Amy Coney Barrett, possible Justice...non-violent felons should not lose their 2nd Amendment Rights.

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
31,043
Reaction score
16,439
Points
2,945
Location
Land of the sane.
he makes the decisions for the family and serves as her moral compass.
Being a decider for the family and a moral compass doesn't mean he decides what she does as a professional justice tasked with upholding the Constitution.
uh-huh ... you didn't read the whole thing i bet. her religion will dictate her decisions.

she staunchly anti choice & that has everything to do with her beliefs.

if she were asked, (like mike pence ) what/who is she? to list in order
1st, 2nd 3rd...

a constitutional defender, a republican, or a ' christian ' ...

what do you think her answer would be?

There is no religious test for holding office in the United States, so her religious views are off the table...
only if she keeps a wall of separation.

Nope...not even that ......there is no requirement to keep your religion separate....we have freedom of religion in this country.
absolutely one has freedom of religion AND freedom from religion.

but we are a secular nation when it comes to the law of the land. & to override the constitution - which is the law of the land - because one's religion CONflicts with it -

is, uh .... unconstitutional.



Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent


To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin
With this letter, Jefferson reassured the Danbury Baptists that they could limit property ownership in their community to Baptists without fear of the legislature stepping in.
funny that i couldn't find a single link that explains what you just said.

color me surprised.

however, i did find the letter first written TO jefferson by the danbury baptists:

Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists – Full Text
The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.
To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America.

Sir,

Letters between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists - Bill of Rights Institute

^^^ funny that NOTHING about property rights was mentioned ^^^

upon further researching non biased credible sources, ( which critical thinking upright bipeds often do ) i found the reason for the letter TO jefferson:

Our Collective Capacity: the Danbury Baptist Association was organized in 1790 and consisted of twenty-six churches, mostly in western Connecticut, but including three churches in eastern New York. At its October 1800 meeting, the association initiated a petition movement to redress the grievances of the dissenting minority against the Congregationalist majority in the region. Although disestablishment had not been an issue in the 1800 election in Connecticut, the movement was a call for the statewide repeal of all laws that could be understood as supporting an established religion. In 1801, the petition movement tried to remain above partisan politics and cultivated support of some Congregationalists, Episcopalians, and other dissenters who might be sympathetic to their cause. On 8 Oct. 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association, meeting at Colebrook, Connecticut, voted that Elders Stephen Royce (Stratfield), Daniel Wildman (Wolcott and Bristol), Nehemiah Dodge (Southington and Farmington), Stephen S. Nelson (Hartford), and Deacons Jared Mills (Simsbury) and Ephraim Robbins (Hartford) “be a committee to prepare an address to the President of the United States, in behalf of this association.” The address and the president’s reply of 1 Jan. 1802 were reprinted in newspapers across the country, including Denniston and Cheetham’s American Citizen on 18 Jan. 1802 (Minutes of the Danbury Baptist Association, Holden at Colebrook, October 7 and 8, 1801; Together with Their Circular and Corresponding Letters [Hartford, 1801]; Shaw-Shoemaker, No. 109; McLoughlin, New England Dissent, 2:920, 985–8, 1004–5; Connecticut Courant, 25 May 1801).
Founders Online: To Thomas Jefferson from the Danbury Baptist Association, [aft …

Even though the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights prevented the United States Congress from establishing any sort of national religion or religious preference, a handful of states — including Connecticut and Massachusetts — still lacked similar religious liberty protections. While Connecticans were not forced to join, attend, or endorse the Congregational Church in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the Church benefited from archaic laws that entitled it to taxpayer money, and it was the openly favored denomination of many of Connecticut’s influential “Standing Order” politicians.
The Danbury Baptists were fearful of the lack of explicit religious liberty laws in Connecticut. Writing to Jefferson in their October 7th letter: “What[ever] religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor[ity] part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights.”
October 7: The Political “Separation of Church and State” Begins with a Letter From Danbury.

You guys have never been able to explain how a private letter to a private group has the force of Constitutional Law......you twit.
because that private letter - reiterates what the 1st amendment states.

look up that word if you don't know the meaning.
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
31,043
Reaction score
16,439
Points
2,945
Location
Land of the sane.
he makes the decisions for the family and serves as her moral compass.
Being a decider for the family and a moral compass doesn't mean he decides what she does as a professional justice tasked with upholding the Constitution.
uh-huh ... you didn't read the whole thing i bet. her religion will dictate her decisions.

she staunchly anti choice & that has everything to do with her beliefs.

if she were asked, (like mike pence ) what/who is she? to list in order
1st, 2nd 3rd...

a constitutional defender, a republican, or a ' christian ' ...

what do you think her answer would be?

There is no religious test for holding office in the United States, so her religious views are off the table...
only if she keeps a wall of separation.

Nope...not even that ......there is no requirement to keep your religion separate....we have freedom of religion in this country.
absolutely one has freedom of religion AND freedom from religion.

but we are a secular nation when it comes to the law of the land. & to override the constitution - which is the law of the land - because one's religion CONflicts with it -

is, uh .... unconstitutional.
The separation of church and state protects the citizen's religion from government, not protecting the government from a citizen's religion.
when deciding law - which is based on the constitution - & secular to its very core - then one is bound by the constitution, no matter what religious views one personally has.

they are duty bound to follow the document created by our founding fathers & not by the bible, torah, quran, or any other book inspired by religious dogma.
That kind of idealism is naive.

People's core beliefs color all of their decisions.
one can be personally opposed to abortion, same sex marriage, & the like; & not legislate or deny those rights to force those personal beliefs on others.
But, the government can't deny a person because of their religion
true. nobody's arguing that. it's how that person uses or ignores their religion when making secular decisions.

& she has ruled/decided based on it in the past.
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
31,043
Reaction score
16,439
Points
2,945
Location
Land of the sane.
silly you.

Amy Coney Barrett, Mr. Trump's Supreme Court nomination, meets the president's unprecedented anti-abortion rights litmus test. The federal judge has referred to abortion as "always immoral" and offers something a former top candidate, Barbara Lagoa, doesn't: A clear anti-abortion rights judicial record. During her three years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, she has already ruled on two abortion-related cases, both times favoring restrictions on access to abortion.
What we know about Amy Coney Barrett's judicial abortion record

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Barrett Responses to Whitehouse QFRs.pdf
Sillier you. Do you think Justices can't have opinions?
You still can't read minds.
having an opinion is one thing, deciding on it religiously rather than in a secular manner is another.

she has done the former.

can't you read?
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
31,043
Reaction score
16,439
Points
2,945
Location
Land of the sane.
lol ... the constitution says nothing specifically about AR-15s either.
Indeed, it neither mentions abortion nor AR15s.
It does mention arms, however, which is a term that AR15s fall under.
It does not mention healthcare, which is a term abortions fall under.
Try smarter next time.
it doesn't mention abortion, because women were chattel back then... just like their slaves.
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
31,043
Reaction score
16,439
Points
2,945
Location
Land of the sane.
he makes the decisions for the family and serves as her moral compass.
Being a decider for the family and a moral compass doesn't mean he decides what she does as a professional justice tasked with upholding the Constitution.
uh-huh ... you didn't read the whole thing i bet. her religion will dictate her decisions.

she staunchly anti choice & that has everything to do with her beliefs.

if she were asked, (like mike pence ) what/who is she? to list in order
1st, 2nd 3rd...

a constitutional defender, a republican, or a ' christian ' ...

what do you think her answer would be?
You honestly think she doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state? Try to give an honest answer instead of your usual trolling.
no i don't, based on her decision history on the subject. & stop projecting.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
8,878
Reaction score
1,968
Points
195
he makes the decisions for the family and serves as her moral compass.
Being a decider for the family and a moral compass doesn't mean he decides what she does as a professional justice tasked with upholding the Constitution.
uh-huh ... you didn't read the whole thing i bet. her religion will dictate her decisions.

she staunchly anti choice & that has everything to do with her beliefs.

if she were asked, (like mike pence ) what/who is she? to list in order
1st, 2nd 3rd...

a constitutional defender, a republican, or a ' christian ' ...

what do you think her answer would be?

There is no religious test for holding office in the United States, so her religious views are off the table...
only if she keeps a wall of separation.

Nope...not even that ......there is no requirement to keep your religion separate....we have freedom of religion in this country.
absolutely one has freedom of religion AND freedom from religion.

but we are a secular nation when it comes to the law of the land. & to override the constitution - which is the law of the land - because one's religion CONflicts with it -

is, uh .... unconstitutional.
The separation of church and state protects the citizen's religion from government, not protecting the government from a citizen's religion.
when deciding law - which is based on the constitution - & secular to its very core - then one is bound by the constitution, no matter what religious views one personally has.

they are duty bound to follow the document created by our founding fathers & not by the bible, torah, quran, or any other book inspired by religious dogma.
That kind of idealism is naive.

People's core beliefs color all of their decisions.
one can be personally opposed to abortion, same sex marriage, & the like; & not legislate or deny those rights to force those personal beliefs on others.
But, the government can't deny a person because of their religion
true. nobody's arguing that. it's how that person uses or ignores their religion when making secular decisions.

& she has ruled/decided based on it in the past.
Like I said no one makes any decision that is not influenced by their core beliefs.
 

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
32,335
Reaction score
9,013
Points
1,340
Location
Boston, MA
he makes the decisions for the family and serves as her moral compass.
Being a decider for the family and a moral compass doesn't mean he decides what she does as a professional justice tasked with upholding the Constitution.
uh-huh ... you didn't read the whole thing i bet. her religion will dictate her decisions.

she staunchly anti choice & that has everything to do with her beliefs.

if she were asked, (like mike pence ) what/who is she? to list in order
1st, 2nd 3rd...

a constitutional defender, a republican, or a ' christian ' ...

what do you think her answer would be?
You honestly think she doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state? Try to give an honest answer instead of your usual trolling.
no i don't, based on her decision history on the subject. & stop projecting.
So you believes that ACB wants the Catholic Church to run the country? My goodness. You are quite the “Independent”.
 

miketx

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
84,104
Reaction score
22,797
Points
2,220
he makes the decisions for the family and serves as her moral compass.
Being a decider for the family and a moral compass doesn't mean he decides what she does as a professional justice tasked with upholding the Constitution.
uh-huh ... you didn't read the whole thing i bet. her religion will dictate her decisions.

she staunchly anti choice & that has everything to do with her beliefs.

if she were asked, (like mike pence ) what/who is she? to list in order
1st, 2nd 3rd...

a constitutional defender, a republican, or a ' christian ' ...

what do you think her answer would be?
Why would anyone want to "read the whole thing?" All you ever post is fake bullshit.
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
83,517
Reaction score
22,090
Points
2,180
he makes the decisions for the family and serves as her moral compass.
Being a decider for the family and a moral compass doesn't mean he decides what she does as a professional justice tasked with upholding the Constitution.
uh-huh ... you didn't read the whole thing i bet. her religion will dictate her decisions.

she staunchly anti choice & that has everything to do with her beliefs.

if she were asked, (like mike pence ) what/who is she? to list in order
1st, 2nd 3rd...

a constitutional defender, a republican, or a ' christian ' ...

what do you think her answer would be?

There is no religious test for holding office in the United States, so her religious views are off the table...
only if she keeps a wall of separation.

Nope...not even that ......there is no requirement to keep your religion separate....we have freedom of religion in this country.
absolutely one has freedom of religion AND freedom from religion.

but we are a secular nation when it comes to the law of the land. & to override the constitution - which is the law of the land - because one's religion CONflicts with it -

is, uh .... unconstitutional.



Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent


To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin
With this letter, Jefferson reassured the Danbury Baptists that they could limit property ownership in their community to Baptists without fear of the legislature stepping in.
funny that i couldn't find a single link that explains what you just said.

color me surprised.

however, i did find the letter first written TO jefferson by the danbury baptists:

Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists – Full Text
The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.
To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America.

Sir,

Letters between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists - Bill of Rights Institute

^^^ funny that NOTHING about property rights was mentioned ^^^

upon further researching non biased credible sources, ( which critical thinking upright bipeds often do ) i found the reason for the letter TO jefferson:

Our Collective Capacity: the Danbury Baptist Association was organized in 1790 and consisted of twenty-six churches, mostly in western Connecticut, but including three churches in eastern New York. At its October 1800 meeting, the association initiated a petition movement to redress the grievances of the dissenting minority against the Congregationalist majority in the region. Although disestablishment had not been an issue in the 1800 election in Connecticut, the movement was a call for the statewide repeal of all laws that could be understood as supporting an established religion. In 1801, the petition movement tried to remain above partisan politics and cultivated support of some Congregationalists, Episcopalians, and other dissenters who might be sympathetic to their cause. On 8 Oct. 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association, meeting at Colebrook, Connecticut, voted that Elders Stephen Royce (Stratfield), Daniel Wildman (Wolcott and Bristol), Nehemiah Dodge (Southington and Farmington), Stephen S. Nelson (Hartford), and Deacons Jared Mills (Simsbury) and Ephraim Robbins (Hartford) “be a committee to prepare an address to the President of the United States, in behalf of this association.” The address and the president’s reply of 1 Jan. 1802 were reprinted in newspapers across the country, including Denniston and Cheetham’s American Citizen on 18 Jan. 1802 (Minutes of the Danbury Baptist Association, Holden at Colebrook, October 7 and 8, 1801; Together with Their Circular and Corresponding Letters [Hartford, 1801]; Shaw-Shoemaker, No. 109; McLoughlin, New England Dissent, 2:920, 985–8, 1004–5; Connecticut Courant, 25 May 1801).
Founders Online: To Thomas Jefferson from the Danbury Baptist Association, [aft …

Even though the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights prevented the United States Congress from establishing any sort of national religion or religious preference, a handful of states — including Connecticut and Massachusetts — still lacked similar religious liberty protections. While Connecticans were not forced to join, attend, or endorse the Congregational Church in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the Church benefited from archaic laws that entitled it to taxpayer money, and it was the openly favored denomination of many of Connecticut’s influential “Standing Order” politicians.
The Danbury Baptists were fearful of the lack of explicit religious liberty laws in Connecticut. Writing to Jefferson in their October 7th letter: “What[ever] religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor[ity] part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights.”
October 7: The Political “Separation of Church and State” Begins with a Letter From Danbury.

You guys have never been able to explain how a private letter to a private group has the force of Constitutional Law......you twit.
because that private letter - reiterates what the 1st amendment states.

look up that word if you don't know the meaning.

Again....it doesn't state that religiouis people can't have religious views if they are in public office...

And again....how does a private letter have any Constitutional Standing.....still waiting for that answer.
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
83,517
Reaction score
22,090
Points
2,180
lol ... the constitution says nothing specifically about AR-15s either.
Indeed, it neither mentions abortion nor AR15s.
It does mention arms, however, which is a term that AR15s fall under.
It does not mention healthcare, which is a term abortions fall under.
Try smarter next time.
it doesn't mention abortion, because women were chattel back then... just like their slaves.

They were not chattel you moron........the husband was considered the guy making the decisions for the family, as it was around the entire fucking world at that point in time....you doofus.
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
83,517
Reaction score
22,090
Points
2,180
the constitution says nothing specifically about AR-15s either.
But it does talk about firearms.
Which would include the AR-15 ... :cool:
^^^ weak argument at best ^^^

can ordinary citizens own fully automatic machine guns? how'z about ground to air missiles?

Ground to air missles are not "Bearable Arms," you doofus.......

And since you went there, the AR-15 rifle is not a "machine gun," so you fully believe it is protected by the 2nd Amendment...right?
 

miketx

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
84,104
Reaction score
22,797
Points
2,220

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top