Why are the 10 commandments so bad to display?

[Reilly]

Originally posted by NewGuy
I don't care what you think, or what everyone else thinks. Plain and simple, if an Amendment goes against the original 10, by Constiutional mandate and decreee, it is unconstitutional.

OK. I am going to ignore the rest of your post, because, generally, I thought most of your points were irrelevant to the extent they were coherent. Besides, we have had this debate before and we are never going to agree.

However, I am intrigued by what you wrote that is quoted above. You obviously are well versed in the language of the Constitution, and are therefore aware of the amendment process contained within. Why are the first ten amendments inviolable?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
OK. I am going to ignore the rest of your post, because, generally, I thought most of your points were irrelevant to the extent they were coherent. Besides, we have had this debate before and we are never going to agree.

However, I am intrigued by what you wrote that is quoted above. You obviously are well versed in the language of the Constitution, and are therefore aware of the amendment process contained within. Why are the first ten amendments inviolable?

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

IF they are part, they are equally valid if and only if they do not contradict.

Therefore, if the original 10 do not contradict, then they are equal to as they are part.

Anything following if contradictory to the 10 or original Constitution, is clearly illegal.

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by NewGuy
IF they are part, they are equally valid if and only if they do not contradict.

Therefore, if the original 10 do not contradict, then they are equal to as they are part.

Anything following if contradictory to the 10 or original Constitution, is clearly illegal.

I am not trying to argue with you, but I don't get it. I may be missing the crucial phrase, or at least your construction of it. Is it the "as part of the Constitution" that leads you to this conclusion?

Where is the prohibition against contradiction? Taking out some of the words in between (I know this seems odd), doesn't the portion you quoted just say that "amendments... shall be valid... as part of this Constitution... when ratified by the legislatures..."?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
I am not trying to argue with you, but I don't get it. I may be missing the crucial phrase, or at least your construction of it. Is it the "as part of the Constitution" that leads you to this conclusion?

Where is the prohibition against contradiction? Taking out some of the words in between (I know this seems odd), doesn't the portion you quoted just say that "amendments... shall be valid... as part of this Constitution... when ratified by the legislatures..."?

Look:

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The issue is this:

1. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. This means it is the highest and nothing can legally contradict it nor go against it.

2. If anyone may legally add amendments, the legality would dictate they must NOT contradict or change original documentation to mean anything else.

3. As such, when amendments are PART of the Constitution, they cannot therefore contradict or they are invalid.

Does that make sense?

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Look:



The issue is this:

1. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. This means it is the highest and nothing can legally contradict it nor go against it.

2. If anyone may legally add amendments, the legality would dictate they must NOT contradict or change original documentation to mean anything else.

3. As such, when amendments are PART of the Constitution, they cannot therefore contradict or they are invalid.

Does that make sense?

I agree that the Constitution is the Supreme Law, but it contains within it a mechanism for amending it. Therefore, as long as the Constitutionally delineated process is followed, the amendment would seem to stand. An amendment is not a separate law that is therefore inferior to the Constitution. It is the Constitution.

Another question. The Constitution does not protect the right to drink or sell alcohol. Therefore, it would appear that under your test, the Prohibition amendment would validly become part of the Constitution. If that is the case, was the amendment that overturned the Prohibition amendment itself illegal for contradiction?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Reilly
Another question. The Constitution does not protect the right to drink or sell alcohol. Therefore, it would appear that under your test, the Prohibition amendment would validly become part of the Constitution. If that is the case, was the amendment that overturned the Prohibition amendment itself illegal for contradiction?

prohibition was overturned as an attempt to jumpstart an economy out of the depression

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
prohibition was overturned as an attempt to jumpstart an economy out of the depression

Makes sense. I generally drink when I am depressed too.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
I agree that the Constitution is the Supreme Law, but it contains within it a mechanism for amending it. Therefore, as long as the Constitutionally delineated process is followed, the amendment would seem to stand.

You just ignored the amendments telling you you cannot make that claim.

An amendment is not a separate law that is therefore inferior to the Constitution. It is the Constitution.

Hence the point I just made.

Another question. The Constitution does not protect the right to drink or sell alcohol. Therefore, it would appear that under your test, the Prohibition amendment would validly become part of the Constitution. If that is the case, was the amendment that overturned the Prohibition amendment itself illegal for contradiction?

Amendment XVIII

Section 1.
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2.
The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.
-----------------

This Amendment was repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment, and titles I and II of the National Prohibition Act 1 were subsequently specifically repealed by the act of August 27, 1935, federal prohibition laws effective in various Districts and Territories were repealed as follows: District of Columbia--April 5, 1933, and January 24, 1934; Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands--March 2, 1934; Hawaii--March 26, 1934; and Panama Canal Zone--June 19, 1934.

Source: LII - Cornell Law School
http://www.classbrain.com/artteenst/publish/article_61.shtml

If this is the case, prohibition is legal. Repealing it is illegal. There is no process for undoing an Amendment. -Only one for adding.

As such, since the Constitution is clear and concise with only 10 original Amendments, you would think it fairly easy to see what is Constitutional and what is not.

By ignoring the context and Amendments on the processes, as you just did, you prove the idea of "should" completely powerless.

-Yet, that IS the intent and law provided in the Constitution -to intentionally be able to clearly see what is agreeing with and what is against the Constitution without the need or possibility of a comittee or judge.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Look:

The issue is this:

1. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. This means it is the highest and nothing can legally contradict it nor go against it.

2. If anyone may legally add amendments, the legality would dictate they must NOT contradict or change original documentation to mean anything else.

3. As such, when amendments are PART of the Constitution, they cannot therefore contradict or they are invalid.

Does that make sense?

NewGuy, I take issue with your second point. Laws can be changed. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that amendments can't change the original intent of the text. In fact, that would be the whole point of amending the Constitution, as seen in the definition of the word itself: (dictionary.com)

a·mend ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-mnd)
v. a·mend·ed, a·mend·ing, a·mends
v. tr.
1. To change for the better; improve: amended the earlier proposal so as to make it more comprehensive.
2. To remove the faults or errors in; correct. See Synonyms at correct.
3. To alter (a legislative measure, for example) formally by adding, deleting, or rephrasing.
4. To enrich (soil), especially by mixing in organic matter or sand.

While one may argue the semantics of definitions 1 or 2, definition 3 clearly shows that amending something can be adding or deleting from the original. So I don't know where you are getting the argument that the Constitution is unchangable.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
NewGuy, I take issue with your second point. Laws can be changed. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that amendments can't change the original intent of the text. In fact, that would be the whole point of amending the Constitution, as seen in the definition of the word itself: (dictionary.com)

I understand your point, but as I have shown, the Constitution cannot be surpassed in its authority, nor can it be countered in its authority by its own decree, not mine.

I just showed that in the above text.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by NewGuy
I understand your point, but as I have shown, the Constitution cannot be surpassed in its authority, nor can it be countered in its authority by its own decree, not mine.

I just showed that in the above text.

The Constitution, by its own authority, allows itself to be amended. It doesn't say that the amendments can't change anything about itself; otherwise, there would be no point in having amendments.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
The Constitution, by its own authority, allows itself to be amended. It doesn't say that the amendments can't change anything about itself; otherwise, there would be no point in having amendments.

-Except to clarify the balances of power. -Which is all that would happen if this is to be understood in context.

-Which is also proper.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by fuzzykitten99
This is being taken down after being up after nearly 50 years. I gotta know, how does this force you to think a certain way? How does this promote religion? Do these people know that our laws are BASED on the 10 commandments? Why is it so bad to "Honor thy father and they mother"? Why is it a bad thing to "...not steal"? Should we promote committing murder? Just because the origin of the 10 commandments is Christian, does not make it a bad thing.

If someone wanted to put a verse from the Qu'ran, would these people object? Only if they want to be called racist.

Our laws are rooted in English Common Law dating back to the Middle-Ages and the Magna Carta.

Except where they delve into strictly theological terms, the 10 Commandments are the start of a sound moral code. And it really doesn't matter if it's Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or whatever...The government has no business advocating a particular religion

 

[mattskramer]

This is being taken down after being up after nearly 50 years. I gotta know, how does this force you to think a certain way? How does this promote religion? Do these people know that our laws are BASED on the 10 commandments? Why is it so bad to "Honor thy father and they mother"? Why is it a bad thing to "...not steal"? Should we promote committing murder? Just because the origin of the 10 commandments is Christian, does not make it a bad thing.

If someone wanted to put a verse from the Qu'ran, would these people object? Only if they want to be called racist.

"The Ten Commandments" is Judeo-Christian. The commandments, as a whole, do not appear an any other religion. The first commandment "You shall have no other gods before me" works against Atheists and Polytheists. The second amendment "You shall not make for yourself an idol" goes against idol builders and worshipers. The third one "You shall not misuse the name of the lord" goes against those who do not believe that he exists. The fourth commandment concerning the Sabbath goes against Atheists and those who don't know on what day the Sabbath falls. (Are we to keep Friday, Saturday, or Sunday holy, may I work on the Sabbath, etc.?) The rest of the commandments seem to be reasonable.

Our laws may have been based on the 10 commandments but those who created our laws were not perfect. As I said before, they were not concerned about "pushing" the Indians to the West, and not allowing women to vote.

Amendment 1 of the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." By Using taxpayer money to create and display the "10 Commandments" government is, to a degree respecting the establishment of religion "Judeo-Christianity" over other forms of religion. If a government official used taxpayer money to display a verse of the Qu'ran in a public facility I would object.

 

[acludem]

Which version of the Ten Commandments was posted here? There are several based upon which particular Judeo-Christian denomination you are part of. I have no issue with Ten Commandments monuments as part of historical displays, these displays, however, have no place in front of courthouses. This sends a message that if you do not practice either Judaism or Christianity you are not welcome or wanted here. That's what Judge Moore in Alabama was trying to do.

acludem

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by NewGuy
-Except to clarify the balances of power. -Which is all that would happen if this is to be understood in context.

-Which is also proper.

This limitation that you have put on the amendment process is not in the Constitution. Where are you getting it from, and how can you use it to justify your stance if it is not a Constitutional limitation?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by mattskramer


"The Ten Commandments" is Judeo-Christian. The commandments, as a whole, do not appear an any other religion. The first commandment "You shall have no other gods before me" works against Atheists and Polytheists. The second amendment "You shall not make for yourself an idol" goes against idol builders and worshipers. The third one "You shall not misuse the name of the lord" goes against those who do not believe that he exists. The fourth commandment concerning the Sabbath goes against Atheists and those who don't know on what day the Sabbath falls. (Are we to keep Friday, Saturday, or Sunday holy, may I work on the Sabbath, etc.?) The rest of the commandments seem to be reasonable.

Our laws may have been based on the 10 commandments but those who created our laws were not perfect. As I said before, they were not concerned about "pushing" the Indians to the West, and not allowing women to vote.

Amendment 1 of the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." By Using taxpayer money to create and display the "10 Commandments" government is, to a degree respecting the establishment of religion "Judeo-Christianity" over other forms of religion. If a government official used taxpayer money to display a verse of the Qu'ran in a public facility I would object.

It's CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, not "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO DECORATIVE EXPENDITURE RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION. If you weren't against displaying the ten commandments, what would your liberal friends say?

 

[dilloduck]

The real threat is trying to make everyone who is not Christian FEEL unwelcome? Damn this is like trying to pre-empt a thought crime. They might FEEL unwelcome so we should ASSUME that and stop it before it MIGHT occur???? Someone is trying to make us all the same again. Get real--our government is NOT trying to make anyone feel unwelcome by quoting the bible or anytyhing else for that matter. Where are the checks on out judicial system? Did the constitution screw that one up?

 

[dilloduck]

oh ya---impeachment ---that will happen any day now LOL

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
It's CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, not "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO DECORATIVE EXPENDITURE RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION. If you weren't against displaying the ten commandments, what would your liberal friends say?

It is like splitting hairs. I guess that, with your reasoning, congress can do anything with regard to religion except declare that Judeo-Christianity is the official religion of America. I wonder how Christian Conservatives would react if big Buddhist statues were displayed at courthouse entrances with all other religious artifacts excluded.