Why I Am A Constitutional Textualist

It is important to see the sort of individual who is teaching future lawyer, to understand how import it is to learn about the Constitution.

Watch Senator Kennedy eviscerate this Democrat whose expertise (?) is constitutional exegesis.


 
Last edited:
Article 1, section 8 begins as follows: "Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

After this introduction, come seventeen enumerated power.

[The phrase appears in the preamble, "...to promote the general welfare...." but this is rarely used to find the loophole for spending authority.]



At ratification of the Constitution, the problem did not go unnoticed. They knew that some would use the phrase "general welfare" to mean anything. Madison tried to cut them off: the introduction stated that the government had the power to tax and spend what it accrued. The list, he said, summarized what the funds could be used for.

" Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, ... For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?" Federalist #41



The whole point of enumerating the powers of the federal government, i.e., the list of seventeen, was to proclaim that these, and only these, were authorized.


a. Be clear: the anti-federalists were stating their fear that "general welfare" would be interpreted as it has come to be...as an unqualifed and absolute power to spend.....

...and the federalists who pooh-poohed the idea, i.e., 'no one would think that'?

Were there any?

None of the federalists argued in favor of such.

None. Not even Hamilton...who changed his tune two years after ratification.

Robert G. Natelson. "The General Welfare Clause and the Public Trust: An Essay in Original Understanding"
"The General Welfare Clause and the Public Trust: An Essay in Original " by Robert G. Natelson
 
Article 1, section 8 begins as follows: "Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

After this introduction, come seventeen enumerated power.

[The phrase appears in the preamble, "...to promote the general welfare...." but this is rarely used to find the loophole for spending authority.]



At ratification of the Constitution, the problem did not go unnoticed. They knew that some would use the phrase "general welfare" to mean anything. Madison tried to cut them off: the introduction stated that the government had the power to tax and spend what it accrued. The list, he said, summarized what the funds could be used for.

" Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, ... For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?" Federalist #41



The whole point of enumerating the powers of the federal government, i.e., the list of seventeen, was to proclaim that these, and only these, were authorized.


a. Be clear: the anti-federalists were stating their fear that "general welfare" would be interpreted as it has come to be...as an unqualifed and absolute power to spend.....

...and the federalists who pooh-poohed the idea, i.e., 'no one would think that'?

Were there any?

None of the federalists argued in favor of such.

None. Not even Hamilton...who changed his tune two years after ratification.

Robert G. Natelson. "The General Welfare Clause and the Public Trust: An Essay in Original Understanding"
"The General Welfare Clause and the Public Trust: An Essay in Original " by Robert G. Natelson
I'm sure Madison wasn't the only one to disagree with the wording in parts of the constitution. They evaluated all the complaints, decided which changes should be made, and voted on the outcome. If you disagree with their decisions, you'll just have to get over yourself.
 
I'm sure Madison wasn't the only one to disagree with the wording in parts of the constitution. They evaluated all the complaints, decided which changes should be made, and voted on the outcome. If you disagree with their decisions, you'll just have to get over yourself.
I'm still laughing at how you were hung by your own petard.....


Hou claimed I misspelled "obtuse,' because you didn't know the word 'abstruse."

And I wasn't raised in the English language.



“If you are going to all the trouble of trying so hard to sound like what you think a smart person sounds like, you shouldn't start out by misspelling a simple word like obtuse. Spell check is your friend.”

Why I Am A Constitutional Textualist post#13

There is no sense you "trying so hard to sound like what you think a smart person sounds like," you moron.....

The word is "abstruse."


Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
ab·struse
/əbˈstro͞os/

adjective



 
I'm still laughing at how you were hung by your own petard.....


Hou claimed I misspelled "obtuse,' because you didn't know the word 'abstruse."

And I wasn't raised in the English language.



“If you are going to all the trouble of trying so hard to sound like what you think a smart person sounds like, you shouldn't start out by misspelling a simple word like obtuse. Spell check is your friend.”

Why I Am A Constitutional Textualist post#13

There is no sense you "trying so hard to sound like what you think a smart person sounds like," you moron.....

The word is "abstruse."


Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
ab·struse
/əbˈstro͞os/
adjective
So I made a mistake. Are you as quick acknowledging mistakes?
 
So I made a mistake. Are you as quick acknowledging mistakes?
I can be generous....let me help you pull your foot out of your mouth.

The best part is that you attempted to insult my " pretending to be intelligent," and it became a giant boomerang.


And, a trip down memory lane...Remember this one?


My post…#28:



Speaking of facts......what moved you to support this?

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism,

socialism,

infanticide,

opposition to free speech,

standing with criminals and felons rather than law-abiding citizens

substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry,

support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists,

accepting payment from Communist China for future considerations,

and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.


And......which is your favorite?





“Your silly list isn't factual, ….”

https://www.usmessageboard.com/thre...er-and-propaganda.980026/page-3#post-30006205 post 48




Who'd you vote for?
 
I can be generous....let me help you pull your foot out of your mouth.

The best part is that you attempted to insult my " pretending to be intelligent," and it became a giant boomerang.


And, a trip down memory lane...Remember this one?


My post…#28:



Speaking of facts......what moved you to support this?

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism,

socialism,

infanticide,

opposition to free speech,

standing with criminals and felons rather than law-abiding citizens

substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry,

support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists,

accepting payment from Communist China for future considerations,

and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.


And......which is your favorite?





“Your silly list isn't factual, ….”

https://www.usmessageboard.com/thre...er-and-propaganda.980026/page-3#post-30006205 post 48




Who'd you vote for?
Who I voted for has nothing to do with your silly list not being factual.
 
If you are a tRump supporter you are not.
When I disagree with Trump I post threads about it.


I bet you never posted any disagreement with your lords and masters of the Democrat Party.

Fear? Or the lack of abilty to think for yourself.
 
Yes. I don't believe Trump will win on that one, sans an amendment.

I would like to see the Trump view of citizenship prevail, but it will not in the context of the Constitution.
Why do you think we have the rule of law and constitutional governance in this country?
 
Why do you think we have the rule of law and constitutional governance in this country?
Because we used the Old Testament as the basis for our Constitution.


As I am generous to a fault, I will provide some of the factual history that the cultural Marxism of government schooling omitted.



The Constitution provides for an observance of the Sabbath in its Presentment Clause, mandating that the President has ten days, excluding Sundays, to veto a bill lest it become binding.

And the instrument was framed with a view to the Declaration, which unequivocally bestows gratitude on the God of the Bible for America's independence.



1. The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”

When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.

Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7




2.
This question was asked by political science professors at the University of Houston. They rightfully felt that they could determine the source of the Founders’ ideas if they could collect the writings from the Founding Era and see whom the Founders were quoting.

The researchers assembled 15,000 writings from the founding Era – no small sample – and searched those writings. That project spanned ten years; but at the end of that time, the researchers had isolated 3,154 direct quotes made by the Founders and had identified the source of those quotes.

The researchers discovered that Baron Charles de Montesquieu was the man quoted most often by the founding fathers, with 8.3 percent of the Founders’ quotes being taken from his writings. Sir William Blackstone was the second most-quoted individual with 7.9 percent of the Founder’s quotes, and John Locke was third with 2.9 percent.

Surprisingly, the researchers discovered that the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty four percent of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the bible.

The study was even more impressive when the source of the ideas used by Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Locke were identified. Consider for example, the source of Blackstone’s ideas. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws was first introduced in 1768, and for the next 100 years America’s courts quoted Blackstone to settle disputes, to define words, and to examine procedure; Blackstone’s Commentaries were the final word in the Supreme Courts. So what was a significant source of Blackstone’s ideas? Perhaps the best answer to that question can be given through the life of Charles Finney.

Charles Finney is known as a famous revivalist, minister, and preacher from one of America’s greatest revivals; the Second Great Awakening in the early 1800’s. Finney, in his autobiography, spoke of how he received his call to ministry. He explained that – having determined to become a lawyer – he, like all other law students at the time, commenced the study of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws. Finney observed that Blackstone’s Commentaries not only provided the laws, it also provided the Biblical concepts on which those laws were based. Finney explained that in the process of studying Blackstone, he read so much of the Bible that he became a Christian and received his call to the ministry. Finney’s life story clearly identified a major source of Blackstone’s ideas for law.

So, while 34% of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the Bible, many of their quotes were taken from men – like Blackstone – who had used the Bible to arrive at their own conclusions.”

This doesn’t even include Supreme Court decisions, Congressional records, speeches, inaugurations, etc. all of which include sources of Biblical content and concepts. I can produce those as well, if need be ,as well as what was taught in American schools for the first 175 years.

Bear in mind, the above is not some made up opinion, it is well documented, irrefutable research into actual quotes from the Founders.
Sources:
David Barton, Original Intent, 1997
Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988
“The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought” American Political Science Review



You should take notes.
 
You're like a broken record Chic. Almost reminds me of some conversations with bots I've had.
 
Because we used the Old Testament as the basis for our Constitution.


As I am generous to a fault, I will provide some of the factual history that the cultural Marxism of government schooling omitted.



The Constitution provides for an observance of the Sabbath in its Presentment Clause, mandating that the President has ten days, excluding Sundays, to veto a bill lest it become binding.

And the instrument was framed with a view to the Declaration, which unequivocally bestows gratitude on the God of the Bible for America's independence.



1. The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”

When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.

Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7




2.

This question was asked by political science professors at the University of Houston. They rightfully felt that they could determine the source of the Founders’ ideas if they could collect the writings from the Founding Era and see whom the Founders were quoting.

The researchers assembled 15,000 writings from the founding Era – no small sample – and searched those writings. That project spanned ten years; but at the end of that time, the researchers had isolated 3,154 direct quotes made by the Founders and had identified the source of those quotes.

The researchers discovered that Baron Charles de Montesquieu was the man quoted most often by the founding fathers, with 8.3 percent of the Founders’ quotes being taken from his writings. Sir William Blackstone was the second most-quoted individual with 7.9 percent of the Founder’s quotes, and John Locke was third with 2.9 percent.

Surprisingly, the researchers discovered that the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty four percent of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the bible.

The study was even more impressive when the source of the ideas used by Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Locke were identified. Consider for example, the source of Blackstone’s ideas. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws was first introduced in 1768, and for the next 100 years America’s courts quoted Blackstone to settle disputes, to define words, and to examine procedure; Blackstone’s Commentaries were the final word in the Supreme Courts. So what was a significant source of Blackstone’s ideas? Perhaps the best answer to that question can be given through the life of Charles Finney.

Charles Finney is known as a famous revivalist, minister, and preacher from one of America’s greatest revivals; the Second Great Awakening in the early 1800’s. Finney, in his autobiography, spoke of how he received his call to ministry. He explained that – having determined to become a lawyer – he, like all other law students at the time, commenced the study of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws. Finney observed that Blackstone’s Commentaries not only provided the laws, it also provided the Biblical concepts on which those laws were based. Finney explained that in the process of studying Blackstone, he read so much of the Bible that he became a Christian and received his call to the ministry. Finney’s life story clearly identified a major source of Blackstone’s ideas for law.

So, while 34% of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the Bible, many of their quotes were taken from men – like Blackstone – who had used the Bible to arrive at their own conclusions.”

This doesn’t even include Supreme Court decisions, Congressional records, speeches, inaugurations, etc. all of which include sources of Biblical content and concepts. I can produce those as well, if need be ,as well as what was taught in American schools for the first 175 years.

Bear in mind, the above is not some made up opinion, it is well documented, irrefutable research into actual quotes from the Founders.
Sources:
David Barton, Original Intent, 1997
Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988
“The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought” American Political Science Review



You should take notes.

You are guaranteed the free practice of religion in the U.S. Constitution - of course you can observe the Sabbath. As well as any other holiday, from any other religion, if you so choose.


The "separation of church and state" in the US, though not explicitly stated in the Constitution, is derived from the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from establishing a religion or favoring one religion over another, ensuring religious freedom for all.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
  • First Amendment:
    The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

  • Establishment Clause:
    The "Establishment Clause" is the part of the First Amendment that prohibits the government from establishing a religion or favoring one religion over another.

    • Free Exercise Clause:
      The "Free Exercise Clause" protects the right of individuals to practice their religion (or not) without government interference.
    • Thomas Jefferson's "Wall of Separation":
      While the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution, it's often traced to a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, where he used the metaphor of a "wall of separation" between church and state.
    • Purpose of the Separation:
      The separation of church and state is intended to protect religious freedom by preventing the government from imposing a particular religion or interfering with the free exercise of religion.
    • Supreme Court Interpretation:
      The Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause to mean that the government cannot endorse or favor any religion, and this principle has been applied to various issues, including public school prayer, religious displays on public property, and government funding of religious institutions.
    • Ongoing Debate:
      The interpretation and application of the separation of church and state remain a subject of ongoing debate and legal challenges.
 
Last edited:
You are guaranteed the free practice of religion in the U.S. Constitution - of course you can observe the Sabbath. As well as any other holiday, from any other religion, if you so choose.


The "separation of church and state" in the US, though not explicitly stated in the Constitution, is derived from the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from establishing a religion or favoring one religion over another, ensuring religious freedom for all.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
  • First Amendment:
    The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

  • Establishment Clause:
    The "Establishment Clause" is the part of the First Amendment that prohibits the government from establishing a religion or favoring one religion over another.

    • Free Exercise Clause:
      The "Free Exercise Clause" protects the right of individuals to practice their religion (or not) without government interference.
    • Thomas Jefferson's "Wall of Separation":
      While the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution, it's often traced to a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, where he used the metaphor of a "wall of separation" between church and state.
    • Purpose of the Separation:
      The separation of church and state is intended to protect religious freedom by preventing the government from imposing a particular religion or interfering with the free exercise of religion.
    • Supreme Court Interpretation:
      The Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause to mean that the government cannot endorse or favor any religion, and this principle has been applied to various issues, including public school prayer, religious displays on public property, and government funding of religious institutions.
    • Ongoing Debate:
      The interpretation and application of the separation of church and state remain a subject of ongoing debate and legal challenges.
You've refused to answer simple questions.

I don't care to go on to other subjects.

I see no reason to read your posts.


Don't waste your time.
 
You've refused to answer simple questions.

I don't care to go on to other subjects.

I see no reason to read your posts.


Don't waste your time.

What questions haven't I answered? You likely missed my responses since the questions you asked were not in this thread.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom