Since Trump is self destructing and Hillary is poison, still how can one consciously vote liberalism

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“…how can one consciously vote liberalism…”

Quite easily – as liberalism has for decades sought to defend the rights and protected liberties of all Americans from conservatives’ efforts to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

During the 50s liberals brought about the end the hateful, un-Constitutional institution of segregation (Brown v. Board of Education), and state-sanctioned discrimination against Hispanic Americans (Hernandez v. Texas).

During the 60s liberals enacted measures such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965; liberals defended citizens’ right to privacy, the right to be free from unwarranted government interference in Americans’ personal lives (Griswold v. Connecticut) and the right of interracial couples to marry (Loving v. Virginia).

During the 70s and 80s liberals began the long struggle to defend the rights of gay Americans, and the due process rights of immigrants (Plyler v. Doe).

During the 90s and this Century, liberals were ultimately successful in helping gay Americans realize their comprehensive civil rights (Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, Obergefell v. Hodges).

And every step of the way, year after year, court battle after court battle, conservatives fought against the rights and protected liberties of the American people.

So yes, given the long liberal tradition of defending the rights of Americans against conservatives hostile to those rights and protected liberties, one can indeed in good faith and good conscience vote to support liberalism and the liberal value of respecting and defending the rights of all Americans, consistent with the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

 

[Boss]

I know it wasn't suppose to echo religious dogma and if you had read it properly you would have recognized that and that that was the point! Of course that didn't mean it defaulted to a secular nature in and of itself. The very construction of the Constitution determined that the US was to be a Constitutional republic secular by nature being separated from the warring factions of religions TO PROTECT THE SOVERIEGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL!

I have read it properly. I have also read the Federalist papers and for shits and giggles, the Anti-federalist papers. Nowhere is any such point made that we are secular republic by nature or separated from warring factions of religions. Our individual sovereignty is endowed by our Creator. That is a non-secular concept.

I wrote this also;

You are conflating the PRECEPTS of the DOI with Constitutional PRINCIPLES! The DOI is not the Law of the Land. The distinctly implied division of church and state noted in Amendment I, which came into being several years AFTER the ratification of the Constitution certainly should make the intent of the Framers clear. Your assumption is in error.

Your response was;

I'm not conflating anything, the Constitution would not exist if not for the Declaration of Independence. And you need to refresh on your history, the Bill of Rights was essential in getting the Constitution ratified. There is an implicit division of church and state in the 1st but it is intended to restrict the power of government over church not the influence of church over government.

The fact that the DOI predated the Constitution is irrelevant. Again, the DOI is NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND! The Constitution IS the Law of the land. You are the one needing their memory refreshed.

It has nothing to do with "predating" the Constitution. It is the foundation of our nation. Without that, we have no legitimacy as a nation and thus, no need for a Constitution. It's not supposed to be the "law of the land" and I never claimed it was. It doesn't have to be the law of the land to be the cornerstone and foundation for our existence as a nation.

And again... the purpose of the Bill of Rights was NOT to grant government more power over the people! It was to specifically restrict the power of government over the people in no uncertain terms. This is why I said, it is intended to restrict the power of government over church not the influence of church over government.

Think of the logic re: what you wrote. HOW could the First Congress even begin the Article V process of amending the Constitution even before the Constitution itself was ratified or elections in the several States held or the First Congress sworn in and the rules for both houses even established? The Constitution was ratified in June of 1788, the First US Congress was seated in March 1789 and then 2.5 years after the Constitution was ratified, the BOR amendments were ratified Dec 1791 and certified by the Sec. of State Mar 1792!

The ratification of the Constitution had absolutely nothing to do with adoption of the Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalists LOST, that's history! The Constitution was ratified and in the fullness of time it became LAW! Only then were the initial amendments considered by the First Congress BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT EVEN WRITTEN WHEN THE FIRST CONGRESS WAS CONVENED. I already said there was an implicit separation of church and state written into Amendment I!!!!

The timeline and dates are technicalities, really. This was a time before telephones and electronics. It took a long time for things to be done officially. Many states ratified the Constitution ONLY on the stipulation it would include the BoR. In today's terminology, the Constitution was the Beta version and the BoR upgraded it to version 1.0. Two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, would not ratify the Constitution until the BoR had passed. New York and Virginia had a great debate over it and narrowly voted to ratify on the condition the BoR would be taken up in the very first session of Congress. But again, I can't stress this enough, the Bill of Rights was NOT about giving the government more protection from, or power over the people.

Yes, there IS an implicit separation of church and state in the 1st but again... the Bill of Rights was not a granting of more government power over us, it was a explicit restriction of said power. The separation was to keep government out of church affairs, not to prevent religious influence of government or protect it from such influence.

I also wrote this;

You appear to be confusing or comingling the MORALITY implicit throughout our Constitution with RELIGIOSITY which was purposefully omitted. Religion in and of itself, generally concerns moral behavior along with religious dogma. Morality concerns the principles of right and wrong, good and evil. When I read the US Constitution I see no religious dogma in any of the seven Articles or the 27 Amendments. I stand by my proposition that the Constitution is secular by its very construction!

Your response was;

Again, it is NOT secular if it's foundation and principles are non-secular. I am not "co-mingling" or confusing anything here, you are... I have not mentioned religiosity or morality, just secular and non-secular. The concept of a Creator who endows man with equality and inalienable rights is not Secular. It's more than a humanist view of right and wrong.

You really don't know OR understand the difference between morality and religiosity, do you? Is every moral person religious and a believer in a superhuman entity? Is every TRULY religious person a moral person. It should be obvious that someone can, indeed, be moral but that does not automagically mean that that person is religious OR that they believe that a superhuman being exists. Therefore morality ≠ religiosity. The logic is simple. The same holds true about written texts and documents.

Can one find a single mention of God or a Creator or any religious sentiment chiseled into the Constitution. Hell NO! What one can't find are religious PRECEPTS. However, what one WILL FIND are moral PRINCIPLES, and the first principles of the Constitution are the rule of law and the sovereignty of individual rights! Learn the difference between religious precepts and moral principles. They are not exactly the critter!

I do understand religiosity and morality and I never mentioned them. You're introducing those terms into the conversation when I haven't mentioned them. Why would our rule of law, designed to protect our religious liberty, have religious sentiments chiseled into it? That would totally defeat it's purpose and would establish us as a theocracy. But again... the fact that we're not a theocracy doesn't mean we're secular by default. We can't be secular if our founding principle is non-secular. So we're not secular and we're not a theocracy.

The DoI is not "law of the land" but it doesn't have to be, it's the cornerstone foundation... our "mission statement" as it were. While it isn't part of the Constitution, the Constitution mentions in the preamble, "securing the blessings of liberty." Where do "blessings" come from? Again, when something is blessed, that is not a secular concept.

 

[Boss]

The Constitution cannot be secular if it's foundation is not also secular and it's certainly not.

So if, "The Constitution cannot be secular...", then it falls on the other side of the fence and must be non-secular!

Here is the definition of secular AND non-secular from the American version of the Oxford English Dictionary;

secular
adjective

Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis
secular: definition of secular in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)
*****************
non-secular
adjective

Relating to or involving religious or spiritual matters.
non-secular - definition of non-secular in English from the Oxford dictionary
*****************
IF the Constitution pertains to non-secular matters as you are claiming, point to the religious aspects involving spiritual matters written in the Constitution! You can't have it both ways, Boss!

Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

THE Basis for our Constitution and government:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because liberalism by and large implies and deploys secular liberalism in this nation.

Secularism implies there is no room for God in political discourse or in public education. And any moral issue that hints at a religious value is considered bad for society by secular liberalism. So children are taught being gay is great, being bi-sexual is great, turning into a transgender is perfectly acceptable, premarital sex is totally expected with some precautions, and oral sex will be covered as well.

That is secularism taking over morality and the indoctrination of an abhorrent universal moral understanding. Don’t want to ever mention God, fine, don’t ever discuss matters that are not reading writing or arithmetic. When schools usurp the authority of parents and promote immoral practices it is wrong. When they whoosh kids off for secret abortions, that is an even more unspeakable crime.

Liberalism promotes illegal immigration and open borders, risks conservatives do not want to take with potential terrorists and also other trafficking. We want legal immigration only. We will fund them if we can afford it and the elected congress says it’s Ok.

Liberalism turns a blind eye to the unvetted Middle Eastern migrants coming in here by untold thousands. How insane is that? We already have tens of thousands of Arab men on student visas who we can no longer locate in this nation. Want a link?

Liberalism leads the parade against cops making them out to be this terrible racist menace. Do they care what fallout that brings? Heck no, because it assures the black vote. Are they coming down hard against the thugs in the Black Lives Matter demonstrations? Of course not. More racial divide.

Liberalism does nothing to stop Obama’s defunding of the military, reduction of troops, and demoralizing the entire military. Nor does it take the threats of terrorism or hostile nations near as seriously as conservatism does. Very misguided. National security is job one!

Liberalism is against increased offshore drilling, Alaskan drilling, fracking, keystone pipeline, nuclear plants, and are anti-coal. All these measures to please the gods of extrement environmentalism. This is so wrong. These are national security issues first and foremost. Dependence on Arab oil or other subversive nations should be done away with as soon as possible. Our economy would benefit enormously as well – again, liberals do not care.

Liberals are soft on crime and light on sentences. It is not conservative judges giving rapists, and violent criminals mitigated sentences and paroles. Worst of all, liberalism is far less likely to address the worst of crimes in this nation, urban gang violence. What conservative would be against a huge cop presence and very stiff sentences for these young offenders? You need to eradicate gang violence by attacking it vehemently. That is the only hope of stopping its perpetual presence. I think it is reprehensible children are afraid to walk to school, bus to school, or go outside in Chicago and other gang infested U.S. cities. Unforgivable! What has Obama ever said or done about that?? Not giving congress much credit here either, as it is.

Liberalism is insanely hung up on pushing transgenderism on this nation and its institutions. They are promoting a bizarre perversion that ruins lives. They push everything gay to the point of punishing anything that stands in its ways.

Liberalism has demanded legalized abortion and gay marriage. Both of these evolutions are an enormous affront to God. They are immoral and sinful, especially abortion, and with the government and our schools celebrating it all it influences children and society that this is all good. The worst of govt’s faults.

Liberalism is an enemy of Israel and an apologist for Islam. This is so cowardly and so wrong. Islam is the scourge and Israel is the perpetual victim and the world’s punching bag and scapegoat for their own sins.

Liberalism has taken the word God out of school out of our nation's history. No one can say the word, carry a Bible to school, mention the word Christmas or sing about it. Our Christian history and tradition is now treated like a pox on this nation. And all it takes is for one creep to sue.

Our universities are immersed in liberalism and its social engineering. Their course and the elitist snobbish liberal professors sicken me. They do anything but encourage dialogue and counter arguments. I have no interest in tax dollars funding that kind of enemy.

Our tax dollars also have to fund liberal public radio and their agenda. Screw that. You are fooling no one.

Liberalism allows a lying criminal like Hillary to get away with murder. Only because they have a corrupt mainstream media ready to do their bidding and support their every cover up and lie. This is a sickness that is killing America or has killed America.

Liberalism is weak on Islamic terrorism, of course no better example than our “coward in chief.” That bastard would not even march in Paris after Charli Hedbo with all the other heads of state of Europe and Israel and Palestine. No, he hid under his desk. And you guys give him another free pass. I don’t!

Liberals built this country, asshole. STFU until you learn your history you braid dead moron.

Be sensitive. Turzovka is a RC from the hard core French tradition and handles change very poorly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

boss, you can write all you want, but the Constitution by construction was and is secular.

You want to force your denomination's prayers into public school is what you are about.

 

[Boss]

boss, you can write all you want, but the Constitution by construction was and is secular.

You want to force your denomination's prayers into public school is what you are about.

We are not talking about prayers in schools. That's yet another straw man to avoid the topic. No... the Constitution is not secular. Secular means it has no religious or spiritual basis... The Constitution is established on religious/spiritual foundation and belief that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with rights being laid out by the Constitution. It's literally like discovering the instruction manual to your washing machine and claiming... this doesn't have anything to do with appliances!

 

[JakeStarkey]

boss, you can write all you want, but the Constitution by construction was and is secular.

You want to force your denomination's prayers into public school is what you are about.

We are not talking about prayers in schools. That's yet another straw man to avoid the topic. No... the Constitution is not secular. Secular means it has no religious or spiritual basis... The Constitution is established on religious/spiritual foundation and belief that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with rights being laid out by the Constitution. It's literally like discovering the instruction manual to your washing machine and claiming... this doesn't have anything to do with appliances!

You are wrong and always will be on this point. You are arguing a philosophy of the Declaration of Independence that is not incorporated in the Constitution. Your instructor manual argument amuses the fancy. Thank you.

 

[Boss]

boss, you can write all you want, but the Constitution by construction was and is secular.

You want to force your denomination's prayers into public school is what you are about.

We are not talking about prayers in schools. That's yet another straw man to avoid the topic. No... the Constitution is not secular. Secular means it has no religious or spiritual basis... The Constitution is established on religious/spiritual foundation and belief that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with rights being laid out by the Constitution. It's literally like discovering the instruction manual to your washing machine and claiming... this doesn't have anything to do with appliances!

You are wrong and always will be on this point. You are arguing a philosophy of the Declaration of Independence that is not incorporated in the Constitution. Your instructor manual argument amuses the fancy. Thank you.

Again, what would be the purpose of incorporating our founding document into the Constitution? That just doesn't make sense. The DoI sets forth the grounds on which we establish this country. It is the foundation for the government of which the Constitution was written.

And I am NOT arguing a "philosophy" ..I am presenting the founding principle as stated in our declaring of independence. You're not refuting anything by simply repeating that I am wrong and you're right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

boss, you can write all you want, but the Constitution by construction was and is secular.

You want to force your denomination's prayers into public school is what you are about.

We are not talking about prayers in schools. That's yet another straw man to avoid the topic. No... the Constitution is not secular. Secular means it has no religious or spiritual basis... The Constitution is established on religious/spiritual foundation and belief that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with rights being laid out by the Constitution. It's literally like discovering the instruction manual to your washing machine and claiming... this doesn't have anything to do with appliances!

You are wrong and always will be on this point. You are arguing a philosophy of the Declaration of Independence that is not incorporated in the Constitution. Your instructor manual argument amuses the fancy. Thank you.

Again, what would be the purpose of incorporating our founding document into the Constitution? That just doesn't make sense. The DoI sets forth the grounds on which we establish this country. It is the foundation for the government of which the Constitution was written.

And I am NOT arguing a "philosophy" ..I am presenting the founding principle as stated in our declaring of independence. You're not refuting anything by simply repeating that I am wrong and you're right.

Your founding principle is a philosophical point, on which you are wrong since you can't prove your point. All you are saying is that you are right. You are not.

 

[Boss]

Your founding principle is a philosophical point, on which you are wrong since you can't prove your point. All you are saying is that you are right. You are not.

No... It's a self-evident truth, as stated. You don't have to agree with it but that is what's stated and it's not a philosophical opinion but a statement of fact. We hold these truths to be self evident.... It's not: We ponder the possibility that man may be created equal and might have rights inalienable by man if something greater exists!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your founding principle is a philosophical point, on which you are wrong since you can't prove your point. All you are saying is that you are right. You are not.

No... It's a self-evident truth, as stated. You don't have to agree with it but that is what's stated and it's not a philosophical opinion but a statement of fact. We hold these truths to be self evident.... It's not: We ponder the possibility that man may be created equal and might have rights inalienable by man if something greater exists!

Is that like "the Truth stands alone" mantra I hear from many evangelicals all the time? Believe it all you want, but your belief has nothing to do with what is the Constitution.

 

[Boss]

Is that like "the Truth stands alone" mantra I hear from many evangelicals all the time? Believe it all you want, but your belief has nothing to do with what is the Constitution.

I am just presenting what the founders stated when they formed the nation. This is our credo and ethos as a nation. You have the liberty to reject it and not believe it but that doesn't change what it is. I didn't call it a "self evident truth" ...that was our founders and framers of the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Is that like "the Truth stands alone" mantra I hear from many evangelicals all the time? Believe it all you want, but your belief has nothing to do with what is the Constitution.

I am just presenting what the founders stated when they formed the nation. This is our credo and ethos as a nation. You have the liberty to reject it and not believe it but that doesn't change what it is. I didn't call it a "self evident truth" ...that was our founders and framers of the Constitution.

You are stating your interpretation of what you think the Founders said. Henry and Jay probably would agree with you, the others not so much or not at all. You have every right to believe it is self evident, so go ahead, but most of the founders did not.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I have read it properly. I have also read the Federalist papers and for shits and giggles, the Anti-federalist papers. Nowhere is any such point made that we are secular republic by nature or separated from warring factions of religions. Our individual sovereignty is endowed by our Creator. That is a non-secular concept.

You just will not admit any error, but rather make up shit to dodge the inconvenient facts and truths as they arise. Damn but you're ignorant and wrongheaded of so many things, and in your own pride make claims that simply can't be true because they can't be proven from the construction of the Constitution.

Our individual sovereignty was endowed by a higher power, but that cannot be found in the Constitution. What one will find is that individual sovereignty guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. That guarantee and protection comes from the Rule of Law embodied within the Constitution. The Constitution is merely a social contract and not a compact with God! You are dead wrong in your notion that the Constitution is non-secular in nature and you can't present a single clause from it to back up your claim! By its very nature, construction and rhetoric, any reasonable person can read that the Constitution is secular by design and formed a constitutional federal republic, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding!

It has nothing to do with "predating" the Constitution. It is the foundation of our nation. Without that, we have no legitimacy as a nation and thus, no need for a Constitution. It's not supposed to be the "law of the land" and I never claimed it was. It doesn't have to be the law of the land to be the cornerstone and foundation for our existence as a nation.

And again... the purpose of the Bill of Rights was NOT to grant government more power over the people! It was to specifically restrict the power of government over the people in no uncertain terms. This is why I said, it is intended to restrict the power of government over church not the influence of church over government.

The DOI predating the Constitution goes DIRECTLY to your claim that the Declaration somehow proves the Constitution is a non-secular document! Your wild assertion claiming that, "It [DOI] is the foundation of our nation." is absolutely absurd. The Constitution swept aside the Confederation and founded our Nation, fool! That is fundamental history and you don't even have that right! Your assertion that the DOI somehow legitimized the eventual founding of the United States is foolish fluff!

The colonies were already in revolution against England and King George when it was written as a justification to other Nations why we were revolting against a King's authority. You never learned that in school? Now do you understand the significance of the DOI predating the Constitution in this discussion and why it is important to note that the DOI is not the law of the land? The DOI does contain non-secular references and passages. But that does not supplant even one secular phrase of the US Constitution!

Your claim that the BOR was established to "restrict the power of government over the people" is unadulterated bullshit! The insistence for a BOR was a gimmick employed by the Antifederalists as an excuse for a second constitutional convention to water down or even replace the New Constitution. It didn't work given the Federalist sniffed it out and Madison took up the task of creating a BOR which the Federalists had originally opposed, foiling the attempt of the antifederalists.

What the final 10 articles of the BOR which were ratified did was cement what I noted above; individual sovereignty guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. [ RIGHTS not to be confused with the "sovereign individual" movement ] You keep bringing that bullshit up about power usurpation by the Federal as a reason for the BOR, but you're ******* WRONG!

The timeline and dates are technicalities, really. This was a time before telephones and electronics. It took a long time for things to be done officially. Many states ratified the Constitution ONLY on the stipulation it would include the BoR. In today's terminology, the Constitution was the Beta version and the BoR upgraded it to version 1.0. Two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, would not ratify the Constitution until the BoR had passed. New York and Virginia had a great debate over it and narrowly voted to ratify on the condition the BoR would be taken up in the very first session of Congress. But again, I can't stress this enough, the Bill of Rights was NOT about giving the government more protection from, or power over the people.

Yes, there IS an implicit separation of church and state in the 1st but again... the Bill of Rights was not a granting of more government power over us, it was a explicit restriction of said power. The separation was to keep government out of church affairs, not to prevent religious influence of government or protect it from such influence.

You claimed that the timeline with the dates are "technicalities", but their previous mention destroyed your claim that the Constitution wouldn't have been ratified without the BOR being included during ratification. That timeline with the dates proved that the Constitution was ratified 2 years 9 months before the BOR was certified in March 1792! The ratification of the Constitution only required the ratification by nine (9) States to become the law of the land! You were proven to be full of bullshit, yet you still try to crawl from under the dung pile!

And again; What the final 10 articles of the BOR which were ratified did was cement what I noted above; individual sovereignty guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. [ RIGHTS not to be confused with the "sovereign individual" movement ] You keep bringing that bullshit up about power usurpation by the Federal as a reason for the BOR, but you're ******* WRONG!

I do understand religiosity and morality and I never mentioned them. You're introducing those terms into the conversation when I haven't mentioned them. Why would our rule of law, designed to protect our religious liberty, have religious sentiments chiseled into it? That would totally defeat it's purpose and would establish us as a theocracy. But again... the fact that we're not a theocracy doesn't mean we're secular by default. We can't be secular if our founding principle is non-secular. So we're not secular and we're not a theocracy.

The DoI is not "law of the land" but it doesn't have to be, it's the cornerstone foundation... our "mission statement" as it were. While it isn't part of the Constitution, the Constitution mentions in the preamble, "securing the blessings of liberty." Where do "blessings" come from? Again, when something is blessed, that is not a secular concept.

Because you never mentioned religiosity and morality is beside the point even if that were true, which it ISN'T. They are both central to the points of discussion; the secular involving the aspects of morality and the non-secular involving aspects of a religious nature of the Constitution, REMEMBER?

I wrote this;
"Can one find a single mention of God or a Creator or any religious sentiment chiseled into the Constitution. Hell NO! What one can't find are religious PRECEPTS. However, what one WILL FIND are moral PRINCIPLES, and the first principles of the Constitution are the rule of law and the sovereignty of individual rights! Learn the difference between religious precepts and moral principles. They are not exactly the critter!"
To which you respond now with this;
"Why would our rule of law, designed to protect our religious liberty, have religious sentiments chiseled into it? That would totally defeat it's purpose and would establish us as a theocracy. But again... the fact that we're not a theocracy doesn't mean we're secular by default. We can't be secular if our founding principle is non-secular. So we're not secular and we're not a theocracy.

You purposely redirected to deflect from the point made like a scared little girl! You tried to attributer positions to me I had never taken. You twisted and squirmed to present a false conclusion to statements which were never made. Because you or anyone else cannot find a single mention of God or a Creator or any religious sentiment within the four corners of the Constitution that alone demonstrates that the Great Contract is secular in nature, you fool.

You've been asked twice already if any references to religiosity were written into the Constitution and both times you have only deflected to avoid the question. That can only be because there is no such reference! Further, you keep insisting the DOI was the founding document which is hogwash! The United States of America did not exist until June 21, 1788 when the Constitution of the United States was ratified.

Bottom line is you think you know one Hell of a lot more about things Constitutional than you actually do!

 

[Boss]

You are stating your interpretation of what you think the Founders said. Henry and Jay probably would agree with you, the others not so much or not at all. You have every right to believe it is self evident, so go ahead, but most of the founders did not.

What I posted is not an interpretation or my opinion of what was said... it was the actual text of the Declaration of Independence. It's not a matter of agreement, it is the stated text in the document. If most of them didn't agree, it wouldn't be there. Again, you have offered ZERO evidence to support your claims, you're just wildly throwing out your baseless opinion as fact.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are stating your interpretation of what you think the Founders said. Henry and Jay probably would agree with you, the others not so much or not at all. You have every right to believe it is self evident, so go ahead, but most of the founders did not.

What I posted is not an interpretation or my opinion of what was said... it was the actual text of the Declaration of Independence. It's not a matter of agreement, it is the stated text in the document. If most of them didn't agree, it wouldn't be there. Again, you have offered ZERO evidence to support your claims, you're just wildly throwing out your baseless opinion as fact.

The actual text of the Declaration means nothing in terms of the Constitution. The deistic language of the former is not carried over into the latter. Straight fact. You may be as shrill as you like, but your interpretation means absolutely nothing when in comes to the Constitution.

 

[Boss]

Our individual sovereignty was endowed by a higher power, but that cannot be found in the Constitution. What one will find is that individual sovereignty guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. That guarantee and protection comes from the Rule of Law embodied within the Constitution. The Constitution is merely a social contract and not a compact with God! You are dead wrong in your notion that the Constitution is non-secular in nature and you can't present a single clause from it to back up your claim! By its very nature, construction and rhetoric, any reasonable person can read that the Constitution is secular by design and formed a constitutional federal republic, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding!

Individual sovereignty endowed by a higher power doesn't need to be guaranteed by anything. It's inalienable. The Constitution doesn't need a clause stating it's non-secular. It's basis and foundation for existence is non-secular. And yes, I most certainly have presented a clause from the Constitution... "to secure the blessings of liberty." Blessings do not come from secular sources. Not to mention, all the freedoms and rights listed in the Constitution are among those which are inalienable because they were endowed by our Creator.

The Constitution is certainly NOT secular by design. It is intentionally absent of religious dogma because it's not intended to establish a theocracy. You are interpreting that as being secular but secular is the absence of religious or spiritual basis, and that's not the Constitution. It's basis is very much spiritual/religious... that all men are created equal and endowed inalienable rights by a Creator.

 

[Boss]

The actual text of the Declaration means nothing in terms of the Constitution.

Well sure it does, it is the basis and foundation of the nation, of which, the Constitution outlines our laws. Without it, there is no nation and no Constitution is needed.

 

[Boss]

but their previous mention destroyed your claim that the Constitution wouldn't have been ratified without the BOR being included during ratification.

Nope.. I never said the BoR was included during ratification of the Constitution. Several states ratified the Constitution on the condition the BoR would be taken up at the first session of Congress, which it was. A couple of states still refused to ratify the Constitution until the BoR was passed.

The whole entire purpose of the BoR was concerns of the people that government was being granted too much power. Today's Progressive perverts the BoR to grant government powers it never had.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The actual text of the Declaration means nothing in terms of the Constitution.

Well sure it does, it is the basis and foundation of the nation, of which, the Constitution outlines our laws. Without it, there is no nation and no Constitution is needed.

No, it is the basis for an indictment against GB for authorizing a revolt.

The Constitution is the charter for how we govern ourselves.