What Constitutes a "Right?"

[JakeStarkey]

What Constitutes a Right?

“But if the legislature may infringe this Constitution, it is no longer fixed; it is not this year what it was the last; and the liberties of the people are wholly at the mercy of the legislature” Spencer Roane
The United States Constitution is a legally binding contract between the people and their agents, or representatives. In the historic Virginia case of Kamper v. Hawkins (1793), some of the nations top legal minds examined in detail and clarity, the principles of the founding fathers regarding the proper role of each of the branches of government. The basis of power is with the people themselves. Judge Spencer Roan, who later became the chief justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, wrote in 1793, “I consider the people of this country as the only sovereign power. I consider the legislature as not sovereign but subordinate; they are subordinate to the great constitutional charter, which the people have established as a fundamental law, and which alone has given existence and authority to the legislature....” Kamper v. Hawkins 1793

In the same case, articulating the limitations of the judiciary, Justice Henry said, “The judiciary, from the nature of the office, and the mode of their appointment, could never be designed to determine upon the equity, necessity, or usefulness of a law; that would amount to an express interfering with the legislative branch, in the clause where it is expressly forbidden for any one branch to interfere with the duties of the other. The reason is obvious, not being chosen immediately by the people, nor being accountable to them, in the first instance, they do not, and ought not, to represent the people in framing or repealing any law.”

. When a contract is negotiated and concluded, there are specific terms of the agreement which obligate the parties to act in a certain way. The terms and conditions are defined in language which is intended to avoid confusion and which is understood to have the same meaning to both parties. These terms and conditions are then settled and are binding upon the parties when signed by them. When the parties begin to act in accordance with the contract, the contract is said to be enforceable. Usually, there are penalty provisions for material breach, or failure of one party to execute the terms or meet the conditions specified in the contract. Once it becomes enforceable, the contract may not then be changed without the expressed knowledge and consent of both parties.


Why a “Written Constitution”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?” James Madison: Federalist Papers # 62
When our founders established the terms of government for this new nation in the form of a written constitution, and those terms were ratified by the people, the contract was “enforceable” in the legal sense. A new national identity was established and a course charted for the future which was both empowered and constrained by the new constitution. Provisions were adopted which gave the control over the government to the people through their elected representatives. The elected representatives, in turn, appointed certain other officers to manage those aspects of national government which needed the guiding hand of a professional. The fixed principles however, are immutable and expressed in written form so as to preclude any contrary law from coming into existence.

The judicial branch is not the most powerful branch of the federal government- it is an equal branch. Judicial officers may not make the law. Justice Iredell, in another 1793 case, Chisolm v. Georgia, stated , “I have no hesitation to say, that any act to that effect [exceeding legislative authority] would be utterly void, because it would be inconsistent with the Constitution, which is a fundamental law paramount to all others which we are note only bound to consult, but sworn to observe; and therefore, where there is an interference, being superior in obligation to the other, we must unquestionably obey that in preference...There is no part of the Constitution that I know of, that authorizes this Court to take up any business where they [the legislature] left it and, in order that the powers given in the Constitution may be in full activity, supply their omission by making new laws for new cases; or, which I take to be the same thing, applying old principles to new cases materially different from those to which they were applied before.”

Justice Samuel Chase spoke very clearly on the matter of “original intent” which he believed should be the only legitimate basis for interpreting the law. In a nutshell, he argued in Calder v. Bull (1798) that, “The people of the United States erected their Constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact; and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it......This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit.”

In other words, the natural limits of the law are found in the reasons for which people contract together in society. Chase goes on to say in Calder V. Bull, “There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and over-rule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereof of the government was established. An ACT of the legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power, on which it is founded.”

Justice Chase assumes that these principles are both knowable and “normal” and that they are historically verifiable. For the next 150 years or so, the Supreme Court held tightly to these principles and the national body of law was kept to a workable minimum.

A corollary principle found early in the judicial history of our nation is that of civic duty. When a contract is finalized, the principal parties are bound by the terms of that agreement. When the people elect representatives and those representatives appoint others to oversee the affairs of state, all parties swear an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution. In the act of swearing the oath, and the subsequent acts of assuming the duties , such elected and appointed agents of the people bind themselves to the terms of the agreement. Since they are under oath to the Constitution, they are presumed to be knowledgeable of its contents and meaning. If, at any point, these agents of the people disregard the Constitution and substitute their own meanings, they are in material breach and subject to the penalties thereof.

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall said with regard to the Constitution that, “...It is apparent that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts as well as of the legislature. Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character....Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

What is interesting here is that not only is the principle affirmed that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, but that justices have a “special” conduct required in that regard. “Good Behavior” was understood to mean that the professional acts (behavior) of a justice were to be subject to the constraints of his public oath. Founder George Mason was another early proponent that "maladministration" be included as a ground for impeachment.

page16.htm(Judicial Activism: A Case for Impeachment)

Great research! But Judge Henry, as an early Jeffersonian supporter of states' rights republicanism, completely misread the intent of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court, not the Congress, was given "original jurisdiction" over matters constitutional. Read Article III, please. Henry, thus, was merely pissing. You then misinterpret Henry's great opponent, the future Chief Justice John Marshall, who certainly put Henry's interpretation under the bus with Marbury v. Madison ten years later. Marshall is right, you and Henry are wrong.

 

[Intense]

What Constitutes a Right?

“But if the legislature may infringe this Constitution, it is no longer fixed; it is not this year what it was the last; and the liberties of the people are wholly at the mercy of the legislature” Spencer Roane
The United States Constitution is a legally binding contract between the people and their agents, or representatives. In the historic Virginia case of Kamper v. Hawkins (1793), some of the nations top legal minds examined in detail and clarity, the principles of the founding fathers regarding the proper role of each of the branches of government. The basis of power is with the people themselves. Judge Spencer Roan, who later became the chief justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, wrote in 1793, “I consider the people of this country as the only sovereign power. I consider the legislature as not sovereign but subordinate; they are subordinate to the great constitutional charter, which the people have established as a fundamental law, and which alone has given existence and authority to the legislature....” Kamper v. Hawkins 1793

In the same case, articulating the limitations of the judiciary, Justice Henry said, “The judiciary, from the nature of the office, and the mode of their appointment, could never be designed to determine upon the equity, necessity, or usefulness of a law; that would amount to an express interfering with the legislative branch, in the clause where it is expressly forbidden for any one branch to interfere with the duties of the other. The reason is obvious, not being chosen immediately by the people, nor being accountable to them, in the first instance, they do not, and ought not, to represent the people in framing or repealing any law.”

. When a contract is negotiated and concluded, there are specific terms of the agreement which obligate the parties to act in a certain way. The terms and conditions are defined in language which is intended to avoid confusion and which is understood to have the same meaning to both parties. These terms and conditions are then settled and are binding upon the parties when signed by them. When the parties begin to act in accordance with the contract, the contract is said to be enforceable. Usually, there are penalty provisions for material breach, or failure of one party to execute the terms or meet the conditions specified in the contract. Once it becomes enforceable, the contract may not then be changed without the expressed knowledge and consent of both parties.


Why a “Written Constitution”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?” James Madison: Federalist Papers # 62
When our founders established the terms of government for this new nation in the form of a written constitution, and those terms were ratified by the people, the contract was “enforceable” in the legal sense. A new national identity was established and a course charted for the future which was both empowered and constrained by the new constitution. Provisions were adopted which gave the control over the government to the people through their elected representatives. The elected representatives, in turn, appointed certain other officers to manage those aspects of national government which needed the guiding hand of a professional. The fixed principles however, are immutable and expressed in written form so as to preclude any contrary law from coming into existence.

The judicial branch is not the most powerful branch of the federal government- it is an equal branch. Judicial officers may not make the law. Justice Iredell, in another 1793 case, Chisolm v. Georgia, stated , “I have no hesitation to say, that any act to that effect [exceeding legislative authority] would be utterly void, because it would be inconsistent with the Constitution, which is a fundamental law paramount to all others which we are note only bound to consult, but sworn to observe; and therefore, where there is an interference, being superior in obligation to the other, we must unquestionably obey that in preference...There is no part of the Constitution that I know of, that authorizes this Court to take up any business where they [the legislature] left it and, in order that the powers given in the Constitution may be in full activity, supply their omission by making new laws for new cases; or, which I take to be the same thing, applying old principles to new cases materially different from those to which they were applied before.”

Justice Samuel Chase spoke very clearly on the matter of “original intent” which he believed should be the only legitimate basis for interpreting the law. In a nutshell, he argued in Calder v. Bull (1798) that, “The people of the United States erected their Constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact; and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it......This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit.”

In other words, the natural limits of the law are found in the reasons for which people contract together in society. Chase goes on to say in Calder V. Bull, “There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and over-rule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereof of the government was established. An ACT of the legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power, on which it is founded.”

Justice Chase assumes that these principles are both knowable and “normal” and that they are historically verifiable. For the next 150 years or so, the Supreme Court held tightly to these principles and the national body of law was kept to a workable minimum.

A corollary principle found early in the judicial history of our nation is that of civic duty. When a contract is finalized, the principal parties are bound by the terms of that agreement. When the people elect representatives and those representatives appoint others to oversee the affairs of state, all parties swear an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution. In the act of swearing the oath, and the subsequent acts of assuming the duties , such elected and appointed agents of the people bind themselves to the terms of the agreement. Since they are under oath to the Constitution, they are presumed to be knowledgeable of its contents and meaning. If, at any point, these agents of the people disregard the Constitution and substitute their own meanings, they are in material breach and subject to the penalties thereof.

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall said with regard to the Constitution that, “...It is apparent that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts as well as of the legislature. Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character....Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

What is interesting here is that not only is the principle affirmed that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, but that justices have a “special” conduct required in that regard. “Good Behavior” was understood to mean that the professional acts (behavior) of a justice were to be subject to the constraints of his public oath. Founder George Mason was another early proponent that "maladministration" be included as a ground for impeachment.

page16.htm(Judicial Activism: A Case for Impeachment)

Great research! But Judge Henry, as an early Jeffersonian supporter of states' rights republicanism, completely misread the intent of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court, not the Congress, was given "original jurisdiction" over matters constitutional. Read Article III, please. Henry, thus, was merely pissing. You then misinterpret Henry's great opponent, the future Chief Justice John Marshall, who certainly put Henry's interpretation under the bus with Marbury v. Madison ten years later. Marshall is right, you and Henry are wrong.

Here is part of the Origin of the Dispute between Madison Type Federalists and Hamilton Types. Madison saw Federalism as Principled. Hamilton saw Federalism as a stepping stone to His Empire. Madison was Forthright, Hamilton did a bait and switch. Judge Henry did not misread The Constitution, He believed as told before the Signing. The arguments above are sound, not misguided. Just recognize that there have been two unreconciled camps from the start.

Here is Hamilton before Ratification on the Supreme Court. Keep in mind that there obviously appear to be Two Distinct Hamilton's. Hamilton Before Ratification, and Hamilton after Ratification. This Quote is From Hamilton Before Ratification, and in line with Judge Henry.


Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security. -Alexander Hamilton Federalist # 78

 

[The T]

A right is something that is GOD GIVEN by birthright

Demonstrate that your god exists and that it can and does grant any "rights" at all.

We're trying to have a meaningful discussion here; please keep your religious babble out of it.

You know nothing of the 'Social Contract' that the Constitution exudes.

MOST of our Founders were men of GOD.

I suggest that YOU go back to school and avail yourself of why it was written, and by whom.

If your premise is true, than you ADMIT freely that what the Founders did was a failure.

But then from your writings on this board? it appears to me that YOU are OK with the enslavement of the PEOPLE by their own Government, and have not a clue what true Liberty is.

You are dismissed by me as a traitor to Liberty.

 

[Intense]

A right is something that is GOD GIVEN by birthright

Demonstrate that your god exists and that it can and does grant any "rights" at all.

We're trying to have a meaningful discussion here; please keep your religious babble out of it.

You know nothing of the 'Social Contract' that the Constitution exudes.

MOST of our Founders were men of GOD.

I suggest that YOU go back to school and avail yourself of why it was written, and by whom.

If your premise is true, than you ADMIT freely that what the Founders did was a failure.

But then from your writings on this board? it appears to me that YOU are OK with the enslavement of the PEOPLE by their own Government, and have not a clue what true Liberty is.

You are dismissed by me as a traitor to Liberty.

They want to run every aspect of the show. Never satisfied, never enough power, Power over Our Wills. Pathetic.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

A right is something that is GOD GIVEN by birthright

Demonstrate that your god exists and that it can and does grant any "rights" at all.

We're trying to have a meaningful discussion here; please keep your religious babble out of it.

Demonstrate that He does not. demonstrate that His existence is necessary for the concept to have validation.

Demonstrate that your non-religious babble has anything of value to add to this discussion.

 

[Setarcos]

A right is something that is GOD GIVEN by birthright

Demonstrate that your god exists and that it can and does grant any "rights" at all.

We're trying to have a meaningful discussion here; please keep your religious babble out of it.

You know nothing of the 'Social Contract' that the Constitution exudes.

MOST of our Founders were men of GOD.

and those "Men of God" chose to specifically form a government which was free of the influences of the Church. I suggest tyou do some studying regarding the history of the Anglican church to find out why.

 

[Setarcos]

A right is something that is GOD GIVEN by birthright

Demonstrate that your god exists and that it can and does grant any "rights" at all.

We're trying to have a meaningful discussion here; please keep your religious babble out of it.

Demonstrate that He does not

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")
Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. 
   [*]Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
   [*]Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
Examples of Burden of Proof

1. 
   [*]Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
   Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
   Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"
   [*]Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
   Jill: "What is your proof?"
   Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."
   [*]"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

1. demonstrate that His existence is necessary for the concept to have validation.

Y'alls claim, not mine. It was asserted that they come from your god. You people have the burden of proof.

 

[Intense]

Religious Affiliation of the Delegates to the
Constitutional Convention of 1787, including the
Signers of the Constitution of the United States of America
There were 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 at which the U.S. Constitution was drafted and signed. All participated in the proceedings which resulted in the Constitution, but only 39 of these delegates were actually signers of the document.
From: Robert G. Ferris (editor), Signers of the Constitution: Historic Places Commemorating the Signing of the Constitution, published by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service: Washington, D.C. (revised edition 1976), page 138:

Most of the [signers of the Constitution] married and fathered children. Sherman sired the largest family, numbering 15 by two wives... Three (Baldwin, Gilman, and Jenifer) were lifetime bachelors. In terms of religious affiliation, the men mirrored the overwhelmingly Protestant character of American religious life at the time and were members of various denominations. Only two, Carroll and Fitzsimons, were Roman Catholics.
Religious Affiliation # of
delegates % of
delegates
Episcopalian/Anglican 31 56.4%
Presbyterian 16 29.1%
Congregationalist 8 14.5%
Quaker 3 5.5%
Catholic 2 3.6%
Methodist 2 3.6%
Lutheran 2 3.6%
Dutch Reformed 2 3.6%
TOTAL 55 100%

Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation
Daniel Carroll Maryland Catholic
Thomas Fitzsimons Pennsylvania Catholic
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
Nathaniel Gorham Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Langdon New Hampshire Congregationalist
Nicholas Gilman New Hampshire Congregationalist
Abraham Baldwin Georgia Congregationalist; Episcopalian
William Samuel Johnson Connecticut Episcopalian; Presbyterian
James Madison Jr. Virginia Episcopalian
George Read Delaware Episcopalian
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer Maryland Episcopalian
David Brearly New Jersey Episcopalian
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Sr. North Carolina Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Gouverneur Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
John Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian
Charles Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian
Pierce Butler South Carolina Episcopalian
George Washington Virginia Episcopalian
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)
William Blount North Carolina Episcopalian; Presbyterian
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyteran
Rufus King Massachusetts Episcopalian; Congregationalist
Jacob Broom Delaware Lutheran
William Few Georgia Methodist
Richard Bassett Delaware Methodist
Gunning Bedford Jr. Delaware Presbyterian
James McHenry Maryland Presbyterian
William Livingston New Jersey Presbyterian
William Paterson New Jersey Presbyterian
Hugh Williamson North Carolina Presbyterian
Jared Ingersoll Pennsylvania Presbyterian
Alexander Hamilton New York Huguenot; Presbyterian; Episcopalian
Jonathan Dayton New Jersey Presbyterian; Episcopalian
John Blair Virginia Presbyterian; Episcopalian
John Dickinson Delaware Quaker; Episcopalian
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker; Episcopalian
Thomas Mifflin Pennsylvania Quaker; Lutheran



Name of Non-Signing Delegate State Religious Affiliation
Oliver Ellsworth Connecticut Congregationalist
Caleb Strong Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Lansing, Jr. New York Dutch Reformed
Robert Yates New York Dutch Reformed
William Houstoun Georgia Episcopalian
William Leigh Pierce Georgia Episcopalian
Luther Martin Maryland Episcopalian
John F. Mercer Maryland Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
George Mason Virginia Episcopalian
Edmund J. Randolph Virginia Episcopalian
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian
James McClurg Virginia Presbyterian
William C. Houston New Jersey Presbyterian
William R. Davie North Carolina Presbyterian
Alexander Martin North Carolina Presbyterian


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple Roles
Of course, virtually all of the "Founding Fathers" had multiple roles in the formation of the country, in the broad sense that takes into account military leadership, financial sponsorship, various miscellaneous state and federal positions, etc. But there were many individuals who had multiple roles among categorie of Founding Fathers ennumerated on this page. That is, they signed more than one of the foundational documents (the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution) or they signed one (or more) of these documents and also served in the First Federal Congress. These individuals with "multiple roles" were: Abraham Baldwin; Benjamin Franklin; Charles Carroll; Daniel Carroll; Elbridge Gerry; Francis Lewis; Francis Lightfoot Lee; George Clymer; George Read; Gouverneur Morris; Hugh Williamson; James Wilson; John Dickinson; John Hancock; John Penn; John Witherspoon; Josiah Bartlett; Nicholas Gilman; Oliver Wolcott; Pierce Butler; Richard Bassett; Richard Henry Lee; Robert Morris; Roger Sherman; Rufus King; Samuel Adams; Samuel Huntington; Thomas Fitzsimons; Thomas Heyward Jr.; Thomas McKean; William Ellery; William Few; William Floyd; William Paterson; William Samuel Johnson; James Madison Jr.; John Langdon; Caleb Strong; Oliver Ellsworth; George Wythe.

Religion of the Founding Fathers of America

 

[rubberhead]

Demonstrate that your god exists and that it can and does grant any "rights" at all.

We're trying to have a meaningful discussion here; please keep your religious babble out of it.

Demonstrate that He does not

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")
Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. 
   [*]Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
   [*]Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
Examples of Burden of Proof

1. 
   [*]Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
   Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
   Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"
   [*]Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
   Jill: "What is your proof?"
   Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."
   [*]"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

1. demonstrate that His existence is necessary for the concept to have validation.

Y'alls claim, not mine. It was asserted that they come from your god. You people have the burden of proof.

I wonder why Setarcos always seems to be on the side that doesn't have the burden of proof. Maybe it's because he can't come up with an argument of his own. Why are you guys wasting your time on this jackass?

You can't prove or disprove the existence of God. That's why they call it faith, turd swallower. You can't prove or disprove the validity of Science either. You can demonstrate that it agrees with reality, but you can't prove that reality will never drastically change and furthermore Godel proved that no reasonably powerful axiomatic system will ever prove its own validity.

You are powerless before the world that you live in. Faith in a God is a recognition of that cold hard fact. You can choose not to recognize that for now, but someday you will be forced to. The longer you ignore that fact, the further you will fall when that day comes. No sense of superiority is worth that kind of pain, but don't take my word for it. My idea of heaven is to watch the souls of your ilk fall into that inferno. At least that's how I feel every time I read one of your posts.

 

[rubberhead]

Poll:

Does Setarcos believe that he is immortal?

Please answer yes or no.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

Demonstrate that your god exists and that it can and does grant any "rights" at all.

We're trying to have a meaningful discussion here; please keep your religious babble out of it.

You know nothing of the 'Social Contract' that the Constitution exudes.

MOST of our Founders were men of GOD.

and those "Men of God" chose to specifically form a government which was free of the influences of the Church. I suggest tyou do some studying regarding the history of the Anglican church to find out why.

While they wanted a government free from the influences of the Church, they did not want a government devoid of religion. Many saw that as vital to the success of this nation.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

Y'alls claim, not mine. It was asserted that they come from your god. You people have the burden of proof.

And your claim is that he does not exist. That seems to be the sum total of your argument. It sucks as a refutation.

Mortimer Adler proved that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your turn to prove your claim.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You know nothing of the 'Social Contract' that the Constitution exudes.

MOST of our Founders were men of GOD.

and those "Men of God" chose to specifically form a government which was free of the influences of the Church. I suggest tyou do some studying regarding the history of the Anglican church to find out why.

While they wanted a government free from the influences of the Church, they did not want a government devoid of religion. Many saw that as vital to the success of this nation.

Substitute "religious value" for "religion", I am in agreement with you.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Nature has long since established Morality.

So instinct = moral rightness?

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Nature

ROFL... First, there's nothing fallacious in appealing to facts. My argument rests within the appeal to the fact that Morality is established by the natural order wherein the facts are that humanity did not create itself; that human life is thus a function of what is otherwise nothing less than an endowment advanced by whatever created human life; and that it reasonably follows that such endowments are advanced for a purpose; further following that the purpose for the creation of human is for the individual to use the life, towards the purpose of the fulfillment of that life; thus the individual is therefore rightfully entitled to pursue the fulfillment of their life; vested with the responsibility to not exercize that Right to the detriment of another's means to exercise their own Rights... the latter of which being just as rightfully entitled to such, as the former; with all such individuals being responsible for the eternal defense of the means to exercise those Rights... from those who would otherwise infringe upon or usurp the means to that vital and necessary function. It further follows that the existance of a contesting point of view does not stand as evidence of anything except a target against which the aforementioned defense should be focused.

But, on a rather sweet ironic note... it is fallacious to appeal to such, where the ignorance of such is at the core of that appeal.

Secondly, You came to this forum making all manners of assertions; against which you were directly and unambiguously challenged to support; and you've failed miserably to sustain ANY of it.

Thus you've lost the debate... and you remaining in the discussion demonstrates a crippling absence of moral character; which again demonstrates a delicious irony; where your claim is that anti-theist possess the means for morality...

Ya lost... but don't feel too bad; you had lost before you posted the first word. Your position is absurd; and nature established the loss of this argument long before you came into existance. These are eternal facts of nature and there's simply nothing you can do to change that.

Now scram kid... you're an embarassment to the species on the whole and a nuisance in general.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

and those "Men of God" chose to specifically form a government which was free of the influences of the Church. I suggest tyou do some studying regarding the history of the Anglican church to find out why.

While they wanted a government free from the influences of the Church, they did not want a government devoid of religion. Many saw that as vital to the success of this nation.

Substitute "religious value" for "religion", I am in agreement with you.

Historically speaking, they were one and the same.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

Many of the Founders were disillusioned with the political aspects that had developed with many organized religions, while recognizing the values that religion taught.

They did not want the controlling aspect of religion, but the freeing aspect of it.

I thought I had better clarify.

 

[Setarcos]

I wonder why Setarcos always seems to be on the side that doesn't have the burden of proof.

Setarcos doesn't make moronic assertions. Whenever asked to demonstrate an assertion to be true, Setarcos can easily do so.

You can't prove or disprove the existence of God.

Not true. Many gods have been disproven.

You are powerless before the world that you live in. Faith in a God is a recognition of that cold hard fact.

Rubber is weak==>There is a god?!

non sequitur

My idea of heaven is to watch the souls of your ilk fall into that inferno.

Fitting then, that your worship a god described at the ultimate sadist

 

[Setarcos]

You know nothing of the 'Social Contract' that the Constitution exudes.

MOST of our Founders were men of GOD.

and those "Men of God" chose to specifically form a government which was free of the influences of the Church. I suggest tyou do some studying regarding the history of the Anglican church to find out why.

While they wanted a government free from the influences of the Church, they did not want a government devoid of religion. Many saw that as vital to the success of this nation.

Wrong. They felt that a people which held to specific interpretations of their religion was crucial because they were dishonest and cruel men who couldn't comprehend what besides hellfire could motivate people to be honest and kind to their neighbors.

 

[Setarcos]

Mortimer Adler proved that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt.

Make a thread and present his arguments

 

[The T]

Many of the Founders were disillusioned with the political aspects that had developed with many organized religions, while recognizing the values that religion taught.

They did not want the controlling aspect of religion, but the freeing aspect of it.

I thought I had better clarify.

Some of us understand this. Sad that you had to clarify...