Secularists...Hoist By Their Own Petard

[Dot Com]

ha ha

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Aha!
Now you've devolved to a straight-forward lie!

True colors coming out?



But....I understand.....others of your ilk to whom I've had to administer similar beating become vulgar.

Carry on.

I am in this thread because a left wing jackass made claims about the founders.

Claims that were correct. The Founders specifically and explicitly framed the Constitution as a secular government,

and they did so by winning the debate against those who would have preferred otherwise.

There is no proof of Jillihags claim. You can't say people wanted religious nutters as far away from government and leave the door open to states sponsoring religions.

You can't turn your back on the fact that the colonies were pretty much establishes with religious borders.

That isn't arguing that the 1st amendment prevents the federal government from establishing a state religion (it also prohibited them from prohibiting states from doing what they want).

They are not the same thing.

Your oversimplified "proof" is the equivalent of wet dream.

Can't help that.

They had states rights issues to deal with to get ratification.

What does that mean ?

The states were the union.

Now you've never heard of states rights and how and why they are part of the Constitution?

Can you keep a thought in your head.

I asked what you meant. What "states rights" issues were they dealing with to get ratification.

States Rights, BTW is a misnomer.

States don't have rights.

They have powers:

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Claims that were correct. The Founders specifically and explicitly framed the Constitution as a secular government,

and they did so by winning the debate against those who would have preferred otherwise.

There is no proof of Jillihags claim. You can't say people wanted religious nutters as far away from government and leave the door open to states sponsoring religions.

You can't turn your back on the fact that the colonies were pretty much establishes with religious borders.

That isn't arguing that the 1st amendment prevents the federal government from establishing a state religion (it also prohibited them from prohibiting states from doing what they want).

They are not the same thing.

Your oversimplified "proof" is the equivalent of wet dream.

Can't help that.

They had states rights issues to deal with to get ratification.

What does that mean ?

The states were the union.

Now you've never heard of states rights and how and why they are part of the Constitution?

Can you keep a thought in your head.

I asked what you meant. What "states rights" issues were they dealing with to get ratification.

States Rights, BTW is a misnomer.

States don't have rights.

They have powers:

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.

Okay you convince all the states rights conservatives out there that there is no such thing as states right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Claims that were correct. The Founders specifically and explicitly framed the Constitution as a secular government,

and they did so by winning the debate against those who would have preferred otherwise.

There is no proof of Jillihags claim. You can't say people wanted religious nutters as far away from government and leave the door open to states sponsoring religions.

You can't turn your back on the fact that the colonies were pretty much establishes with religious borders.

That isn't arguing that the 1st amendment prevents the federal government from establishing a state religion (it also prohibited them from prohibiting states from doing what they want).

They are not the same thing.

Your oversimplified "proof" is the equivalent of wet dream.

Can't help that.

They had states rights issues to deal with to get ratification.

What does that mean ?

The states were the union.

Now you've never heard of states rights and how and why they are part of the Constitution?

Can you keep a thought in your head.

I asked what you meant. What "states rights" issues were they dealing with to get ratification.

States Rights, BTW is a misnomer.

States don't have rights.

They have powers:

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.

The states only have the powers that the Constitution doesn't prohibit them from having.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

There is no proof of Jillihags claim. You can't say people wanted religious nutters as far away from government and leave the door open to states sponsoring religions.

You can't turn your back on the fact that the colonies were pretty much establishes with religious borders.

That isn't arguing that the 1st amendment prevents the federal government from establishing a state religion (it also prohibited them from prohibiting states from doing what they want).

They are not the same thing.

Your oversimplified "proof" is the equivalent of wet dream.

Can't help that.

They had states rights issues to deal with to get ratification.

What does that mean ?

The states were the union.

Now you've never heard of states rights and how and why they are part of the Constitution?

Can you keep a thought in your head.

I asked what you meant. What "states rights" issues were they dealing with to get ratification.

States Rights, BTW is a misnomer.

States don't have rights.

They have powers:

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.

Okay you convince all the states rights conservatives out there that there is no such thing as states right.

Don't need to convince anyone of anything.

States have powers. That you don't understand that....is understandable.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

There is no proof of Jillihags claim. You can't say people wanted religious nutters as far away from government and leave the door open to states sponsoring religions.

You can't turn your back on the fact that the colonies were pretty much establishes with religious borders.

That isn't arguing that the 1st amendment prevents the federal government from establishing a state religion (it also prohibited them from prohibiting states from doing what they want).

They are not the same thing.

Your oversimplified "proof" is the equivalent of wet dream.

Can't help that.

They had states rights issues to deal with to get ratification.

What does that mean ?

The states were the union.

Now you've never heard of states rights and how and why they are part of the Constitution?

Can you keep a thought in your head.

I asked what you meant. What "states rights" issues were they dealing with to get ratification.

States Rights, BTW is a misnomer.

States don't have rights.

They have powers:

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.

The states only have the powers that the Constitution doesn't prohibit them from having.

Is that how you read the 10th amendment (which is what I quoted above) ?

Unbelievable.

The federal government only has powers the Constitution specifically gives it.

The states and people have all the rest.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They had states rights issues to deal with to get ratification.

What does that mean ?

The states were the union.

Now you've never heard of states rights and how and why they are part of the Constitution?

Can you keep a thought in your head.

I asked what you meant. What "states rights" issues were they dealing with to get ratification.

States Rights, BTW is a misnomer.

States don't have rights.

They have powers:

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.

Okay you convince all the states rights conservatives out there that there is no such thing as states right.

Don't need to convince anyone of anything.

States have powers. That you don't understand that....is understandable.

Ok, so again, you think the 99.9% of the people in this country who use the term states rights are wrong,

and you're the only one who's correct.

That is how insanity works.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What does that mean ?

The states were the union.

Now you've never heard of states rights and how and why they are part of the Constitution?

Can you keep a thought in your head.

I asked what you meant. What "states rights" issues were they dealing with to get ratification.

States Rights, BTW is a misnomer.

States don't have rights.

They have powers:

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.

Okay you convince all the states rights conservatives out there that there is no such thing as states right.

Don't need to convince anyone of anything.

States have powers. That you don't understand that....is understandable.

Ok, so again, you think the 99.9% of the people in this country who use the term states rights are wrong,

and you're the only one who's correct.

That is how insanity works.

Please, keep bleating about a term.

That you don't understand the constitution might be a larger concern.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now you've never heard of states rights and how and why they are part of the Constitution?

Can you keep a thought in your head.

I asked what you meant. What "states rights" issues were they dealing with to get ratification.

States Rights, BTW is a misnomer.

States don't have rights.

They have powers:

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.

Okay you convince all the states rights conservatives out there that there is no such thing as states right.

Don't need to convince anyone of anything.

States have powers. That you don't understand that....is understandable.

Ok, so again, you think the 99.9% of the people in this country who use the term states rights are wrong,

and you're the only one who's correct.

That is how insanity works.

Please, keep bleating about a term.

That you don't understand the constitution might be a larger concern.

You're the last person around here who has qualifications to tell me what I know or don't know about the Constitution,

and the best evidence of that is your inability to delineate what I don't know.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Can you keep a thought in your head.

I asked what you meant. What "states rights" issues were they dealing with to get ratification.

States Rights, BTW is a misnomer.

States don't have rights.

They have powers:

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.

Okay you convince all the states rights conservatives out there that there is no such thing as states right.

Don't need to convince anyone of anything.

States have powers. That you don't understand that....is understandable.

Ok, so again, you think the 99.9% of the people in this country who use the term states rights are wrong,

and you're the only one who's correct.

That is how insanity works.

Please, keep bleating about a term.

That you don't understand the constitution might be a larger concern.

You're the last person around here who has qualifications to tell me what I know or don't know about the Constitution,

and the best evidence of that is your inability to delineate what I don't know.

I didn't delineate it.

You did.

The concern still exists.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Is that how you read the 10th amendment (which is what I quoted above) ?

Unbelievable.

The federal government only has powers the Constitution specifically gives it.

The states and people have all the rest.

The Constitution did NOT bestow any powers in and of itself as you claim! The RIGHTS and POWERS of the Federal government originated from the sovereignty the several States willingly surrendered to the Federal to govern that union when they ratified the Constitution in the manner agreed by Contract. An example is demonstrated in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) and "should" make this clear and understood without going into the legal weeds;

Suppose, therefore, it should be objected that the reasoning I have now used is not conclusive because, inasmuch as a State is made subject to the judicial power of Congress, its sovereignty must not stand in the way of the proper exercise of that power, and therefore in all such cases (though in no other) a State can only be considered as a subordinate corporation merely.

The several States also bound themselves to the Supremacy Clause of Article VI with their ratification;

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. [Emphasis added]

Amendment X defines the extent of sovereignty of the several States, which does not impair that sovereignty of the Federal surrendered by grant at ratification in any wise! Any anti-Federalist claptrap re: Amendment X notwithstanding!

 

[Agit8r]

The Founders wouldn't be welcome in a secular nation, would they.

"When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig'd to call for the help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
-- Benjamin Franklin; from letter to Richard Price (October 9, 1780)

"Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against"
-- James Madison; from letter to Edward Livingston (Jul. 10, 1822)

"every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the US. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to Rev. Samuel Miller (Jan. 23, 1808)

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
-- Thomas Paine; from 'Age of Reason' (8th Pluviose, Second Year of the French Republic)