oldsoul
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #101
Please correct me if I am wrong, but is consitutional law not all about interpretation? Hence, we must understand what the writers meant and how it fits into historical context. Therefore, discussing the FP as it relates to the constitution, while not defining law, is imperative to understanding what was meant by a given clause. There was, and is, no way to write a law or doctrine that would cover all possible scenarios, so we must attempt to assertain the intent of a given law, clause, or doctrine.I wish you wouldn't try condescending sarcasm and would stick to the topic. I have to struggle to stay high minded when people say things like "try actually reading the Federalist Papers." I have, in fact, read them and published three scholarly articles about them in The Journal of American History. The Federalist Papers are not part of the Constitution, they are a series of essays in the form of letters published in newspapers as part of the national debate over the new Constitution. I'm sure you know this. The opinions expressed in the FP are not legal or judicial. They are more like the presidential debates on TV. Why do you drag them into the debate about constitutional law with some claim about "mindset"? You surely know better than this. Law is not a mind reading exercise. Why do you want to address me in that condescending tone? Is it because you can't engage with my post so you attempt to dismiss it and establish yourself as some kind of authority? That is not helpful to me nor, I suspect, of much interest to our colleagues.No, it is truth, try accually reading the Federalist Papers. It cuts to the truth of the mindset of those who wrote the documents we rely on to govern ourselves to this day.Your view of the foundation is interesting and much en vogue among the radio right these days.
Umm... Yes, both accually. I was specificly refering to the constitution, but the same holds true for the Articles of Confederation, as well as most, if not all, of the original 13 colonies' founding documents.When you speak of the "founding of our country" are you thinking of the Articles of Confederation or its successor document, our current U.S. constitution?
And nowhere did I say that a specific religion was required, merely that a religion is required. do you understand the difference? Or are you one of those fools that think freedom of religion is the same as freedom from religion.The colonies being joined had several different established churches, principally Congregationalists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers and Anglicans. Only the first two of these got along with each other tolerably well. It made common as well as political sense to draw the line on religion below the level of the new, federal government.
Hence the freedom of religion amendment. Wow, can't beleive you are accually making my arguement for me. Especially after trying to make it sound like I was just following the herd, and using an "en vogue" argument. Unreal, just unreal, what the left has done to undermine and distort what our founding fathers said, and meant.So, while it is true that some colonies and provinces were established for specific reasons of church polity (e.g. Massachusetts) and even more had some form of established church with varying degrees of tolerance for dissenters, no one involved in the formation of the United States believed that a religious mission or establishment at the federal level was appropriate or even doable.
Have you any Supreme Court decisions to support your interpretation about freedom of religion versus freedom from religion? How about the idea that states must mandate religious practice? Massachusetts, as I'm sure you know, did not disestablish the Congregational Church until 1832, yet it allowed other denominations to flourish and had no requirement to belong to any of them. I would like to see your evidence for your claims. Really, I've studied early American history for many years. I'm curious. I'm eager. Bring it on.
As to the Supreme Court rulings question, here are a couple:
- Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (1990)
The 1990 Equal Access Act, which required that public schools give religious groups the same access to facilities that other extracurricular groups have, was upheld. Allowing religious clubs to meet did not violate the Establishment Clause. - Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette (1995)
A cross placed by a private group in a traditional public forum adjoining the state house did not violate the Establishment Clause, as the space was open to all on equal terms. - Mitchell v. Helms (2000)
The federal government could provide computer equipment to all schools—public, private and parochial—under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The aid was religiously neutral and did not violate the Establishment Clause.
And, by the way, just what, exactly, do you mean by "high minded"? Many different things could be meant, and interpreted by such statements. Some of which I would find quite condescending, myself.