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.
He's not their because the founders didn't want it construed that people should be forced to worship or acknowledge him. But one of their first congressional actions was to appoint a congressional chaplain. And they do start every session off in prayerI died in a military hospital back in 1985 I was out for 3 and a half mins what I was told I had no vital signs, but before they could get the equipment to my room to revive me the doctor told me I came back. Don't give me your bull shit there is no God I know there is.
But God isn't in the Constitution so he can't exist!
It was indeed. A government comprised of people chosen to represent them and charged with the task of writing and thereafter amending the document that you claim to know so well.
Man........human beings thought up the rights and set forth the process(es) by which these rights will be protected.
There is no god. Really...........there isn't. True story.
I died in a military hospital back in 1985 I was out for 3 and a half mins what I was told I had no vital signs, but before they could get the equipment to my room to revive me the doctor told me I came back. Don't give me your bull shit there is no God I know there is.
In the real world....we call that luck. There is no god.
READ FURTHER:You are correct certain rights are inalienable rights and cannot be restricted by man only by the one who gave them. Those right's consist of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Rights are inalienable to the extent they can not be completely done away with. They are not absolute, however; the right to free speech does not extend to shouting fire in a crowed theater, or owning a rocket launcher with regard to the Second Amendment.
To abridge is to shorten or curtail, to infringe is to violate, the Court has established in the Constitutions case law criteria by which the state may curtail a certain activity and when it may not infringe upon a right.
For example, one has the right to say he hates black people and wishes them all dead, the state may not restrict one from making such a statement, to do so would be an infringement of the First Amendment. One may not, however, incite a crowd to meet him at the corner in five minutes to kill the first Black person seen, to prosecute him for doing so is an appropriate and Constitutional abridgment of the First Amendment by the state. See: Brandenburg v. Ohio
He's not their because the founders didn't want it construed that people should be forced to worship or acknowledge him. But one of their first congressional actions was to appoint a congressional chaplain. And they do start every session off in prayerBut God isn't in the Constitution so he can't exist!
Just a thought...I wonder how many of your arguments on this board imply that the only legitimate position to take on any subject is one that is specifically cited and supported by the constitution?
That being the case - if God isn't in the constitution then he can't exist.
I died in a military hospital back in 1985 I was out for 3 and a half mins what I was told I had no vital signs, but before they could get the equipment to my room to revive me the doctor told me I came back. Don't give me your bull shit there is no God I know there is.
In the real world....we call that luck. There is no god.
I have been shot at several times, been in several major auto accidents that most people would not walk away from, one was an over turned bus that had rolled over and landed on three ammo cans of M203 rounds. With what has happened to me luck has nothing to do with it.
In the real world....we call that luck. There is no god.
I have been shot at several times, been in several major auto accidents that most people would not walk away from, one was an over turned bus that had rolled over and landed on three ammo cans of M203 rounds. With what has happened to me luck has nothing to do with it.
Damn.....your god seems to be trying to tell you something.
Shit happens, bro. It just does.
I have been shot at several times, been in several major auto accidents that most people would not walk away from, one was an over turned bus that had rolled over and landed on three ammo cans of M203 rounds. With what has happened to me luck has nothing to do with it.
Damn.....your god seems to be trying to tell you something.
Shit happens, bro. It just does.
Maybe he's watching out for me.
He's not their because the founders didn't want it construed that people should be forced to worship or acknowledge him. But one of their first congressional actions was to appoint a congressional chaplain. And they do start every session off in prayer
Just a thought...I wonder how many of your arguments on this board imply that the only legitimate position to take on any subject is one that is specifically cited and supported by the constitution?
That being the case - if God isn't in the constitution then he can't exist.
There is a lot of things that aren't mentioned in the constitution but they do exist.
Fuck the supreme court
what does that America was built on say about our right's? The supreme court once ruled slavery was protected by the Constitution.
There is a lot of things that aren't mentioned in the constitution but they do exist.
Outstanding analysis! Boy oh boy.......you sure do know you some founding fathers intent! Your brilliant ass belongs on the bench.
If you have put as much research in the writings of the founding fathers as I have you would understand their intent also.
Words meant something to them, especially in something they put everything they had on the line for. If abridged meant the same as infringed to them they would have used one word in both amendments.
Since you're so well researched you'll be aware that they didn't expect that the constitution would be in force as written for more than a generation.
So, the good news is that there's no need to worry about the wording now because the founding fathers didn't expect them to have any import by now.
So...relaaaaaaax...it's all going to be OK....
Fuck the supreme court
You obviously went to the Mr. Nick School of Law.
what does that America was built on say about our right's? The supreme court once ruled slavery was protected by the Constitution.
It was. See Article II, Section Two of the US Constitution: ...three fifths of all other Persons.
The Constitution had to be amended in 1865 to end it.
There is a lot of things that aren't mentioned in the constitution but they do exist.
Such as the right to privacy.
If you have put as much research in the writings of the founding fathers as I have you would understand their intent also.
Words meant something to them, especially in something they put everything they had on the line for. If abridged meant the same as infringed to them they would have used one word in both amendments.
Since you're so well researched you'll be aware that they didn't expect that the constitution would be in force as written for more than a generation.
So, the good news is that there's no need to worry about the wording now because the founding fathers didn't expect them to have any import by now.
So...relaaaaaaax...it's all going to be OK....
Care to back that up with something more that your own opinion?
Since you're so well researched you'll be aware that they didn't expect that the constitution would be in force as written for more than a generation.
So, the good news is that there's no need to worry about the wording now because the founding fathers didn't expect them to have any import by now.
So...relaaaaaaax...it's all going to be OK....
Care to back that up with something more that your own opinion?
I'm sure that the incredibly well-researched bigrednec could help out here.
Like alot of rights some seem to think exist that are never mentioned. The 9th and 10th cover that...right?He's not their because the founders didn't want it construed that people should be forced to worship or acknowledge him. But one of their first congressional actions was to appoint a congressional chaplain. And they do start every session off in prayer
Just a thought...I wonder how many of your arguments on this board imply that the only legitimate position to take on any subject is one that is specifically cited and supported by the constitution?
That being the case - if God isn't in the constitution then he can't exist.
There is a lot of things that aren't mentioned in the constitution but they do exist.
Letter to Samuel Kercheval by Thomas JeffersonJefferson to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816 ("Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. . . . It was very like the present but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. . . . We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. . . . Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs. . . . let us provide in our Constitution for its revision at stated periods.").
Letter to James Madison (1789) (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison 1789)The question, whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also among the fundamental principles of every government....On similar ground it may be proved, that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation: they may manage it, then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters, too, of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors are extinguished then, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being, till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of thirty-four years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right....
Letter to Samuel Kercheval by Thomas JeffersonJefferson to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816 ("Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. . . . It was very like the present but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. . . . We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. . . . Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs. . . . let us provide in our Constitution for its revision at stated periods.").
Letter to James Madison (1789) (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison 1789)The question, whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also among the fundamental principles of every government....On similar ground it may be proved, that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation: they may manage it, then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters, too, of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors are extinguished then, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being, till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of thirty-four years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right....
There are other examples from other writers.
This isn't offered as a smart-arse 'gotcha' but as an interesting perspective on the Constitution and the minds of the drafters.
It also puts a different slant on the oft-repeated argument that no laws can be made or repealed if this disagrees with the provisions of the Constitution.
Maybe it deserves it's own thread...
Letter to Samuel Kercheval by Thomas JeffersonJefferson to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816 ("Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. . . . It was very like the present but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. . . . We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. . . . Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs. . . . let us provide in our Constitution for its revision at stated periods.").
Letter to James Madison (1789) (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison 1789)The question, whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also among the fundamental principles of every government....On similar ground it may be proved, that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation: they may manage it, then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters, too, of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors are extinguished then, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being, till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of thirty-four years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right....
There are other examples from other writers.
This isn't offered as a smart-arse 'gotcha' but as an interesting perspective on the Constitution and the minds of the drafters.
It also puts a different slant on the oft-repeated argument that no laws can be made or repealed if this disagrees with the provisions of the Constitution.
Maybe it deserves it's own thread...
I believe this argument is the very reason our Constitution has in it the means of Amendment, which allows it to be fitted to future generations without the tearing away of the Universal principles that brought it forth to begin with.
According to Jefferson the tree of liberty is to be refreshed with the blood of patriot's and tyrants.Letter to Samuel Kercheval by Thomas Jefferson
Letter to James Madison (1789) (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison 1789)
There are other examples from other writers.
This isn't offered as a smart-arse 'gotcha' but as an interesting perspective on the Constitution and the minds of the drafters.
It also puts a different slant on the oft-repeated argument that no laws can be made or repealed if this disagrees with the provisions of the Constitution.
Maybe it deserves it's own thread...
I believe this argument is the very reason our Constitution has in it the means of Amendment, which allows it to be fitted to future generations without the tearing away of the Universal principles that brought it forth to begin with.
Fair enough, but according to Jefferson's thoughts, shouldn't the whole Constitution be revisited every thirty four years or so, rather than just patched?
Letter to Samuel Kercheval by Thomas Jefferson
Letter to James Madison (1789) (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison 1789)
There are other examples from other writers.
This isn't offered as a smart-arse 'gotcha' but as an interesting perspective on the Constitution and the minds of the drafters.
It also puts a different slant on the oft-repeated argument that no laws can be made or repealed if this disagrees with the provisions of the Constitution.
Maybe it deserves it's own thread...
I believe this argument is the very reason our Constitution has in it the means of Amendment, which allows it to be fitted to future generations without the tearing away of the Universal principles that brought it forth to begin with.
Fair enough, but according to Jefferson's thoughts, shouldn't the whole Constitution be revisited every thirty four years or so, rather than just patched?
According to Jefferson the tree of liberty is to be refreshed with the blood of patriot's and tyrants.I believe this argument is the very reason our Constitution has in it the means of Amendment, which allows it to be fitted to future generations without the tearing away of the Universal principles that brought it forth to begin with.
Fair enough, but according to Jefferson's thoughts, shouldn't the whole Constitution be revisited every thirty four years or so, rather than just patched?
