Liberal Contempt for the Constitution

[Foxfyre]

I can never understand these types of posts. Liberals would never show contempt for the constitution. THEY WROTE IT!

Is there anyone, living anywhere on this earth, that believes for a single instant, that American Conservatives would ever, ever write a constitution with a "separation of church and state" clause?

Knowing American Conservatives, the idea is absolutely ludicrous. Proof positive the constitution was written by liberals. No need to go a step further in that direction. We have our evidence.

At least modern American conservatives know that there is no separation of Church and State clause in the Constitution.

First, I must let you know that I claim highlighting how dumb deanie-weanie is is a proprietary right of mine!

And, it is no difficult feat to indicate same, as he has walked away with 'Dumbest Poster, USMB' award, what...two, three years in a row.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There's your church and state separation.

Neither the establishment clause nor the free exercise clause are 'separation of church and state' clauses.

The idea is found in a letter by Jefferson referring to a wall of separation.

Educating you becomes tiresome: one would think that knowledge of the subject would be a prerequisite to having an opinion on same.

Obviously, in your case, this is not true.

PC, once again, we are not living on January 1, 1801. The terms of "separation of powers," "checks and balance", "separation of church and state," "federalism", "limited government" are all terms we use to describe important constitutional principles.

Every time you resort to attacks on personality rather than the points under discussion, any reader can simply dismiss your remarks with a high level of assurance s/he is correct in doing so.

Stay focused, please.

 

[rdean]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There's your church and state separation.

Neither the establishment clause nor the free exercise clause are 'separation of church and state' clauses.

The idea is found in a letter by Jefferson referring to a wall of separation.

Educating you becomes tiresome: one would think that knowledge of the subject would be a prerequisite to having an opinion on same.

Obviously, in your case, this is not true.

You are trying to make something so simple and uncomplicated "difficult". Well, it's not going to work.

Read the "Preamble" to the Constitution and it is totally spelled out for all to see:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"We the People". NOT Gawd. But "We the People".

We the people forms the union

We the people insures domestic tranquility

We the people provides for the common defense

We the people promotes the general welfare

We the people secures liberty

We the people

We the people

It couldn't be more plain. More obvious.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There's your church and state separation.

Neither the establishment clause nor the free exercise clause are 'separation of church and state' clauses.

The idea is found in a letter by Jefferson referring to a wall of separation.

Educating you becomes tiresome: one would think that knowledge of the subject would be a prerequisite to having an opinion on same.

Obviously, in your case, this is not true.

PC, once again, we are not living on January 1, 1801. The terms of "separation of powers," "checks and balance", "separation of church and state," "federalism", "limited government" are all terms we use to describe important constitutional principles.

Every time you resort to attacks on personality rather than the points under discussion, any reader can simple dismiss your remarks with a high level of assurance s/he is correct in doing so.

Stay focused, please.

Focus is not a problem for me. And I don't mind providing information for those of you who are research-challenged, but don't try to convince me to provide it without some sort of 'payment,' in this case the spanking that some of you fellows require.

You, in fact, seem to look forward to it, as you come back for more.

And since you few are chock full of vituperation, and short on education, it is probably appropriate to review today’s lesson:
1. Progressivism is the first American political movement based on deconstruction of the Constitution.
2. Progressivism is the view that big government, via power and pressure, can change the nature of man.
3. Progressives refuse to be restricted by the Constitution, and see the checks and balances of same as mere bars to their goals.
4. While ‘classical liberals’ were involved in the construction of the Constitution, Progressives were not, and appropriated the title and thus claimed historicity.
5. There is no ‘Separation of Church and State’ clause in the Constitution.
6. Woodrow Wilson is the posterboy for Progressivism.
7. Today’s liberals, as Sec’y Clinton, and President Obama, claim descent from early 20th century progressives.
8. The Founders believed that natural law endows each of us with inalienable rights, while progressives restrict our rights to those allowed by legislation.

Note: the many and various links that I have provided are both for documentation of my premises, and for your edification.
You would be well served to consider the paucity of your documentation, the total reliance on bloviation, and the implication of said lack of ability to support your posts.

Education is not beyond you…well, some of you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There's your church and state separation.

Neither the establishment clause nor the free exercise clause are 'separation of church and state' clauses.

The idea is found in a letter by Jefferson referring to a wall of separation.

Educating you becomes tiresome: one would think that knowledge of the subject would be a prerequisite to having an opinion on same.

Obviously, in your case, this is not true.

You are trying to make something so simple and uncomplicated "difficult". Well, it's not going to work.

Read the "Preamble" to the Constitution and it is totally spelled out for all to see:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"We the People". NOT Gawd. But "We the People".

We the people forms the union

We the people insures domestic tranquility

We the people provides for the common defense

We the people promotes the general welfare

We the people secures liberty

We the people

We the people

It couldn't be more plain. More obvious.

Your bumper-sticker library leaves you with an unbelievable lacunae that even I, who have crowned you the intellectual bezoar of the board, find astounding!

Where to begin???

The foundational documents of the United States are the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

There are four references to ‘Devine’ in D of I… 1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Devine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.

Since these rights are associated with each individual, they cannot be withdrawn, or subjugated to the will of a governing body.

Despite the secular nature of our national government, there is one unambiguous reference to Christ in the Constitution. Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."

Armed with this understanding, how can any American consider acquiescing to a liberal-progressive-socialist view that trumpets the superiority of the state or collective?

Of course, weanie, the term 'understanding' in the above, excludes you from this discussion and from the requirement mentioned above.

 

[Father Time]

Neither the establishment clause nor the free exercise clause are 'separation of church and state' clauses.

The idea is found in a letter by Jefferson referring to a wall of separation.

Educating you becomes tiresome: one would think that knowledge of the subject would be a prerequisite to having an opinion on same.

Obviously, in your case, this is not true.

PC, once again, we are not living on January 1, 1801. The terms of "separation of powers," "checks and balance", "separation of church and state," "federalism", "limited government" are all terms we use to describe important constitutional principles.

Every time you resort to attacks on personality rather than the points under discussion, any reader can simple dismiss your remarks with a high level of assurance s/he is correct in doing so.

Stay focused, please.

Focus is not a problem for me. And I don't mind providing information for those of you who are research-challenged, but don't try to convince me to provide it without some sort of 'payment,' in this case the spanking that some of you fellows require.

It's your job to back up your points, you are not due anything for doing so.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There's your church and state separation.

Neither the establishment clause nor the free exercise clause are 'separation of church and state' clauses.

The idea is found in a letter by Jefferson referring to a wall of separation.

Educating you becomes tiresome: one would think that knowledge of the subject would be a prerequisite to having an opinion on same.

Obviously, in your case, this is not true.

You are trying to make something so simple and uncomplicated "difficult". Well, it's not going to work.

Read the "Preamble" to the Constitution and it is totally spelled out for all to see:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"We the People". NOT Gawd. But "We the People".

We the people forms the union

We the people insures domestic tranquility

We the people provides for the common defense

We the people promotes the general welfare

We the people secures liberty

We the people

We the people

It couldn't be more plain. More obvious.

Well "We the People" is actually an incorrect phrase in the Constitution. The original terminology, "We the States," was more accurate because it was not the people of all the states combined that created the federal government, but the states individually. It was changed to "We the People" after it became unclear if all of the states intended to ratify the Constitution.

 

[Father Time]

Neither the establishment clause nor the free exercise clause are 'separation of church and state' clauses.

The idea is found in a letter by Jefferson referring to a wall of separation.

Educating you becomes tiresome: one would think that knowledge of the subject would be a prerequisite to having an opinion on same.

Obviously, in your case, this is not true.

You are trying to make something so simple and uncomplicated "difficult". Well, it's not going to work.

Read the "Preamble" to the Constitution and it is totally spelled out for all to see:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"We the People". NOT Gawd. But "We the People".

We the people forms the union

We the people insures domestic tranquility

We the people provides for the common defense

We the people promotes the general welfare

We the people secures liberty

We the people

We the people

It couldn't be more plain. More obvious.

Your bumper-sticker library leaves you with an unbelievable lacunae that even I, who have crowned you the intellectual bezoar of the board, find astounding!

Where to begin???

The foundational documents of the United States are the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.

Yeah but only the Constitution is law, the Declaration was a message to King George and carries no legal weight.

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

Where in the Constitution does it talk about natural law? I searched for natural and couldn't find it talk about natural law

There are four references to ‘Devine’ in D of I… 1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.

Once again no legal weight just a message to King George nothing more.

The Constitution meanwhile makes no reference at all to Christianity or Jesus.

Oh and the guy who wrote the declaration was where the term seperation of church and state came from in the first place.

This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Devine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.

Notice though it never specifies the Christian or Jewish god. Hell I'm pretty sure the Wiccan Gods might qualify.

Despite the secular nature of our national government, there is one unambiguous reference to Christ in the Constitution. Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."

God does not equal Christ, year of our Lord is how they spelled out the date back then, the fact that you want to pretend this means we don't have separation of church and state, or that this makes us a Christian nation is just laughable.

You know some of the days of the week are references to Norse Gods does that make us a Norse mythology nation?

Of course, weanie, the term 'understanding' in the above, excludes you from this discussion and from the requirement mentioned above.

Projecting much?

Oh and by the way separation of church and state is the nickname for the establishment clause.

 

[Father Time]

6. Woodrow Wilson is the posterboy for Progressivism.

How often are you going to keep claiming this without backing it up?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neither the establishment clause nor the free exercise clause are 'separation of church and state' clauses.

The idea is found in a letter by Jefferson referring to a wall of separation.

Educating you becomes tiresome: one would think that knowledge of the subject would be a prerequisite to having an opinion on same.

Obviously, in your case, this is not true.

PC, once again, we are not living on January 1, 1801. The terms of "separation of powers," "checks and balance", "separation of church and state," "federalism", "limited government" are all terms we use to describe important constitutional principles.

Every time you resort to attacks on personality rather than the points under discussion, any reader can simple dismiss your remarks with a high level of assurance s/he is correct in doing so.

Stay focused, please.

Focus is not a problem for me. And I don't mind providing information for those of you who are research-challenged, but don't try to convince me to provide it without some sort of 'payment,' in this case the spanking that some of you fellows require.

You, in fact, seem to look forward to it, as you come back for more.

And since you few are chock full of vituperation, and short on education, it is probably appropriate to review today’s lesson:
1. Progressivism is the first American political movement based on deconstruction of the Constitution.
2. Progressivism is the view that big government, via power and pressure, can change the nature of man.
3. Progressives refuse to be restricted by the Constitution, and see the checks and balances of same as mere bars to their goals.
4. While ‘classical liberals’ were involved in the construction of the Constitution, Progressives were not, and appropriated the title and thus claimed historicity.
5. There is no ‘Separation of Church and State’ clause in the Constitution.
6. Woodrow Wilson is the posterboy for Progressivism.
7. Today’s liberals, as Sec’y Clinton, and President Obama, claim descent from early 20th century progressives.
8. The Founders believed that natural law endows each of us with inalienable rights, while progressives restrict our rights to those allowed by legislation.

Note: the many and various links that I have provided are both for documentation of my premises, and for your edification.
You would be well served to consider the paucity of your documentation, the total reliance on bloviation, and the implication of said lack of ability to support your posts.

Education is not beyond you…well, some of you.

You have toned the personality attack somewhat, but you need to focus more on the issues than the personalities.

The Founders, as classic liberals, would be horrified with the reactionary right's assaults on individual liberties and the neocons' interventionist foreign policy debacles.

But you are trying, and I applaud that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neither the establishment clause nor the free exercise clause are 'separation of church and state' clauses.

The idea is found in a letter by Jefferson referring to a wall of separation.

Educating you becomes tiresome: one would think that knowledge of the subject would be a prerequisite to having an opinion on same.

Obviously, in your case, this is not true.

You are trying to make something so simple and uncomplicated "difficult". Well, it's not going to work.

Read the "Preamble" to the Constitution and it is totally spelled out for all to see:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"We the People". NOT Gawd. But "We the People".

We the people forms the union

We the people insures domestic tranquility

We the people provides for the common defense

We the people promotes the general welfare

We the people secures liberty

We the people

We the people

It couldn't be more plain. More obvious.

Your bumper-sticker library leaves you with an unbelievable lacunae that even I, who have crowned you the intellectual bezoar of the board, find astounding!

Where to begin???

The foundational documents of the United States are the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

There are four references to ‘Devine’ in D of I… 1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Devine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.

Since these rights are associated with each individual, they cannot be withdrawn, or subjugated to the will of a governing body.

Despite the secular nature of our national government, there is one unambiguous reference to Christ in the Constitution. Article VII dates the Constitution in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."

Armed with this understanding, how can any American consider acquiescing to a liberal-progressive-socialist view that trumpets the superiority of the state or collective?

Of course, weanie, the term 'understanding' in the above, excludes you from this discussion and from the requirement mentioned above.

The foundational document for the government of the union is the Constitution, overwhelmingly secular compared to the message, the Declaration of Independence, to the King. Stay focused and don't claim more than you can't support.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neither the establishment clause nor the free exercise clause are 'separation of church and state' clauses.

The idea is found in a letter by Jefferson referring to a wall of separation.

Educating you becomes tiresome: one would think that knowledge of the subject would be a prerequisite to having an opinion on same.

Obviously, in your case, this is not true.

You are trying to make something so simple and uncomplicated "difficult". Well, it's not going to work.

Read the "Preamble" to the Constitution and it is totally spelled out for all to see:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"We the People". NOT Gawd. But "We the People".

We the people forms the union

We the people insures domestic tranquility

We the people provides for the common defense

We the people promotes the general welfare

We the people secures liberty

We the people

We the people

It couldn't be more plain. More obvious.

Well "We the People" is actually an incorrect phrase in the Constitution. The original terminology, "We the States," was more accurate because it was not the people of all the states combined that created the federal government, but the states individually. It was changed to "We the People" after it became unclear if all of the states intended to ratify the Constitution.

"We the People" is actually the correct phrase, as Webster so eloquently put Haynes and Calhoun's arguments to shame.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You are trying to make something so simple and uncomplicated "difficult". Well, it's not going to work.

Read the "Preamble" to the Constitution and it is totally spelled out for all to see:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"We the People". NOT Gawd. But "We the People".

We the people forms the union

We the people insures domestic tranquility

We the people provides for the common defense

We the people promotes the general welfare

We the people secures liberty

We the people

We the people

It couldn't be more plain. More obvious.

Well "We the People" is actually an incorrect phrase in the Constitution. The original terminology, "We the States," was more accurate because it was not the people of all the states combined that created the federal government, but the states individually. It was changed to "We the People" after it became unclear if all of the states intended to ratify the Constitution.

"We the People" is actually the correct phrase, as Webster so eloquently put Haynes and Calhoun's arguments to shame.

That would be incorrect. There was no "national" vote, which makes sense considering there was no nation at the time and each state was considered its own separate nation, as to whether the Constitution should be ratified. Each state decided for itself whether or not to ratify the Constitution, and it required 9 states to ratify it before it went into effect. I've also already explained why they went with the phrase "We the People" over "We the States," despite the people as a whole not being the ones to ratify the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kevin, you are not a founder. Sorry, but it is true. The Constitution is what it is. Your wish that it was written differently is, after all, only a wish.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin, you are not a founder. Sorry, but it is true. The Constitution is what it is. Your wish that it was written differently is, after all, only a wish.

I'm aware that I'm not a founder, I'm a couple hundred years too young to be so. However, the ratification of the Constitution by the states, and not the people, is a historical fact.

Delaware - Dec. 7, 1787
Pennsylvania - Dec. 11, 1787
New Jersey - Dec. 18, 1787
Georgia - Jan. 2, 1788
Connecticut - Jan. 9, 1788
Massachusetts - Feb. 6, 1788
Maryland - April 26, 1788
South Carolina - May 23, 1788
New Hampshire - June 21, 1788
Virginia - June 25, 1788
New York - July 26, 1788
North Carolina - Nov. 21, 1789
Rhode Island - May 29, 1790

United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you can see, the states ratified the Constitution separately and independently of one another. It was not ratified by the people as a whole.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The states were the agent of the people, as the United States is the agent of We the People.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The states were the agent of the people, as the United States is the agent of We the People.

The states are the agents of the people, but the federal government is an agent of the states. Hence the electoral college and, prior to the 17th Amendment, the states appointing their Senators.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We have clearly defined the differences between the center and the far right.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We have clearly defined the differences between the center and the far right.

If you would define me as "far right," then perhaps we have. However, my political ideology doesn't determine how I look at the facts, the facts determine my political ideology.

 

[Foxfyre]

We have clearly defined the differences between the center and the far right.

If you would define me as "far right," then perhaps we have. However, my political ideology doesn't determine how I look at the facts, the facts determine my political ideology.

Geez, if you would describe yourself as far right, I wonder what that would make me? I always considered the 'far right' the looney fringe like that Baptist group that crashes gay funerals or the KKK or anarchists in general. The right has their looney fringe just as the left does.

And I am probably as conservative as you are, because of the facts/evidence as you say, but I don't think either of us qualify for the looney wingnut fringe.