Glimmer Twins
Rookie
- May 9, 2008
- 36
- 1
- 0
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #41
Show us where the Constitution says that.....They have, as in the case of all "rights" the power to control it in the interest of safety and implementation.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Show us where the Constitution says that.....They have, as in the case of all "rights" the power to control it in the interest of safety and implementation.
The Constitution grants the government no power whatsoever to regulate shouting.Or are you now going to argue you can shout "fire" in a crowded theater and not be charged with a crime?
Show us where the Constitution says that......Every right has limits.
The Constitution grants the government no jurisdiction whatsoever over travel or weapons.In the case of weapons the limits apply to interstate travel and in some cases license requirements.
How does that change the words of the Constitution?You may want to check out the Weaver case, the Federal Government tried to rail road him on sawed off shotguns and failed. He never crossed a State line and was tricked into making it.
I thought the issue was whether it was nonsense for some to read the no religious test clause in the proposed Constitution to imply that the government had general power over religion.
If the unamended Constitution didn't give the government general power over religion, then why was it necessary to amend it to forbid laws establishing or prohibiting the free exercise of religion?The issue, as stated, was whether it was nonsense for some to read the 1st Amendement to the Constitution to imply that the government had general power over religion in the unamended Constitution.
...the suggestion that "no religious test" implies a governmental power over religion is also nonsense.
If the unamended Constitution didn't give the government general power over religion, then why was it necessary to amend it to forbid laws establishing or prohibiting the free exercise of religion?
The exclusion of a particular authority over a matter could reasonably be read to imply the existence of general power over the same matter.
The Constitution grants the government no power whatsoever to regulate shouting.
The exclusion of a particular authority over a matter could reasonably be read to imply the existence of general power over the same matter.
Ban guns.
I don't think it was, strictly speaking, necessary. I do think it was prudent.
The unamended constitution does not give any branch of government any powers concerning religion. It is also entirely silent about religion, except the no-text-as-requirement-for-public-office, which does not address government power over religion. It is therefore not inconceivable that some intrepid soul might come up with arguments that government must have some power over religion, insofar as religion is intertwined with public welfare and domestic tranquility and whatever, and find some specific power-granting clause that he thinks applies, and proceeds from there down the slope to a national religion. The First's religion clause stops him in his tracks.
I just go with what they wrote in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. The object was prevent anyone from interpreting any of the enumerated powers to grant Congress authority to establish or prohibit the free exercise of religion.I think the more realistic reason for the clause, though, is just that the Founders wanted that point to be specifically and explicitly addressed, since it was somewhat a departure from tradition and a significant component of the new country's relatively radical notions of personal freedom.
It could and did do that.It could reasonably lead one to suspect the existence of such a general power
but it is not sufficient proof of that power.
So, why was the Constitution ratified by 11 of the 13 states with no assurances there would be a Bill of Rights? Who could have assured anyone that the First U. S. Congress would or would not propose a Bill of Rights to the states.It became obvious that in order to Sell several of the Key States they in fact did need a Bill of Rights
The Preamble to the proposed amendments state the purpose of the amendments. It says nothing about them being a list of protections beyond which the Government could not go.Who's purpose was to list protections beyond which the Government could not go.
What was the reason to the order?Over 180 amendments were proposed and narrowed down to 12. Only 10 passed. That would be why each amendment covers more than one simple thing. Further there is a reason to the order of the Amendments.
So, why was the Constitution ratified by 11 of the 13 states with no assurances there would be a Bill of Rights? Who could have assured anyone that the First U. S. Congress would or would not propose a Bill of Rights to the states.
The Preamble to the proposed amendments state the purpose of the amendments. It says nothing about them being a list of protections beyond which the Government could not go.
What was the reason to the order?
A direct promise from who, dude? Who was in a position to dictate what the legislature of the new government would do?I suggest you BONE up on your history, New York and Pennsylvania REFUSED to ratify the Constitution with out a direct promise a Bill of Rights would be added.
What we call the First Amendment was actually the third of the twelve amendments proposed to the states. It only became the First Amendment because the first two of the twelve proposed amendments were rejected by the states.The order is clear. Most important to those of a lesser importance.
You have no freedom with out the 1st and no way to protect that freedom with out 2. The rest flow in that vein.
Perhaps it is. But, in the case of a Constitution that grants only limited enumerated powers, it was unnecessary, confusing and in the long run may have done more harm than good.And the BILL OF RIGHTS is by definition a promise that the Government can NOT do certain things.
No it wasn't, dude.The entire argument FOR the Bill of Rights was to ensure certain things would be spelled out that the Government could NOT do.
That was also the understanding of the lawmakers who ratified the Constitution.The Framers insisted it was not needed because it was obvious it could not do anything it was not granted the power to do.
Most of the people believe that line. Otherwise, the Constitution wouldn't have been ratified.aren't we lucky no one believed THAT line.
If the unamended Constitution didn't give the government general power over religion, then why was it necessary to amend it to forbid laws establishing or prohibiting the free exercise of religion?
The exclusion of a particular authority over a matter could reasonably be read to imply the existence of general power over the same matter.
The implication <i>there</i> is that the government might presume such power, as others have, and now it is specifically prohibited.
Originally Posted by LOki
The implication there is that the government might presume such power, as others have, and now it is specifically prohibited.