Constitutional Question

[pegwinn]

[flamebait] I did a control F full text search of the US Constitution including amendments, clauses, superceded text etc at: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html. I was looking for anything that actually directed the absolute seperation of church and state. I was looking for a right to privacy. I found neither.
I have read the constitution and the bible from cover to cover. Neither makes me a judge or preacher. Just exactly where and how do we have the so called seperation........and privacy. [/flamebait]

Why do I care? Well cuz when the anti gun control guys begin to rant, they quote the second amendment. By quote I mean that in the dictionary definition. On the other hand, when the alabama judge lost his job..............and of course the knucklehead who is ticked about "under god" rant, I hear big words but no quotes.

For my own intellectual curiosity (lots of one, and not the other, you figure it out) I would like to trace the Supreme Courts alleged controlling interest in our Constitution.

Thanks in advance.

 

[5stringJeff]

Pegwinn:

The "separation of church and state" thing actually comes from a letter from then-President Jefferson to a Baptist association. But even Jefferson never envisioned the absolute exclusion of religion from teh public life and/or government.

Privacy... the right to privacy in the 4th Amendment, as I read it, only states that one is free from unreasonable searches of person and property. It does not mean that you can do whatever you want to to your own body; otherwise, drug laws would be invalid. I totally disagree with the assertion made in Roe v. Wade that abortion is somehow protected by the Constitution.

 

[YellowBirdy]

Originally posted by pegwinn
[flamebait] I did a control F full text search of the US Constitution including amendments, clauses, superceded text etc at: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html. I was looking for anything that actually directed the absolute seperation of church and state. I was looking for a right to privacy. I found neither.
I have read the constitution and the bible from cover to cover. Neither makes me a judge or preacher. Just exactly where and how do we have the so called seperation........and privacy. [/flamebait]

Why do I care? Well cuz when the anti gun control guys begin to rant, they quote the second amendment. By quote I mean that in the dictionary definition. On the other hand, when the alabama judge lost his job..............and of course the knucklehead who is ticked about "under god" rant, I hear big words but no quotes.

For my own intellectual curiosity (lots of one, and not the other, you figure it out) I would like to trace the Supreme Courts alleged controlling interest in our Constitution.

Thanks in advance.

Separation of Church in State: Correct, nowhere in the Constitution. This phrase comes from Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote describing the meaning of the First Amendment. People who don't like the wall will tell you that Jefferson's opinion on the Constitution is irrelevant. He was an anti-Federalist opposed to the Constitition and was in France during its drafting. If you look back at what the people who wrote the Const meant with the 1st, they meant for there to be no preference between Protestant sects. The text doesn't say this, but that's what they had in mind. But I don't think we should care about their subjective intent. We should read the Const for its plain textual meaning.

Privacy. Not mentioned in the Const either. Its a right created by judges. Two main ways to derive it. First way is via the Ninth Amendment which states (pharapharsing from the top of my head here) that "the enumeration of rights w/in the bill of rights is not a retraction of other rights still retained by the people." It gives no clue what these rights are, how they can be found, or even if they were known at the time of the writing. Good 'ol Judge Bork called the 9th and "inkblot" when asked in his botched confirmation hearings. But if its an "inkblot", then why was it written?

Second way to find privacy is via the "penumbra" of rights created by, intra alia, the 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 14th Amendments. These Amendments all give people protections that justices found to give a right of privacy.


2nd Amendment. Most frequently cited half-quote. And it doesn't apply to the states, only the fed govt. The states can regulate guns all they want because the 2nd has never been incorporated to the states. (Neither has your right to a jury trial in civil matters exceeding $20.)

Alabama Judge. He lost his judge for defing a court order. You think a judge would follow a court's order.

Pledge Dude. He argues that saying "under god" is the "establishment of religion" prohbited by the 1st Amendment. Courts have ruled that school-sanctioned school prayer is an establishment. But making everyone stand up and leading them to say "under God" isn't. The court that ruled it was a violation stated that "under God" violates the 1st jsut as would "under Bob", "under Allah", "under no God". The court also looked to when the phrase was added to the pledge - more than 50 years after the pledge was written. It was added during the red scare by Ike (remember McCarthyism?) so that we could indoctinate our kids with religion so they'd be different then those godless commies.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by YellowBirdy
If you look back at what the people who wrote the Const meant with the 1st, they meant for there to be no preference between Protestant sects. The text doesn't say this, but that's what they had in mind.

Uh, no. It CLEARLY says there can be no laws made in regard to any religious practice in the context of government regulation thereof. A judge may put a koran or a 10 Commandments on his bench with no say so from the government.

But I don't think we should care about their subjective intent. We should read the Const for its plain textual meaning.

Agreed.

2nd Amendment. Most frequently cited half-quote. And it doesn't apply to the states, only the fed govt. The states can regulate guns all they want because the 2nd has never been incorporated to the states. (Neither has your right to a jury trial in civil matters exceeding $20.)

Then how do you justify Article 6 paragraph 2 stating all courts in federal or state jurisdiction acknowledge the Constitution as the highest in the land and are bound by it....Then, the 9th ammendment you just quoted?

 

[acludem]

First of all, the separation of church and state WAS written into the Constitution. It was written in by the lack of mention of religion at all in the original document and then in the first amendment which was designed to keep the government from interfering in religion and vice versa.

Second, as to the question of right to privacy, it's explicit in the fourth amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Being secure in your "persons, houses, papers, and effects" obviously requires privacy. This means the government has no right to control your body (person), home, papers, or effects (other possessions) unless they show cause. It's right there. It's been right there for over 200 years.

acludem

 

[YellowBirdy]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Uh, no. It CLEARLY says there can be no laws made in regard to any religious practice in the context of government regulation thereof. A judge may put a koran or a 10 Commandments on his bench with no say so from the government.

The 1st states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." In my post I made a comment about the writers' intent behind the 1st, which was to prevent rivalry between Protestant sects. Yes, the 1st doesn't state this, nor did I ever claim it did. And I don't really care what the intent behind it was anyways.

A judge may put the 10 commandments on his bench w/o repercussion? What are you basing this on?

Then how do you justify Article 6 paragraph 2 stating all courts in federal or state jurisdiction acknowledge the Constitution as the highest in the land and are bound by it....Then, the 9th ammendment you just quoted? [/B]

Read the Bill of Rights. The first words state that "CONGRESS shall make no law" (emphasis added). This has been interpreted since 1791 to mean that it is a restriction on the federal government, not the state governments. After the passage of the Bill of Rights, states often performed acts that violated the protections guaranteed in the bill of rights. But there was no recourse because the bill of rights did not apply to the states. You don't get an Amendment restricting state power until the 14th. Over the course of time judges started appling the privledges and immunities clause of the 14th to incorporate the protections of Amendments 1-8.

And as far as the ninth... it says that there are rights retained by the people but does not say what they are. What does this mean? People don't really have a strong answer. People who think we don't have privacy rights think the 9th is an "inkblot".

 

[Hobbit]

Originally posted by acludem
First of all, the separation of church and state WAS written into the Constitution. It was written in by the lack of mention of religion at all in the original document and then in the first amendment which was designed to keep the government from interfering in religion and vice versa.

Second, as to the question of right to privacy, it's explicit in the fourth amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Being secure in your "persons, houses, papers, and effects" obviously requires privacy. This means the government has no right to control your body (person), home, papers, or effects (other possessions) unless they show cause. It's right there. It's been right there for over 200 years.

acludem

I'm not going to dignify this drivel with a response. It's just another application of the age-old political practice of word-twisting. Oops, I just dignified it with a response. Oh well, at least it wasn't a specific response.

Seriously acludem, you need to get a decent grip on reality. Every time I see you interperet someone else's words for us, you either expand the definition of everything they say until it fits your ideals or you leave out enough of their words that it looks like a) they agree with you or b) they're hateful/stupid/bigots/etc.

 

[acludem]

What words did I twist? I can read a document and comprehend what it means. The amendment I posted clearly shows that the right to privacy was included in the Constitution. How can anyone "be secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects" without a basic right of privacy? Tell me how!

acludem

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by acludem
First of all, the separation of church and state WAS written into the Constitution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it wasn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE:
It was written in by the lack of mention of religion at all in the original document........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you on drugs? This supposed "Lack of mention of religion" equals the physical act of writing some imagined passage into the US Constitution?! Twisting logic into pretzel- eights is one thing-this is pure fantasy.

None of which matters a whit, anyway. Does this phrase ring a bell: "Man is endowed by his Creator....."?

 

[acludem]

The quote you refer to was in the Declaration of Independence, a document of Propaganda, not the Constitution. Get it straight. Yes, I firmly believe that by not including any references to religion in the Constitution the founders meant to create an entirely secular government. If they had wanted this to be "Christian nation" as so many of you claim they would've written it into the Constitution. The fact that they expressly and intentionally left religion out of the constitution should tell you something.

acludem

 

[Hobbit]

Originally posted by acludem
What words did I twist? I can read a document and comprehend what it means. The amendment I posted clearly shows that the right to privacy was included in the Constitution. How can anyone "be secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects" without a basic right of privacy? Tell me how!

acludem

I told you that I'm not going to dignify your posts with a response. That's because every time I have, you have twisted my words and the words of people I quote either to your own views or to discredit me. Either that, or you immediately dismissed everything I said as invalid.

Here, does this make you happy?

You win. "Seperation of Church and State" is expressly written in the parts of the Constitution by that they didn't mention it at all, and we evil conservatives deny that in order to further our religious fanaticism agenda, just like my failure to mention anything about ham anywhere in my previous posts means I fully support a ham free nation. You nailed it right on the dot. You're so smart. I also concede the point that having laws against unlawful searches and seziures means that you have the irrevokable right to do whatever you want with your body, including prostitution and ingesting drugs. Dang we evil, unconstitutional conservatives and our anti-drug, anti-prostitution laws. How did we miss someone's right to do whatever they wanted in private so clearly listed in the fourth ammendment. You've opened up my blind, conservative eyes to the bright new world of liberalism. There. You win. Now leave me alone.

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by acludem
The quote you refer to was in the Declaration of Independence, a document of Propaganda, not the Constitution. Get it straight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've got elephant balls-telling anybody to get anything straight. And.....a document of Propaganda???!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE:
Yes, I firmly believe that by not including any references to religion in the Constitution the founders meant to create an entirely secular government.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, and they wrote that out in boldface, too-didn't they? How did they do that again? Oh, yeah-by what they didn't say. Hope they didn't get any ink stains on their hands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE:
If they had wanted this to be "Christian nation" as so many of you claim they would've written it into the Constitution. The fact that they expressly and intentionally left religion out of the constitution should tell you something.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Sigh) Damned if you ain't hard to get through to. I've never said this was a Christian nation. It is, however, a nation founded by Christians. If you understood anything at all about Christianity, you'd know that man's free will is the whole point of the exercise. A Christian theocracy is a contradiction in terms.

But, know that secular humanism is a religion as well, and while our founding fathers were busy not mentioning religions, they didn't mention that one either.

 

[kingjames04]

When will the left get a clue?

At the best case possible for the first ammendment creating any kind of "separation"...it only applies to CONGRESS 'making no law'.

Where are state Governments mentioned?

And where are the courts mentioned? Or the Executive?

Obviously there is no "absolute separation" implied or explicitly mandated by the founders.

And if Congress can make no law respecting the establishment of religion...exactly what law is there that can possibly enforce the restrictions on free speech that liberals pretend the first ammendment mandates?

Maybe liberals don't think they need a law to remove a religious display?

 

[DKSuddeth]

The constitution is a document that limits the governments authority, it is NOT a document that outlines the limits of freedom.

With that in mind, If the authority isn't granted via the constitution, then the government doesn't have it and any freedoms can automatically be assumed unless it strictly says it doesn't in the constitution.

my two cents.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by acludem
First of all, the separation of church and state WAS written into the Constitution. It was written in by the lack of mention of religion at all in the original document...

This is pretty damn funny!

 

[jimnyc]

First of all, the separation of church and state WAS written into the Constitution. It was written in by the lack of mention of religion at all in the original document and then in the first amendment which was designed to keep the government from interfering in religion and vice versa.

It was written by not being written. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

I hereby declare that it is written in the constitution that murder is legal. It was written because it wasn't written. You heard it here, folks!

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by pegwinn
[flamebait] I did a control F full text search of the US Constitution including amendments, clauses, superceded text etc at: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html. I was looking for anything that actually directed the absolute seperation of church and state. I was looking for a right to privacy. I found neither.
I have read the constitution and the bible from cover to cover. Neither makes me a judge or preacher. Just exactly where and how do we have the so called seperation........and privacy. [/flamebait]

Why do I care? Well cuz when the anti gun control guys begin to rant, they quote the second amendment. By quote I mean that in the dictionary definition. On the other hand, when the alabama judge lost his job..............and of course the knucklehead who is ticked about "under god" rant, I hear big words but no quotes.

For my own intellectual curiosity (lots of one, and not the other, you figure it out) I would like to trace the Supreme Courts alleged controlling interest in our Constitution.

Thanks in advance.

Neither appears in the Constitution. Neither is the intent of the authors of the Constitution. Neither can be upheld upon a valid reading of our Constitution or laws. They are both bogus claims from a demented group.

 

[pegwinn]

............ At a slow but steady pace.

Originally posted by YellowBirdy
(Snipped......but worth reading) 2nd Amendment. Most frequently cited half-quote. And it doesn't apply to the states, only the fed govt. The states can regulate guns all they want because the 2nd has never been incorporated to the states. (Neither has your right to a jury trial in civil matters exceeding $20.)

Alabama Judge. He lost his judge for defing a court order. You think a judge would follow a court's order.

(Snipped but full of good stuff)

[headscratching]So if I understand all the postings and yet another reading of the Constitution:

I can be a greek-orthordox-heathen-jew and congress can make no law that supports or denies me on that issue.

additionally, Congress, but not the states; Is prohibited from formally supporting any form of religion. So I am still unclear about the judge who lost his job. How can a court order be legally issued if it was based on something not in the constitution? Also, since it was broached, how can the second amendment not apply to the states? Since they are subordinate, they by nature must support the higher authority, no?[/headscratching]

 

[William Joyce]

Separation of church and state: ALL the founders meant was, the feds can't favor one Christian denomination over another. Period. Source is First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It does NOT mean that towns can't have creches but can have menorahs. But this is what happens anyway. Only, Christians don't have the balls to say who's behind this: JEWS.

On privacy. Posters who said "penunmbra" from 14th are correct. This is traceable to a Harvard Law Review article written by Brandeis on the right to privacy. Brandis, btw, was a Jew.

Is anyone here getting it? The Constitution means what Jews say it does. Nothing more, nothing less. I will give 8 bazillion dollars to the man who can prove me wrong.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by pegwinn
............ At a slow but steady pace.


[headscratching]So if I understand all the postings and yet another reading of the Constitution:

I can be a greek-orthordox-heathen-jew and congress can make no law that supports or denies me on that issue.[/b[

That is what it says, isn't it?

additionally, Congress, but not the states; Is prohibited from formally supporting any form of religion. So I am still unclear about the judge who lost his job. How can a court order be legally issued if it was based on something not in the constitution?

--- It can't.....BUT the issue of impeachment of a judge has 2 conditionals under which it can happen: "high Crimes, and misdemeanors", and not being in "good behavior". You could say that if a judge is an activist and enforces his religion on people from the bench, he violates this.

-However, if he DISPLAYS his origin of faith, he is NOT. They impeached him on the final charge here from the best of my knowledge which is illegal. Since most people don't read or care about understanding our Constitution, it worked.

Also, since it was broached, how can the second amendment not apply to the states? Since they are subordinate, they by nature must support the higher authority, no?[/headscratching]

EXACTLY. That is why the Constitution says that the lower courts of the states must ALL accept the authority of the Constitution and ALL Judicial must be bound by it.