like to think of thing as something like "Common Economical Protocols."

              So in that sense, I agree.

              However, I think there was a ground swell of discourse that surrounded the penning of the Constitution, and I think for the most part the forefathers had it right.

              It was set up to function like a Unix OS--small, independent programs, that have their own duties and powers. One cannot step over the other, yadda yadda--okay, that's a completely nerdy allusion, sorry.

              But you catch my drift. The original Constitution was interested in chiefly two things: making clear what powers the government had, and making it clear the rest was up to individual states, towns, people. The Federal Government, as-is really has only one reason to exist: to protect the whole USA from insurrection and war.

              What we have here today is socialistic fascism. It's a byproduct of capitalism.

              Not to say I'm a communist. There's just other ways.

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            amending the document defeats it's purpose?!

            What the heck?! This is amazing! people are just openly and freely ignoring the Constitution!! This is amazing!

            LimaBean's translation of the 10th amendment is horribly inaccurate.

        2. Doug Hughes profile image62
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Liam Bean wrote -

          "I'm sure you don't know this, but it means that the laws within apply to all states unless it's not covered in the constitution.

          You folks really need to read the thing at least once."

          Thomas Jefferson wrote -

          ""I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises...  Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428

          But maybe he never read the Constitution.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Thank god!

            I can't believe I'm about to agree with Doug Hughes on a constitutional topic! Thank you! LiamBean's translation of the 10th amendment is horribly wrong.

            I was about to give up writing when I read what he and Ixxy wrote:

            the 10th amendment means that the congress can pass any law and the states just have to deal with it?!?!

            Amending the Constitution according to how the constitution dictates amendments should be carried out is unconstitutional?!!?

            If this is what people are learning in school then it's really time we switched to the Constitutional private schools!!

            1. LiamBean profile image88
              LiamBeanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              It's not a translation. It's as plain as the nose on your face. That you've misinterpreted it can only be chalked up to a terrible education and wishful thinking.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I'm going to put this to rest, now.

                The Tenth Amendment reads as follow:

                "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

                This means that "the powers not delegated to the [central government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States [i.e., Ohio, michigan, and any other], are reserved to the States [i.e. Ohio Michigan, or Maine] respectively or to the people [ note: the word respectively here means exactly that: respectively. This word means that the first cause leads to the first effect, the second cause leads to the second effect, etc etc etc. To our argument, that would mean 1) those powers not granted to congress are withheld for the states, and 2) those powers withheld from the states are granted to the people]"

                Sorry, but you just aren't right. There is no way my translation can be considered incorrect - I used English... what else could I do?

        3. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          you really mistranslated the constitution.

          The 10th amendment does not mean "all laws passed have to be applied to all states"

          the 10th amendment states that any power not granted to the states nor any power taken away from the states is reserved to the states, or people.

          You're just simply wrong. Read it again.

          1. LiamBean profile image88
            LiamBeanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You just contradicted yourself. Congratulations.

            By the way, Jefferson did not write the constitution, so his private take on it hardly matters.

            Let's do a little Civics 101 review here. There are three branches of government, only one can write law. That's congress.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              i didn't contradict myself. The fact that you can't see the consistency is the reason why you're wrong.

              If the Congress passes an unconstitutional law, it isn't valid because -- as listed in the 10th Amendment --- Congress simply doesn't have the power to do so.

              It isn't "Jefferson's private take", nor "Madison's Private take" nor "my private take", it's what the damned thing says.

              Sorry, I hate to be a jerk, but you're just wrong.

              "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

              1. LiamBean profile image88
                LiamBeanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Is the establishment and practice of religion mentioned in the Constitution? Yes, it is.

                Is congress, the only lawmaking body, prohibited from creating law regarding the practice or establishment of religion? Yes, it is.

                It's in the document, therefore it applies to all the states.

                This simple fact is the reason why religious establishments are exempt from paying taxes, why organizations like Scientology can practice it's "religion" unhindered and tax free, why the federal government is loath to get involved in any church no matter how odd, seemingly dangerous, or weird.

                And if states are allowed to dictate what religion is allowed to "set up shop" or not then we will begin to see instances where otherwise bona-fide Christian religions could be banned as well.

                This is dangerous ground. Unfortunately there's so much hate and animosity toward a particular religious practice that the group insisting upon banning the practice at a state level cannot see that this could eventually come right back and bite them in the hindquarters.

                It has happened before; it will happen again.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Technically we're both right on one part - the bill of rights being a part of the constitution. It was passed 5-10 years (I don't know the exact date) AFTER the constitution was ratified. But an amendment is part of the constitution. I won't press that point further.

                  "It's in the document, therefore it applies to all the states."

                  No!! This is inaccurate! the sentence "Congress shall make no law respecting an established religion..." is different from "all states have to respect every religion"?

                  Those two sentences have different meanings!!!

                  your translation means "no area of government in the US can promote an established religion". What it actually says is just that Congress can not do it.

                  I agree with your argument - let's actually have all states pass in their Constitutions that they won't benefit one religion over another!! yes, let's!!! 1000000% agreement!

                  But so far that is not the case, and the first amendment ONLY applies to congress (except when translated by crazy judges who yell OYEZ!!)

      2. Doug Hughes profile image62
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You completely misread what I posted - and it's pretty clear.

        In no way, shape or form did I propose we amend the constitution to allow religious persecution which the constitution prohibits. What I did suggest is that the people who advocate religious discrimination against Islam be recognized for what they are - and it isn't patritism because it runs completely contrary to the ideas of the founding fathers..

        Evan - we disagree 90% of the time - but this is a topic which I expected would fall in the 10%.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I agree COMPLETELY that racism and religious hatred and any other attack on any group of people for any reason is completely unjustified and should be spat upon profusely.

          but it's just that you said: ", but I don’t think any state or local ordiance local ordinance against Jews or Mormons would be upheld. "

          Unfortunately, (and I really DO mean unfortunately, truly I do), this is not outlawed in the Constitution. In fact, it is actually allowed under the Constitution - if a State were to suddenly amend it's own constitution (if it had a statement similar to the Federal 1st amendment), and then passed laws that hated Jews (or whatever) it WOULD be allowed.

          I hate to think that this ever could happen - but then I remind myself that Hitler managed to get the entire country to support his conquest of Europe, and he even managed to kill 11 million people directly in horrible ways.

          I would support 10000000% an amendment that said "No form of government within the jurisdiction of any of the states, districts, territories, or the federal government created by them, shall ever encourage in any way racist or religious violence".

          ... but it HAS to be an AMENDMENT!!!

        2. Pcunix profile image89
          Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I think they saw "wingnut" and their brains stopped.  Seriously. 

          As to all this silliness:  it will likely end up in court.  Eventually it will be decided that the Muslims have every right to build their church.

          As to the mixing politics with religion, yes, some do that.  Some born again churches do the same thing and some have lost their tax exempt status because of it.  Unfortunately, most get away with it because punishing religion is a very sensitive area (and should be).

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            thanks for ... being.. nice...

            I explained my argument before you responded, but I guess you didn't want to bother reading my very-thought-out-and-logical-response-that-uses-the-key-document-in-question.

            Good job on that.

    2. readytoescape profile image61
      readytoescapeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      To properly argue for or against your point you must determine if this structure is intended for religious or political purposes.

      It has been demonstrated quite often the “faith” of Islam can be one, or the other, or conveniently, both.

      1. lxxy profile image60
        lxxyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I agree. There's Muslim faith, and Muslim law. Two different concepts born from the same seed.

        1. readytoescape profile image61
          readytoescapeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          And one, often used as an "excuse" for the other

          1. lxxy profile image60
            lxxyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            SO TRUE!

            For you. wink

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrOUFUALHE4

            "People die with devil's pride, your religion has poisoned the earth! Jihad is a battle cry disguised as self defense!

            ....what kind of god sends one to kill another?"

    3. KFlippin profile image60
      KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      ....What country are you from?!

      That constitution 'thingie' has been breached so much I suppose I can understand why lefty shills would call it a 'thingie', and righty wingnuts would call it The Constitution. 

      Those dudes that wrote the 'thingie' would be the first in line to write an amendment allowing this mosque thingie idea to be kicked to another planet.  You see, they did love this country, and would not have conceived another era of Religious Wars between Muslims and Christians (see TMason's informative post below, maybe they did, and the "thingie" was really about freedom of Christianity, the religion of love and redemption, not hate and suppression)and if you stop and 'channel' one of those old dudes from whatever planet or plane they are on now . . .well, someone's head might explode with their rage and disappointment at America today.

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well spoken K... and so very true.

      2. lxxy profile image60
        lxxyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not so sure. I think they would be skeptic, but you have to remember these guys were often heavily drinking renaissance pot heads who framed a whole new country.

        They were pretty open minded people.

        But, in general, "freedom of religion" was not just a philosophical belief, it granted all the forefathers the right and ability to further their own faiths. Many of them belonged to different churches and sects of Christianity.

      3. Ron Montgomery profile image59
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Please post the section of the Constitution that refers to the freedom of Christianity.  Did you read this from Breittbart's column?

        1. KFlippin profile image60
          KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          !!! Excellent job!  You've taken what I've said out of context quite handily.  You are a superb acolyte. 

          The comment was added to my original post parenthetically, and was merely a supposition, note the word 'maybe', one of those free thoughts that leftwing shills would like to shut down.

          Full Context Below:

          (see TMason's informative post below, maybe they did, and the "thingie" was really about freedom of Christianity, the religion of love and redemption, not hate and suppression)

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            So absurdities can be offered as long as they are preceeded by the word maybe?

            Glad to know.

            Maybe Glenn Beck should be taken seriously.

            Maybe you used the word acolyte correctly.

            1. KFlippin profile image60
              KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Glad you're glad!  Always happy to provide enlightenment about the mechanics of the English language.

              And yes, 'maybe' I used the word acolyte quite correctly, and no doubt the Rev. Wright and the Black Panthers 'maybe' should be taken seriously along with 'maybe' Glenn Beck.  You're getting the hang of it.

              Maybe - awesome word, so effective in discussions!  So effective when it is edited away......

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
                Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Well, if Sarah Palin feels free to redefine the English language to suit her I suppose you can too.

              2. Doug Hughes profile image62
                Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Yes. and it allows you to float any preposterous notion and dance away from it later... 'maybe' I will use it more.

                1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Maybe the comparison of The New Black Panthers and Glenn Beck was valid.

                  Maybe millions of zombies tune in daily to get their marching orders from the Black Panther network.

                  Maybe conservatives have refudiated Beck the way liberals and centrists have refudiated the new black panthers.

                  Maybe refudiated is a word because "The Bard of Wasilla" used it in a sentence.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Ha! You crack me up! 

                    Yeah, I know, some people on here (TM?) would say I cracked up long ago.  smile

      4. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        actually, the Constitution had little or nothing to do with religion. The only mention of religion in the entire document was an amendment that ONLY PREVENTED CONGRESS from passing religious laws. This amendment was YEARS AFTER the Constitution was adopted.

        The original document, The Article of Confederation, were much better, and I wish we could return to them. Unfortunately, Alexander Hamilton (who wanted Washington -- a personal friend of his -- to be a new US Monarch so that they could all benefit from tyranny) demanded a new constitution that would expand government power.

        1. Doug Hughes profile image62
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The point that isn't taught in school is that the move from the Articles of the Confederation to the Constitution was intended and designed to increase the strength of the FEDERAL government.  For a reason.

          Under the original documnet, forgotton in history, the Articles left a loose association of 13 different countries, the 13 original states. After the Revolutionary war, the States wanted to operate with complete autonomy and not answer to a central authority.  This was a path to suicide as one by one the colonies would have been picked off by foreign powers still engaged in the exploitation of the new world.

          The Constitution was sold to the states under false pretenses, I think.  The South was promised they would always have slavery, for example and on any number of issues, the  minor politicians of the respective states were assured that the FEDERAL would not encroach to get the States to sign on. The wording  of the Constitution was quite ambigous and over time the Supreme Court has allowed the authority of the Federal branch to expand  This is as it SHOULD be.

          Initially, there was no AMERICAN identity. Virginians were Virginians - New Yorkers were New Yorkers.  People identified with the identity of their STATE until after the Civil War.  At some time, a NATIONAL identity emerged - stronger then the identification with the individual States that the citizen came from. We are one country now - not 50 countries and the argument that we should live under 50 different fragmented sets of rules is ridiculous now.

          1. TMMason profile image72
            TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "The wording  of the Constitution was quite ambigous and over time the Supreme Court has allowed the authority of the Federal branch to expand  This is as it SHOULD be."

            No it is not... it is in complete contradiction to the intent of the Constitution itself to have a centralized power.

            The founders railled against those in the far left of the parties which sought to take them back to a monarchical style Govt. They understood completely the dangers of consolidation of power in one place, or individual.

            Where did you learn this garbage about the Constitution and Bill Of Rights?

            Oh never mind I know... that would have been public school and College or University. The same place I would imagine that taught you the pre-amble to the Bill Of Rights was a useless quote from someone at the meeting. lollllllllll

            1. LiamBean profile image88
              LiamBeanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              It was a compromise between centralized power and state's rights. That's obvious.




              The "far left?" Are you making this up as you go along? Seems like it. And apparently you have direct connection to the founders via a worm-hole. You must attend a lot of seances or something.



              I guess you learned from a far more reliable source. Let me guess. The free prize in cracker jack box?

              1. TMMason profile image72
                TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                No Li, it was a compromise between Tyranny and Anarchy.

                That is the "obvious" intent, that you and so many others missed.

                The people hold the true power in this country... not the Govts.

                Not the Feds, nor the States, nor Local Government, but we "The People".

                And we excersize that power through replacing/removing of representatives through the ballot box.

                The far left to the founders was a centralized Govt., Monarchical or other-wise, read thier writings and you would know that.

                Stop taking what Leant leftist revisionist historians tell you, and read the sources themselves.

                Oh... I get it. You think centralized Govt. is a modern day creation.

                That is just not so.

                I would advise you read the 5000 Year Leap and the letter sof the founders, all of which are readilly available to anyone who seeks them online. You do know that jefferson wrote over 19000 letters... only 5 of which are used to affirm his stance on church and state?

                Probrably not, and I doubt you care. it would cause to much trouble to find the truth.

                You do know that in 1793 Jeffeson reported a conversation he had with G. Washington in regards to the radical fring element in Washington's party, which were seeking to take the country to the far Left and establish a monarchical style govt.

                Washington exclaimed; "The constitution we have now is an excellent one, if we can keep it where it is." And... " There is not a man in the United States that would set his face more decidedly against such a thing, as himself"

                Also...

                You do know that in may 1805 while serving as President, Jefferson wrote Dr. George Logan... he was concerned about the radical fringe elements of his own party which tried to sway us towards Anarchism, the extreme Right.

                He wrote in regards to this...

                "I see with infinite pain the bloody schism which has taken place among our friends in Penn. and N.Y., and will probrably take place in other states.The main body of both sections mean well, but thier good intention will produce great public evil."

                I will tell you this much... they neither liked nor embraced the far Left, nor the far Right.

                That is Why the Constitution was formed to keep us in the middle... to far Left and you have centralized Govt... too far Right and you have Anarchy.

                Unlike the European political scheme where Left and Right is Communnism and Socialism.

                In America the Right is Anarchy, and the Left is Centralized govt..

                It is fairly simple once you seperate the European mind-set from the American mind-set.

                And my sources are the founders themselves... not the Leant Leftist historians of the day who have been on a crusade to abolish the Constitution for decades now.

                1. LiamBean profile image88
                  LiamBeanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yet you fail to mention that the primary form of government worldwide was monarchy. This was the tyranny of the times. Sole rule by inheritance.



                  Sort of, yes. It's a representative democracy not a direct democracy.



                  I think there's some confusion in terms here. Anarchy is no government at all. That would not be right or left, though at times both 'sides' have embraced the concept.



                  I have. And every time I read them I keep in mind the simple fact that the only form of government at that time was monarchy. Rule by a single individual who had inherited the job.

                  This is a far cry from Communism, Socialism, and the wealth of other government types that exist today. To compare monarchy to these other forms is not only a misrepresentation of the way things are today; it's wildly inaccurate.




                  All of the founders were prolific writers. I'll look for this though and thank you for the tip.




                  Again, comparing monarchy to a social centric form of government is not only horribly inaccurate its really quite funny. The two forms could not possibly be any farther apart.

                  And since your brought up Washington I'd like to point out that in his farewell speech Washington delivered a warning similar to Eisenhower's "military industrial complex" speech. In Washington's version, however, he warned against political parties. He felt they (parties) would destroy the political process by forcing the people to chose one side or another while simultaneously forcing a choice of the "lesser of two evils." This is indeed what has happened.



                  I think you've not only taken them out of the context of their times you've added your own spin to what they said. History is very important in this regard.

                  It's also important to realize that the founders took Greek and Roman democracy as models for the new form of government. Two systems that had failed at least a thousand years before.

                  Washington's Fair-well Speech

                  Pay particular attention to everything from the fifteen paragraph on.

    4. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think you should have a skilled command of the English language (and at least an ounce of common decency in interacting with conservatives) before you try to interpret the U.S. Constitution.

    5. Arthur Fontes profile image90
      Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this



      It is only the business of the cities and states where the Mosques (Muslim Centers) would be erected.  How the properties would best serve the neighborhood, should be left up to the people that live in that neighborhood.

      A place of worship should only be restricted by town zoning.  If the property can have a church legally built upon it then the denomination should not be a factor.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image62
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thank You, Arthur.

        You and Evan didn't agree with  the post because you like me very much.

        You looked at the issue impartially and applied principles of logic and ethics and the values of the founding fathers as you understand them.

        There's a few elected  Republicans  who are doing this,  Scott Brown seems to vote his conscience -  Lindsey Graham on occasion, likewise Olympia Snow. This isn't praise because they vote with Democrats occasionally. They are thinking for themselves and for the country and representing their constituants, not the GOP.  I expect the same from Democrats and don't always get it..

        Seeing that kind of maturity here gives me hope for the two-party system in a time of gridlock and partisanship that will get worse, I'm afraid.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I think I've answered this before - I don't disagree with you, I just disagree with you!

          I want religion to be tolerated, and I don't want each state to be ABLE to establish religions or what not...

          It's just that they can - the first amendment ONLY applies to congress --- that's why it says "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an established religion..." instead of "No State shall make a law respecting an established religion..."

          I'm an Atheist - so I couldn't care less what religious nuts do! Sure, go splash your head with water! Sure, fly across the world every year to go to some place! Sure, don't eat pork, whatever!!! (however, on an off-topic note, I won't tolerate Creationism... that's just an insult to the human mind)

          But, I just want an accurate reading of the Document that cost so many people their lives to secure.

          And, finally, I'll respond to the Articles of Confederation comment you made elsewhere - Alexander Hamilton was the key pusher for the Constitution. His actions can be summarized quite clearly and accurately with "he wanted to establish a new monarchy because then he would benefit GREATLY!" --- he was demanding Washington be the King of the US, and he managed to convince every state to give up their sovereignty to the Constitution, he then also became the head of the first central bank (er... maybe not the head, but if it weren't for Hamilton, it never would've existed). His actions were all aimed towards monarchy to benefit himself.

    6. leeberttea profile image59
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's a Muslim center AND a Mosque. There are plenty of Mosques in NYC already and certainly if this organization wants to build another one they should be allowed. That said, the right to practice your religion doesn't mean you get to build your church wherever you want. For example, say I want to build my church to the piping plover over sensitve wetlands, can I claim my constitutional rights are being violated if I'm denied a building permit on that piece of property?

      There's plenty of other places for Muslims to build their mosque and lots of good reasons that it not be allowed at ground zero and this in no way violates their constitutional rights.

  2. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    No... the founders were well aware of the brutal Nature of Islam, and it's anti-Christian anti-liberty hate.

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240151

    As exeplified by Adam's writings, and many others.

    Consider, for example, the writings of an early President of the United States, John Quincy Adams. Not only did Adams live during the founding era (born in 1767), not only was his father a primary, quintessential Founder, but John Quincy was literally nurtured by his father in the vicissitudes and intricacies of the founding of the Republic. John Adams involved his son at an early age in his own activities and travels on behalf of the fledgling nation.

    John Quincy accompanied his father to France in 1778, became Secretary to the American Minister to Russia, was the Secretary to his father during peace negotiations that ended the American Revolution in 1783, served as U.S. foreign ambassador, both to the Netherlands and later to Portugal, under George Washington, to Prussia under his father’s presidency, and then to Russia and later to England under President James Madison. He served as a U.S. Senator, Secretary of State under President James Monroe, and then as the nation’s sixth President (1825-1829), and finally as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, where he was a staunch and fervent opponent of slavery.

    After his presidency, but before his election to Congress in 1830, John Quincy penned several essays dealing with one of the many Russo-Turkish Wars. In these essays, we see a cogent, informed portrait of the threat that Islam has posed throughout world history:

    -In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.

    Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. It is, indeed, amongst the mysterious dealings of God, that this delusion should have been suffered for so many ages, and during so many generations of human kind, to prevail over the doctrines of the meek and peaceful and benevolent Jesus (Blunt, 1830, 29:269, capitals in orig.).-

    Observe that Adams not only documents the violent nature of Islam, in contrast with the peaceful and benevolent thrust of Christianity, he further exposes the mistreatment of women inherent in Islamic doctrine, including the degrading practice of polygamy.

    A few pages later, Adams again spotlights the coercive, violent nature of Islam, as well as the Muslim’s right to lie and deceive to advance Islam:

    -The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force (Blunt, 29:274).

    No Christian would deny that many Christians in history have violated the precepts of Christ by mistreating others and even committing atrocities in the name of Christ. However, Adams rightly observes that one must go against Christian doctrine to do so. Not so with Islam—since violence is sanctioned:

    The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomination of Christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike—all acknowledge its obligations; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of Christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war—it has softened the features of slavery—it has humanized the intercourse of social life. The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse (Blunt, 29:300, emp. added).

    The Founders were forthright in their assessment of the nature and teachings of Islam and the Quran. Americans and their political leaders would do well to take a sober look at history. To fail to do so will be catastrophic.

    REFERENCES
    Blunt, Joseph (1830), The American Annual Register for the Years 1827-8-9 (New York: E. & G.W. Blunt), 29:267-402, [On-line], URL:

    http://www.archive.org/stream/p1america … 9blunuoft.

    And YES... I do have permission to use this entire article.

    1. lxxy profile image60
      lxxyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for such a well-rounded response!

      I had not seen this. smile

      I don't think that many, if any would agree to Muslim culture, mind you, but my original point was the fact the freedom of religion clause was more of a compromise. wink I love compromises!

      As long as it's not integrity. wink

      Thanks again! Won't forget this.

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Damn ixxy, did you just thank me with a smile...
        if so.

        Your very welcome. smile

        1. lxxy profile image60
          lxxyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "Just because I've been there, just 'cause I'm sure, don't make me right." smile

  3. Doug Hughes profile image62
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    I want to respond to the comment from Captain America that freedom of religion was about 'freedom of Christianity' - this was addressed by Thomas Jefferson long ago - and 'refudiated' quite explicitly by Thomas Jefferson. But you have to know some history.

    "[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:67

    This pretty much blows away TMMasons's long dissertation. He seems to think that if the 6th president of the US had a dim view of Islam, that overrides the Constitution.  NOWHERE is there a record that John Adams opposed freedom of religion as guaranteed in the Constitution  and described by Jefferson. Please note that TJ's description includes the 'infidel of every denomination'.

    Those opposed to the construction of a mosque in TN or a religious center in NYC need think twice and apologize for their mistake - or accept the mantle of religious bigot. There's no middle ground on this issue.

    1. TMMason profile image72
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The words I used are the words of Adams, himself...

      Jefferson on Islam...

      From AMERICAN SPHINX The Character of Thomas Jefferson by Joseph J. Ellis

      "Several muslim countries along the North African coast had established the tradition of plundering the ships of European and American merchants in the western Mediterranean and eastern Atlantic, capturing the crews and then demanding ransom from the respective governments for their release. In a joint message to their superiors in Congress, Adams and Jefferson described the audacity of these terrorist attacks, pirates leaping onto defenseless ships with daggers clenched in their teeth.

      They had asked the ambassador from Tripoli, Adams and Jefferson explained, on what grounds these outrageous acts of unbridled savagery could be justified: "The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of the prophet, that it was written in their koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their [islams] authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners...."

      This event occured between 1784-1789 while Jefferson was ambassador to France and Adams (2nd president) was ambassador to England.

      http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/35803

      Jefferson did not trust islam, having been made well aquainted with the ways of that religion in his day.

      And Jefferson owned a copy of the Qu'ran in order to know and understand the minds Muslims... not because he prayed to thier allah or was even interested in practicing Islam.

      True... he did not condemn muslim slaves for thier religion... but he understood the dangers of Islam all the same.

      Something too many of us, in our age of moral equevalence, have lost site of. Too many of us believe the lie that all religions are at base the same... a guide from the same god, and equal in thier morallity and golden rules.

      When in fact this is false and a very dangerous idea.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image59
        Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
        Jefferson on Christianity.

        "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."


        "Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

        LOLOL - You Right Wing Fascists are soooooo funny. lol

        Adolph was a hero I assume? wink

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You haven't been keeping up. (if you have a beverage handy, refrain from drinking any while I explain this.  I don't want any to land on your keyboard.)

          According to the right, Hitler was in fact a Socialist (or Socailist leant leftist as they put it.)

          You see Mark, the word Nazi was in fact an acronym which included the word "socialist".  The fact that Hitler espoused so many views of hatred and intollerance similar to today's rightwing philosophy (as directed by Palin and Beck) does not trump the fact that the word Socialist was used by the Nazis.

          I mean the thought that the term was co=opted and redefined into National Socialism by Hitler isn't really relevant is it?

          1. Mark Knowles profile image59
            Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Well - these two certainly seem to be saying exactly wot Adolph said. Specially about the lovin' and the toleratin' and burnin'.

            Kristian - lovin' tolerantin' (cept where they do not follow - in which case burnin' - but that wot is ur choice)
            Islam/ Progressive/Intellectual - bad, bad, needs a burnin'

            The Nazi part started off as the "Christian National Party." wink

            Scary what a lack of edumakashun will do to a body.

        2. TMMason profile image72
          TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I believe your Leftist NAZIs do praise him Mark.

          You guys should really get better heroes.

          Yes... Jefferson saw and confronted what Christianity had done in the past and as a Christian it abhorred him... doesn't make him a fan of Islam though.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image59
            Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            He was not a Kristian, dude. Can you even read?

            1. TMMason profile image72
              TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Oh please the lefts twisting of the founding fathers is a joke.

              And yes he was a christian...

              To C. Thompson, 1816 jefferson wrote;

              "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics of deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature. "

              http://www.sullivan-county.com/deism/jeff_letters.htm

              Just because he was not a denominational Christian or a believer in the organized religion of christianity, does not mean he is not a Christian.

              Read more than 5 or 6 of his letters and you will see T. Jefferson is a very God fearing man of Christ.

              1. Doug Hughes profile image62
                Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Mark and TMMason are correct in their own way. Little is known of Jefferson's personal belief structure, but he spentf time developing what became called the 'Jefferson Bible'  - which went through the New Testiment including what Christ said (generally) and excluding what Jefferson thought was added by the Church in later times for thier own purposes. In terms of orthodox beliefs - Jefferson was not Christian.

                Unlike modern Christrians he based his beliefs exclusively on the teachings of Jesus Christ - which didn't advocate hanging people or railroading them in a trial with no defense. Those seem to be modern Christian precepts I can't find authority for in the New Testiment.

                1. TMMason profile image72
                  TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I agree with you Doug, in this way.

                  Those who have practiced Christianity have polutted and twisted it and committed awful atrocities in the name of Christ.

                  I, though, do not blame Christ and God for what Men did to his Word and in the name of His Word.

                  Jeffferson was a Christian as we all should be.

                  He believed God to be a personal god to all Men.

                  He believed that one could find God through a relationship with christ, and that man did not need a human intercessor or agent between himself and Christ, and that Christ would intercede on behalf of any Man who lived a rightious life.

                  Though he would not be inclined to defend the organized Christian religions... he would defend with his life the, "Word of God", Christ.

                  Okay, so maybe I don't agree with you.

                  That is just my understanding of jefferson.

                  Feel free to disagree.

                  1. Doug Hughes profile image62
                    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I try not to interpret Jefferson, since his opinions can be found with a little effort in his own words.

                    ""I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378

                    "If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise than as if it had happened in a fair or market." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548

                    That Jefferson thought religious tolerance was extended by the Constitution to the 'infidel of every denomination'.  I have no quote which says so specifically but it's my opinion that Thomas Jefferson would have defended with his life the practice of freedom of religion without any prejudice to WHICH religion was being persecuted.

  4. Mentalist acer profile image62
    Mentalist acerposted 6 years ago

    For some reason the line between extremism and freedom of worship are not covered in the constitution...

    1. Mentalist acer profile image62
      Mentalist acerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I worship the freedom to pursue happyness:)

  5. Doug Hughes profile image62
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    If I was to purse the debate as the wingnuts want, I would point out that the terrorists of the Hutaree would (by wingnut logic) prove that rightie militias should be banned and any & all Christian churches should have to prove they do not accept contributions from members of christian terrorist groups.

    If I was to pursue this by wingnut logic, I would contend with perfect logic, that the Nazi concentration camps where millions were murdered were ALL run by Christians.

    Christians don't like to be reminded that at about the time this country was founded perhaps as many as 30,000 people were executed in Spain by the church -for the crime of being non-christian in a christian country.

    I'm not against christianity - it has its place. In church and in the lives of individuals who practice that faith. The horific nature of a Christian theocracy was fresh in their minds of the founding fathers when they granted freedom of religion without condition.

  6. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    Oh please the lefts twisting of the founding fathers is a joke.

    And yes he was a christian...

    To C. Thompson, 1816 jefferson wrote;

    "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics of deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature. "

    http://www.sullivan-county.com/deism/jeff_letters.htm

    Just because he was not a denominational Christian or a believer in the organized religion of christianity, does not mean he is not a Christian.

    Read more than 5 or 6 of his letters and you will see T. Jefferson is a very God fearing man of Christ.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

      Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

      Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."

      You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.

      Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.

      Tell us about evolushun agin TMMason lol

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You have no reply... so you babble incohherantly at me.

        Okay... thats what I have come to expect from the Leant Left.

        1. Doug Hughes profile image62
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The incoherent babble is all quotes from Thomas Jefferson.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            lol

          2. TMMason profile image72
            TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I am well aware of who they are from.

            My point is that spouting quotes in regards to organized religion and the mix of religion and law does not make Jefferson, not a Christian.

            So again...

            What's the point?

            That Jefferson would not want to mix religion and law? I believe I agreed with that a long time back.

            No shit he wouldn't.

            But he is still a Christian... and all the quotes in the world do not change that.

  7. All-Things-Red profile image59
    All-Things-Redposted 6 years ago

    What was is Patrick Henry said, give me liberty or give me offshore drilling?

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Good one!  lol

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      it's humorous that you said that. offshore drilling is a direct result of our federal government ignoring the constitution. 

      Providing federal funds to an oil company would be unconstitutional as defined by the 10th amendment.

      here's an article discussing the incentives provided. http://mises.org/mobile/daily.aspx?Id=4488

  8. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    This is a very eye opening lil book to read if anyone wants to see what FDR and the progressives did to defeat the Constitution and impliment, "American National Socialism".

    Or you can just drift along through life, blind and ignorant.

    http://www.barefootsworld.net/tm_2000-25.html

    I especially like the definition of the differences between a Republic and a Democracy.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Indeed. Anyone who doesn't agree with the .0000000001% of the population who thinks like you is blind and ignorant.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        the number you gave actually translates to about 0.0003% of a single human being.

        a toe-nail perhaps?

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I was being generous.

      2. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I bet it's a bigger percentage than that.
        TMMason rock on!   TMMason wasn't saying you were blind and ignorant; you were, Ron!

        Hey Ron,  I was gonna say much more, but that Colts helmet stopped me.  You devious thing you!  haha  Go COLTS always!   (Did you know they cater to ...gulp....Christianity, Ron?   And would that cause you to change the avatar?)

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Oh thank god! Someone else hates FDR!! I might disagree with TM on just about everything else on this planet, but he got this one right!

      here's a few other title's to check out

      "FDR's Folly"
      "Pearl Harbor: the seeds and fruits of infamy"
      "The Roosevelt Myth"

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        We can agree to dis-agree then, on most things, Evan.

  9. All-Things-Red profile image59
    All-Things-Redposted 6 years ago

    Bring back James Buchanan! Whatever happened to that guy anyway.

  10. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    Please note the most important part of this post... and the true intent of the ammendments.

    "The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede and restrict all previous parts of the Constitution, and restrict all subsequent amendments to the framework of the Bill of Rights amendments. The Bill of Rights amendments are a declaration in very plain language of the restrictions to the powers of government and "STATE". "


    CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

    Begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the Fourth
    of March, One Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-nine.

    The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the Time of their Adopting the Constitution, expressed a Desire, in Order to prevent Misconstruction or Abuse of its Powers, that further declaratory and restrictive Clauses should be added: And as exceeding the Ground of public Confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent Ends of its Institution,

    RESOLVED, by the Senate, and House of Representatives, of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, Two Thirds of both Houses concurring, That the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States: All, or any of, which Articles, when ratified by Three-Fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz.

    Articles in Addition to, and Amendment of, the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution.

    The above PREAMBLE was then followed by twelve proposed amendments, the first two of which failed of adoption. The first related to membership in the House of Representatives by population, and the second was against the taking effect of laws varying the compensation of senators and representatives until an election should have intervened. This second proposed amendment was resurrected in 1985 and ratified, becoming Amendment Article XXVII after ratification on May 7, 1992. Six States had ratified this proposed amendment in the two year period from 1790 to 1791, and between 1985 and 1992 an additional 33 States ratified this amendment proposal that was nearly 200 years old.

    In ALL the presentations of the Bill of Rights today this most important part of the Bill Of Rights, setting forth the purpose of the Amendments, is left off. Without this Preamble we have no protection from those who would pass amendments, laws, or otherwise corrupt the Constitution.

    I have taken the liberty to emphasis in red text the area I am referring to. Please join with me to correct this misconstruction of the Bill Of Rights before it becomes an accepted presentation. It is ESSENTIAL that we read and present the Constitution in it's entirety.

    This MOST IMPORTANT PART of the Bill of Rights -- the PREAMBLE which tells SPECIFICALLY that the Bill of Rights was to make sure the government knew it was limited to the powers stated in the Constitution, and if it didn't, the Amendments spell out the Rights of the People the government couldn't change. Our revisionist historians ALWAYS leave this off the Constitution!!! It is imperative that the complete text be included in any study, interpretation or construction of the contents and the Limitations of government imposed by the Constitution for the United States.

    It has been stated that some scholars don't think this is important. This is a fallacy.

    It is IMPERATIVE for the following reason:

    The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede and restrict all previous parts of the Constitution, and restrict all subsequent amendments to the framework of the Bill of Rights amendments. The Bill of Rights amendments are a declaration in very plain language of the restrictions to the powers of government and "STATE".

    There are people in this country that do not want us to know that this Preamble ever existed. For many years these words and understanding have been "omitted" from presentations of our Constitution.

    Public and private schools and colleges alike have based the education of the people and their whole interpretation of the Constitution on this fraudulent omission. (Indeed, when I was searching for it, I was informed by the Dean of the Law School at UC Berkley, that the Bill of Rights amendments had no Preamble.)140

    http://www.barefootsworld.net/consti10.html

    Why am I not surprised to find UC Berkley in the way of the constitution again.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image62
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      This is where the wingnuts part company with reality. Conservatives want to interpret restrictions that the Supreme Court doesn't recognize and aren't legally or actually there. I find offensive the hallucination that the USA is not a democracy.

      This whole article about the 'Preamble' is a lot of hooey about nothing.

      The author makes the outrageous statement that because the preamble says the 10 Amendments are 'declaritive and restrictive' they supercede all previous and subsiquent amendments.  And he offers NOTHING to support that claim.

      This is why the conservatives have no credibility. They just make stuff up, attach it to a 'fact' and claim  that because there is a fact, it's married to the falicy and you have to take both.

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You are so far lost Doug I don't know where to begin.

        We, America, are a Constitutional Republic.

        And that is a fact!

        We are not a Democracy.

        And the Preamble is what declares they are all, "declaritive and restrictive", not I.

        -CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
        Begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the Fourth
        of March, One Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-nine.

        The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the Time of their Adopting the Constitution, expressed a Desire, in Order to prevent Misconstruction or Abuse of its Powers, that further declaratory and restrictive Clauses should be added: And as exceeding the Ground of public Confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent Ends of its Institution,

        RESOLVED, by the Senate, and House of Representatives, of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, Two Thirds of both Houses concurring, That the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States: All, or any of, which Articles, when ratified by Three-Fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz.

        Articles in Addition to, and Amendment of, the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution.

        That is the preamble to the, "Bill of Rights", not the authors words, Doug.

        Are you so blind you cannot read.

        I know that academia does not teach this part of the Constitution anymore so as to dissuade the populace from the belief that the Constitution is a permanent foundation of this country.

        You think this is made up... go read the actual Bill Of Rights.

        Guess what you will read right at the top of it.... the PREAMBLE.

        The left thinks it can just erase the history of the United States Constitution.... but you cannot.

        Have you never read the document you all claim to know so well.... look here dougy. It is right there in the first paragraph of the preamble for all to see.

        http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte … cript.html

        http://www.billofrights.org/

        So yes, I know what I am talking about.... do you?

        Those words, "decaritive and restrictive", are quoted from the preamble of the "Bill Of Rights". So why don't you all go back to your lil schools and Universities and get a real education.

        You all amaze me... just deny the facts as written in the, Constitution and Bill Of Rights, with a straight face... like your not going to get caught in the lie.

        Read the documents, then spout your denials.

        Also,,,

        Amendment X

        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

        So you can undestand this doug, I will speak sloooowllllyyyy...

        This amendment states clearly that any powers not delegated to the federal Govt by the Constitution, are the States... or the people. Also, those rights not prohibited by the Constitution, belong to the States and People, in that order.

        Not the feds.

        We set our govt up to restrict it from becoming a centralized power.

        And those are just facts.

        And the facts I supplied come from the U.S. Military Training Manual # 2000- 25. Which was pulled from use by FDR and his ilk with the specific intent of keeping the truth about the Constitution from the people.

        We see you... all of you.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I personally can't agree with Mason that "because the sentences take a certain form, they supersede something else"

        Nor can I agree that the Bill of Rights are thy only restriction of the central government in the Constitution.

        But, each bill of right is a restriction of government: Many of them restrict the Central government, but some restrict the state governments as well. Just look at the 9th amendment:

        "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.", aka - just cuz the Constitution grants certain rights to the people, doesn't mean that it doesn't grant them even more!

        And, my favorite, the 10th amendment pretty much seals the fate of any attempt by legislators to pass laws not in accordance with article 1 section 8.

  11. Doug Hughes profile image62
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    The mystiqe of the wingnut to claim he has a knowlwge of the 'real' meaning of the Constitution is a laughable fraud.

    Let's look at those two words that TMMason keeps throwing around like he just discovered gravity.

    'Declaratory and restrictive'. The word declaratory means it says something. Restricive says it limits something. DUH!!!!

    All ten amendments are statements (declaritory) and they all limit what the Congress can or can not do. 'Restrictive'.  So wingnuts want to say that an arcane clause from a meeting ABOUT the Bill of Rights (a clause which is NOT part of the Bill of Rights or the Constitution) is the Rosetta Stone of wingnutism and it says something it does not.

    Such is the mystiqe of conservatism - a fraud.

    1. TMMason profile image72
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That clause is part of the Bill of Rights, Doug. It is the pre-amble... do you not understand what that is.

      Read it here... Government Archive, as it is in the text of the, Bill Of Rights.

      http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte … cript.html

      The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

      Congress of the United States
      begun and held at the City of New-York, on
      Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

      THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

      RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

      ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.


      http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte … cript.html

      What are you just blind.. to state text within the body of this document are not in there? Or that it just doesn't matter?

      That is a lost line of logic doug.

      Sad... so sad.

      http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte … cript.html

      This is not some minutes of meetings, or a cluase from a statement from someone who was just there... this is the text of the Bill of Rights.

      And that is just a fact you and the Left cannot change.

      And you right about restrictive... and it restricts the federal Govts. powers.

      And that is why the Leant Left hates the preamble and has sought to remove it from our knowledge for decades.

      We are balanced perfectly between the tyranny of dictatorships... versus... the mob mentallity of Anarchy. And the Constitution and Bill Of Rights was designed to keep us there.

      Unlike the afore-mentioned Articles of Confederation.

      Which were usless in giving the Govt the power to tax and support an army and the other responsibilities of the feds.

      Thus the Constitution to grant that power, and the Bill of Rights to restrict it.

  12. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    Read the Bill Of Rights Doug, before you condemn its words.

    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte … cript.html

    1. Doug Hughes profile image62
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Let's be clear. I made the OP quoting the Bill of RIghts on the subject of FREEDOM OF RELIGION - and I endorse freedom of religion as well as the separation of church and state.

      I did not 'condemn' anything in the Bill of RIghts. Period.

      What I condemned is the actions of religious bigots who want to persecute a religion, Islam, in violation of the Bill of RIghts and in opposition to the will of the founding fathers.

      The religous bigots who wrap themselves in the flag and claim to be patriots are repugnant to me. Trying to distract people from the OP with a bit of insignificant trivia is a cheap ploy, to avoid discussing the attempt  to violate the rights of the people of a religion you despise.

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You have not heard me at any time in this thread say we should ammend, or create law, to keep that mosque from being built.

        Not I.

        Though I do believe the states and people have that right if they so choose to excersize it... but that is a slippery slope upon which to tread.

        And your condemnation of the pre-amble to the Bill Of Rights, is a condemnation of the document itself, Doug.

        Please keep up.

        1. Doug Hughes profile image62
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You are channeling your mentor - suggeting I said something I did NOT.

          This is a lie. What I said was -

          "The religous bigots who wrap themselves in the flag and claim to be patriots are repugnant to me. Trying to distract people from the OP with a bit of insignificant trivia is a cheap ploy, to avoid discussing the attempt  to violate the rights of the people of a religion you despise."

  13. Doug Hughes profile image62
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    If you atttend a meeting of an elected body who has regular meetings and voted on resolutions, you know that the vote which follows discussion or debate is on the proposal which follows the word "RESOLVED:..."

    It's not a vote on the discussion which preceeds the vote, even if it's a written text you call a preamble. But it DOES NOT MATTER in this instance because the big deal you say this is - the actualtext of the preamble says nothing of any importance.

    'declaratory and restrictive' is self-evident in the Amendments themselves. The other wingnut meaning you ascribe to the text IS NOT THERE. Nothing in the preamble makes the preamble or the Amendments superior to the constiturion or any subsequent amendments. It aint there!

    This is wingnutism at its finest - smoke and mirrors with no substance.

    1. TMMason profile image72
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The preamble sets forth the reasoning for and the intent of document, doug.

      You are just way far off the mark.

      It is a simple thing... but I wouldn't expect you to grasp it.

      It states plainly... "...that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:"

      And those restrictions declared by the Bill Of Rights... are the restrictions of powers of/upon the federal Government.

      That is just so simple to understand.

      It says what is says and you cannot chnge that.

      And it is the ideology of peple like you that made the Bill Of Rights neccessary.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image62
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "And it is the ideology of peple like you that made the Bill Of Rights neccessary."

        Unlike a lot of teabaggers I SUPPORT the Bill of RIghts and I quoted the first clause of the First Amendment in my OP.  I was responding to the bigotry of wingnuts who want to make Freedom of Religion a relative thing. You don't want people to note who is supporting the rights of of a minority religion and who is trying to oppress.

        1. TMMason profile image72
          TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You have not heard me at any time in this thread say we should ammend, or create law, to keep that mosque from being built.

          Not I.

          And the tea party supports the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.

          Man you all just do not understand the tea-party at all.

          And it shows something fierce.

          And you quote a document you only want to use part of... the parts that is, that fit your argument, and screw the rest of it.

          Just like a leant leftist.

          And you kow that term "tea-baggers" is a vile sexual term... you demean yourself every time you spout it.

          But as long as you can attack and not answer the questions or broach the debate in an intelligent way... then it is fine with you.

    2. TMMason profile image72
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You support part of it, Doug.

      Only the parts you can twist to fit your interpretation of the clauses.

      Thus the Progressives/Leant Leftists fervent desire to discard the pre-amble. Why bother with the declaration of its intent and neccessity. When we can just wing it and interpret it to ourt own wants.

      Which, by the way, is why it was drafted to begin with... to keep some on both sides from twisting it to thier intent.

      Good try... but we uphold the entire document and its pre-amble is a precious part of our founders intent, enshrined within its text to prevent what is and has been occurring in the last century.

      Sorry for taking so long Doug... I guess I missed that the other day.

      1. Pcunix profile image89
        Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Funny how you love the founders intent except when you don't.

        Like religious mottos on coins.  Very definitely NOT the founders intent, but it's ok that you religious folk stuck that on later because you know what's best for us, don't you?

        1. Doug Hughes profile image62
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          What's funny is the persistance TMMason has to AVOID the issue of the OP.  Freedom of Religion is in the Constitution. If you bother to read Jefferson, it's obvious it included Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and other 'infidel' religions. The teabaggers are opposed to Islam - not just in NYC but in other parts of the country (like TN) where teabagger candidates are in full opposition to a RELIGION.

          It's bigoted, and unpatriotic and I do want the Tea Party Patriots to take that brand into the next election and any other election until they learn the values of this country. These values do NOT include religious or racial bigotry!

          1. TMMason profile image72
            TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I answered that way back here...

            TMMasonposted 31 hours agoin reply to this

            You have not heard me at any time in this thread say we should ammend, or create law, to keep that mosque from being built.

            Not I.

            Though I do believe the states and people have that right if they so choose to excersize it... but that is a slippery slope upon which to tread.

            And your condemnation of the pre-amble to the Bill Of Rights, is a condemnation of the document itself, Doug.

            Please keep up.

            If your not going to read my answers then why should I bother Doug. The clause you keep slinging around applies only to the Congress.

            Does that answer your question?

  14. Bibowen profile image89
    Bibowenposted 6 years ago

    On matters of religion, the Constitution only stipulates that Congress make no law establishing a religion, that Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, and that religious tests cannot be required for those that hold public office. None of the things originally mentioned are violations of the Constitution.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image62
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I wasn't sugggesting that it's illegal per se to be a religious bigot.

      It's just revolting, reprehensible and unpatriotic.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      wurd.

  15. LiamBean profile image88
    LiamBeanposted 6 years ago

    The closest analog to dictatorship would be monarchy; not centralized government.

    This world has seen it's share of dictators. They all called themselves one thing or another, typically cloaked in a "left" or "right" political wrapper.

    But in the end they were simply self-declared demi-gods with no left or right in the mix.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      actually Dictatorship is defined as "a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator"

      and thus would be a very very very central government.

      I would argue that central government applies to all three terms, monarchy and dictatorship are very similar.

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        All centralized Govt becomes subject to the will of a certain few... and eventually a certain one. Thus the slow slide into dictatorship... but regardless, centralized govt is anethema to the constitution.

 
working