Why I Am A Constitutional Textualist

[PeterPilot]

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.

In claiming we have constitutional governance BECAUSE we have OT inspiration (a false claim, but typical for you I guess) you seem to ignore the reality that there are countless examples of laws passed by our elected representatives that contradict the letter and spirit of the document. Would you like to explain to me how the Patriot Act conforms to constitutional principles? How the Scamdemic actions of the government conformed to those principles?

 

[PoliticalChic]

In claiming we have constitutional governance BECAUSE we have OT inspiration (a false claim, but typical for you I guess) you seem to ignore the reality that there are countless examples of laws passed by our elected representatives that contradict the letter and spirit of the document. Would you like to explain to me how the Patriot Act conforms to constitutional principles? How the Scamdemic actions of the government conformed to those principles?

Yet our Founders agreed totally with my view.

Who could have envisioned that a brilliant mind like you would come up to prove them wrong.


Here's a life hint for you: next time you are conversing with several folks, turn around quickly and catch them rolling their eyes.

 

[PeterPilot]

Yet our Founders agreed totally with my view.

Who could have envisioned that a brilliant mind like you would come up to prove them wrong.


Here's a life hint for you: next time you are conversing with several folks, turn around quickly and catch them rolling their eyes.

You are kidding yourself madam. You dodged this question before, and probably will again, but if the founders held your view, why did they include the last sentence in Article VI? "; but no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office or public Trust under the United States." How do you reconcile that sentence with your claim?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are kidding yourself madam. You dodged this question before, and probably will again, but if the founders held your view, why did they include the last sentence in Article VI? "; but no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office or public Trust under the United States." How do you reconcile that sentence with your claim?

Because they weren't Fascists, like the Democrats.

They wanted the nation to grow, so they also had no immigration restrictions..

But I am, as usual, 100% correct about the Founders......you should take notes:

Just a message for our government school grad pals, who never heard the truth.

1. 9 of the original 13 states required one to be a Bible-believing Christian to hold office

2.All 13 required a declaration of faith

3.9 of 13 required you to be a Protestand, Maryland a Catholic

4. All the state constitutions required "I profess Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior"

5. 55 of 56 signers of the Declaration were Bible-believing church attending Christians

6. Common law itself comes from Blackstone, who was Christian, and common law comes from the Scriptures

7. God is mentioned four times in the Declaratioin

8. "We appeal to the Supreme Judge of the Universe" is a phrase most commonly found in the Declaration of Independence, signifying that the authors are invoking God as the ultimate authority to validate their actions and intentions in declaring independence from Great Britain; essentially, asking God to judge the righteousness of their cause.

9.There is a specific reference to Christ in the Constitution, after article 7.

10.The book most quoted anywhere at the time of our founding was Deuteronomy, with Moses talking about how government should be set up.

11. John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
From Charlie Kirk:


Now, why isn't this taught in history in government school?

 

[Mack The Finger]

Textualism is a mode of legal interpretation that focuses on the plain meaning of the text of a legal document. Textualism usually emphasizes how the terms in the Constitution would be understood by people at the time they were ratified, as well as the context in which those terms appear.
-See Hon. Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law 23–38 (Amy Gutmann ed., 1997) [hereinafter Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation].

.
I just found this place and will have to drop in more often.

Anyhow...LIBs are trying to redefine the 2nd amendment based on today's meaning of what a "Militia" means.

WTF is wrong with these people ???

In Middle English, to day and to morrow, were both written as two words. But by Shakespeare’s time, he was writing “tomorrow” as one word. And the hyphen didn’t come into use in English until perhaps 1620, so Shakespeare was gluing “tomorrow” together without a hyphen.

Of “today”,, however, Etymology Online says Old English todæge, to dæge "on (this) day," from to "at, on" (see to) + dæge, dative of dæg "day" (see day). Meaning "in modern times" is from c. 1300. As a noun from 1530s. Generally written as two words until 16c., after which it usually was written to-day until early 20c.

 

[PoliticalChic]

.
I just found this place and will have to drop in more often.

Anyhow...LIBs are trying to redefine the 2nd amendment based on today's meaning of what a "Militia" means.

WTF is wrong with these people ???

In Middle English, to day and to morrow, were both written as two words. But by Shakespeare’s time, he was writing “tomorrow” as one word. And the hyphen didn’t come into use in English until perhaps 1620, so Shakespeare was gluing “tomorrow” together without a hyphen.

Of “today”,, however, Etymology Online says Old English todæge, to dæge "on (this) day," from to "at, on" (see to) + dæge, dative of dæg "day" (see day). Meaning "in modern times" is from c. 1300. As a noun from 1530s. Generally written as two words until 16c., after which it usually was written to-day until early 20c.

Welcome to the board and the battles.
And....do drop by more often......just bring a box of cake.


What is wrong with them is the same thing that is wrong with much of Western Civilization today.....


The Fourth Estate is the most corrupt organization in the nation today. Control of this body is central to the Marxist agenda.


Communism was one of the totalitarian dogma’s that arose from the French Revolution, and their theoretician was Antonio Gramschi.

“Antonio Gramsci, the philosopher who became the iconic thinker of the 1960s, laid down the blueprint for precisely what has happened in Britain: the capture of all society's institutions, such as schools, universities, churches, the media, the legal profession, the police and voluntary groups. This intellectual elite was persuaded to sing from the same subversive hymn-sheet so that the moral beliefs of the majority would be replaced by the values of those on the margins of society, the perfect ambience in which the Muslim grievance culture could be fanned into the flames of extremism.

At the core of those Western majority values lay the Mosaic code, which first gave the world the concept of morality, self-discipline and laws regulating behavior. Who, then, could be surprised that the Jews found themselves in the left's crosshairs?” Phillips, “Londonistan,” P.118-119

 

[San Souci]

I look at the Constitution like I do the Bible. If you break the tenants of either, there is no bolt of lighting coming down from the sky to take you out for ignoring either.

Both are a warning. You break these rules and bad things are going to happen.

Yes. And nothing BUT bad things have happened ever since Woodrow Wilson ,FDR ,and LBJ.

 

[Mack The Finger]

Welcome to the board and the battles.
And....do drop by more often......just bring a box of cake.

.
You seem like a very bright and educated young lady. (If I am allowed to assume that now of days)

Anyhow what is your spin on this: it is not limited to LIBs but they were the last ones I heard throwing the saying around; that is Constitutional Criss.

I say there is no such thing and it is a strawman for people with butt hurt.

Your thoughts please.

 

[PoliticalChic]

.
You seem like a very bright and educated young lady. (If I am allowed to assume that now of days)

Anyhow what is your spin on this: it is not limited to LIBs but they were the last ones I heard throwing the saying around; that is Constitutional Criss.

I say there is no such thing and it is a strawman for people with butt hurt.

Your thoughts please.

I appreciate your kind words, and the polite way that you post.
I have had excellent educational opportunity in this great country.

Exactly what is the "Constitutional Criss" to which you refer?



If you refer to the OP, you see that i place my faith in the words of the Founders who wrote the Constitution, Madison, et. al.

I do not consider the words of later justices or judges, case law, as comparable.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Constitutional textualists, I have a question for you.

Is Trump allowed to serve a 3rd term as President of the United States?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Constitutional textualists, I have a question for you.

Is Trump allowed to serve a 3rd term as President of the United States?

What an easy question to answer.
1. The document that Americans have agreed to be governed by is the Constitution.
2. AI Overview
The process for amending the U.S. Constitution is outlined in Article V. This article specifies two ways to propose amendments: a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, or a request from two-thirds of the state legislatures to call a constitutional convention. It also outlines two methods for ratifying amendments: either by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by conventions in three-fourths of the states, as determined by Congress.
3. If an amendment is passed that allows the 3rd term, it will happen.

This is educational, not a prediction.

 

[XponentialChaos]

What an easy question to answer.
1. The document that Americans have agreed to be governed by is the Constitution.
2. AI Overview
The process for amending the U.S. Constitution is outlined in Article V. This article specifies two ways to propose amendments: a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, or a request from two-thirds of the state legislatures to call a constitutional convention. It also outlines two methods for ratifying amendments: either by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by conventions in three-fourths of the states, as determined by Congress.
3. If an amendment is passed that allows the 3rd term, it will happen.

This is educational, not a prediction.

Excellent.

So Trump pushing for a 3rd term is unconstitutional. The Constitution would need to be changed in order for him to be eligible for a 3rd term.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Excellent.

So Trump pushing for a 3rd term is unconstitutional. The Constitution would need to be changed in order for him to be eligible for a 3rd term.

Asking is hardly unconstitutional.....unless you oppose the 1st amendment and free speech.

;
It appears you vote Democrat/Fascist...am I correct or do I owe you an apology?

 

[XponentialChaos]

Asking is hardly unconstitutional.....unless you oppose the 1st amendment and free speech.

Who said anything about the freedom of speech? The 1st Amendment does not require people to respect the Constitution. He has the right to ask for a third term. MAGA supporters have the right to express their support for Trump receiving a 3rd term.

But what they want, however, is directly against what the Constitution explicitly states.

Agree?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who said anything about the freedom of speech? The 1st Amendment does not require people to respect the Constitution. He has the right to ask for a third term. MAGA supporters have the right to express their support for Trump receiving a 3rd term.

But what they want, however, is directly against what the Constitution explicitly states.

Agree?

I asked this question.

"It appears you vote Democrat/Fascist...am I correct or do I owe you an apology?"


The odor left by your refusal to answer the simple question suggests a certain shame.


let's see if I can continue to be 100% correct......bet you are a government school grad.


How'd I do?

 

[XponentialChaos]

I asked this question.

"It appears you vote Democrat/Fascist...am I correct or do I owe you an apology?"


The odor left by your refusal to answer the simple question suggests a certain shame.


let's see if I can continue to be 100% correct......bet you are a government school grad.


How'd I do?

Discussing me instead of addressing the topic is a pretty clear sign of weakness regarding the subject at hand.

Try again and please do better this time. Leave the petty insults out of this and try to stay on topic.

Who said anything about the freedom of speech? The 1st Amendment does not require people to respect the Constitution. He has the right to ask for a third term. MAGA supporters have the right to express their support for Trump receiving a 3rd term.

But what they want, however, is directly against what the Constitution explicitly states.

Agree?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Discussing me instead of addressing the topic is a pretty clear sign of weakness regarding the subject at hand.

Try again and please do better this time. Leave the petty insults out of this and try to stay on topic.

Who said anything about the freedom of speech? The 1st Amendment does not require people to respect the Constitution. He has the right to ask for a third term. MAGA supporters have the right to express their support for Trump receiving a 3rd term.

But what they want, however, is directly against what the Constitution explicitly states.

Agree?

I asked this question.

"It appears you vote Democrat/Fascist...am I correct or do I owe you an apology?"


The odor left by your refusal to answer the simple question suggests a certain shame.


let's see if I can continue to be 100% correct......bet you are a government school grad.


How'd I do?

 

[XponentialChaos]

I asked this question.

"It appears you vote Democrat/Fascist...am I correct or do I owe you an apology?"


The odor left by your refusal to answer the simple question suggests a certain shame.


let's see if I can continue to be 100% correct......bet you are a government school grad.


How'd I do?

Discussing me instead of addressing the topic is a pretty clear sign of weakness regarding the subject at hand.

Try again and please do better this time. Leave the petty insults out of this and try to stay on topic.

Who said anything about the freedom of speech? The 1st Amendment does not require people to respect the Constitution. He has the right to ask for a third term. MAGA supporters have the right to express their support for Trump receiving a 3rd term.

But what they want, however, is directly against what the Constitution explicitly states.

Agree?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Directions Of Ethical Realism In Public Awareness "

* Objective Analysis Of Failed Informed Consent Of The Public *

Let me apologize at the start for a post that most may find abstruse, but it is one of those subjects that helps define much of what goes on in politics today.

One is able to deduce a common law that is ethically valid from first principles of non violence and individualism , while also acknowledging moral relativism of nature , and presuming that a law exists where an entity is capable of and issues a retort or reprise for violations of some legal construct .

* Traditional Or Contemporary Projections For Establishing Normative Valuation *

Textualism is a mode of legal interpretation that focuses on the plain meaning of the text of a legal document. Textualism usually emphasizes how the terms in the Constitution would be understood by people at the time they were ratified, as well as the context in which those terms appear.
-See Hon. Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law 23–38 (Amy Gutmann ed., 1997) [hereinafter Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation].

One is assured that exegesis and eisegesis will continue to occur .

* Goading Deism Personified As Justification To Dictate Diatribe *

1. Everything changed when Progressives took over law schools. They taught law students a) that there was no natural law, nor unalienable rights, and b) that the Constitution is altered by case law. This meant American lawyers interpreting the Constitution via caselaw rather than through studying the Constitution itself.

Anything that can be alienated is not inalienable and that is a logical fact ; an unlimited possibility to implement a rites doe not make a rite inalienable .

. Positive law - Wikipedia .
Positive laws (Latin: ius positum) are human-made laws that oblige or specify an action. Positive law also describes the establishment of specific rights for an individual or group. Etymologically, the name derives from the verb to posit.

The concept of positive law is distinct from natural law, which comprises inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason".[1] Positive law is also described as the law that applies at a certain time (present or past) and at a certain place, consisting of statutory law, and case law as far as it is binding. More specifically, positive law may be characterized as "law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society."[2]

. Legal positivism - Wikipedia .
In jurisprudence (also known as legal philosophy), legal positivism is the theory that the existence of the law and its content depend on social facts, such as acts of legislation, judicial decisions, and customs, rather than on morality. This contrasts with theories such as natural law, which hold that law is necessarily connected to morality in such a way that any law that contradicts morality lacks legal validity.

Sometimes the term 'positivist' is used in a pejorative sense to condemn a doctrine according to which the law is always clear (legal formalism) and, however unjust, must be strictly enforced by officials and obeyed by subjects (so-called 'ideological positivism').[1][10][11] When identified with legal formalism, legal positivism is opposed to legal realism. Legal positivism, understood as formalism, believes that in most cases the law provides definite guidance to its subjects and to judges; legal realists, on the other hand, often embrace rule scepticism, claiming that legal rules are indeterminate and do not constrain judicial discretion.[13] However, both legal positivism and legal realism believe that law is a human construct. Moreover, most realists adopted some version of the positivist doctrine of the separation of law and morality.[14]

. Morality - Wikipedia .
Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is the branch of philosophy which addresses questions of morality. The word "ethics" is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual."[8] Likewise, certain types of ethical theories, especially deontological ethics, sometimes distinguish between ethics and morality.

. Ethics - Wikipedia .
Ethics is the philosophical study of moral phenomena. Also called moral philosophy, it investigates normative questions about what people ought to do or which behavior is morally right. Its main branches include normative ethics, applied ethics, and metaethics.

Normative ethics aims to find general principles that govern how people should act. Applied ethics examines concrete ethical problems in real-life situations, such as abortion, treatment of animals, and business practices. Metaethics explores the underlying assumptions and concepts of ethics. It asks whether there are objective moral facts, how moral knowledge is possible, and how moral judgments motivate people. Influential normative theories are consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics. According to consequentialists, an act is right ( SIC ) if it leads to the best consequences. Deontologists focus on acts themselves, saying that they must adhere to duties, like telling the truth and keeping promises. Virtue ethics sees the manifestation of virtues, like courage and compassion, as the fundamental principle of morality.

Ethics is closely connected to value theory, which studies the nature and types of value, like the contrast between intrinsic and instrumental value. Moral psychology is a related empirical field and investigates psychological processes involved in morality, such as reasoning and the formation of character. Descriptive ethics describes the dominant moral codes and beliefs in different societies and considers their historical dimension.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Discussing me instead of addressing the topic is a pretty clear sign of weakness regarding the subject at hand.

Try again and please do better this time. Leave the petty insults out of this and try to stay on topic.

Who said anything about the freedom of speech? The 1st Amendment does not require people to respect the Constitution. He has the right to ask for a third term. MAGA supporters have the right to express their support for Trump receiving a 3rd term.

But what they want, however, is directly against what the Constitution explicitly states.

Agree?

Fearful of admitting what you are?

I understand.


Just go away.