Given that the original unamended Constitution granted the government no authority...

[Mick Jagger]

Given that the original unamended Constitution granted the government no authority whatsoever over arms or religion, I don't see why the First and Second Amendments were even necessary. Nor do I see why we should care much about what they mean.

The lawmakers clearly didn't want the federal government to have any jurisdiction whatsoever regarding arms or religion. The only question is whether we interpret those denials of power broadly or narrowly.

 

[fossten]

FIRST! Posting in yet another Mick Jagger constitution religion thread...

 

[shagdrum]

You point out that the original constitution doesn't grant authority over religion, but it doesn't exclude it either.

The whole point of the Bill or Rights was that certain things were too unclear to get the constitution ratified; like authority (or lack thereof) over religion and arms, among other things. The Bill of Rights clarifies that and spells out the limits of the federal governments authority over religion and arms, among other things. The fact that the Bill of Rights exists makes it clear that the federal government does have some authority in the area of religion and that is was limited by the first amendment.

 

[Mick Jagger]

You point out that the original constitution doesn't grant authority over religion, but it doesn't exclude it either.

Any powers not granted in the Constitution to the government were denied. With respect to religion, it was well understood by the lawmakers that, under the Constitution, the government was not to have any power over religion.

Here is just one item of evidence:

[Congress] had no power[under the proposed Constitution] at all [to interfere with religion.]

--Charles C. Pinckney, on January 17, 1788 in the South Carolina State Legislature, which was discussing the Constitution. Pinckney was responding to a question regarding whether Congress had a right to interfere in religion. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787Vol.OL IV, by Jonathan Elliot J. B. Lippincott Company 1888. Pages 300
​

I challenge you to produce an item of evidence that the lawmakers believed the government would have jurisdiction over religion.

 

[Mick Jagger]

The whole point of the Bill or Rights was that certain things were too unclear to get the constitution ratified; like authority (or lack thereof) over religion and arms, among other things.

That's a myth. The Constitution was ratified without any assurances that it would be amended.

The Bill of Rights clarifies that and spells out the limits of the federal governments authority over religion and arms, among other things.

Read the preamble to the Bill of Rights. That wasn't the object at all.

The fact that the Bill of Rights exists makes it clear that the federal government does have some authority in the area of religion and that is was limited by the first amendment.

The First Amendment might imply that the federal government was granted general power over religion, however, it certainly doesn't make it clear. Upon closer inspection, one discovers that the instrument is denominated as a Constitution of government, ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves and their posterity. They have declared it the supreme law of the land. They have made it a limited government. They have defined its authority. They have restrained it to the exercise of certain powers. It grants the government no power whatsoever religion. In other words, it totally excludes religion from the cognizance of the civil authorities.

 

[fossten]

I'm starting to think that this is the real Mick Jagger posting here. He certainly can't get no satisfaction on this subject, although he tries, and he tries, and he tries, and he tries...

 

[RedHotMark96]

Could you please tell us, in simpleton terms, what you feel the real problem is here?

 

[Mick Jagger]

Could you please tell us, in simpleton terms, what you feel the real problem is here?

Too much civil authority over religion.

 

[Marcus]

Too much civil authority over religion.

Maybe I misunderstand your meaning, but that's an odd way of putting it. Most "separationists" argue that religion has too much influence over government, not the other way around.

On the other hand, those in favor of more religion in government often make the claim that Jefferson's "wall" was intended to be "one way", that is, keeping government out of religion. But that just doesn't jibe with the portrait we have of Jefferson. While preventing government from favoring one religious sect at the expense of another was a valid concern, it is clear from Jefferson's writings that it was the corruption of religion, or more pointedly the clergy, that he feared would result from organized religions' influence in government and politics.

I would argue strongly that his fears have come to pass, more than he ever could have imagined, i.e., James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, and dozens more, who have allowed their political power and connections to corrupt their own views (and hence their followers' views) of Christianity beyond all recognition.

One more point: People on both sides of the church/state debate need to get over the myth that the Founding Fathers were all of the same mindset and thus unified in their thinking when it came to the Constitution and the role of government. It was no accident that the Constitution is vague in places. They couldn't agree on everything. Which is why we're still arguing about it 200 years later.

In short, neither side can lay claim to knowing the true intentions of the founders, because they were so varied. Both sides of the debate are right. And both are wrong. Just depends on who you quote from.

 

[Mick Jagger]

Maybe I misunderstand your meaning, but that's an odd way of putting it. Most "separationists" argue that religion has too much influence over government, not the other way around.

Religion can't influence government's influence over religion unless the government has some influence over religion. Under the Constitution, the government was given no means to influence religion.

On the other hand, those in favor of more religion in government often make the claim that Jefferson's "wall" was intended to be "one way", that is, keeping government out of religion.

That is a big mistake. The lawmakers intended for the Constitution to be interpreted by using the common law "rules of construction.'

But that just doesn't jibe with the portrait we have of Jefferson. While preventing government from favoring one religious sect at the expense of another was a valid concern, it is clear from Jefferson's writings that it was the corruption of religion, or more pointedly the clergy, that he feared would result from organized religions' influence in government and politics.

You are making the mistake of assuming Jefferson's views should be used to interpret the Constitution. The lawmakers intended for the Constitution to be interpreted by using the common law "rules of construction."

People on both sides of the church/state debate need to get over the myth that the Founding Fathers were all of the same mindset and thus unified in their thinking when it came to the Constitution and the role of government.

I think people need to be aware that the lawmakers meant for the common law rules of construction to be used to ascertain the meaning of the Constitution.

In short, neither side can lay claim to knowing the true intentions of the founders, because they were so varied.

The common law "rules of construction" are the key that enable us to ascertain the will of the lawmakers at the time they made the Constitution.

Both sides of the debate are right. And both are wrong. Just depends on who you quote from.

Both sides are wrong to believe historical analysis, or quotations, are the key to the meaning of the Constitution. The common law "rules of construction" are the key that enable us to ascertain the will of the lawmakers at the time they made the Constitution.

 

[Marcus]

Religion can't influence government's influence over religion unless the government has some influence over religion. Under the Constitution, the government was given no means to influence religion.

That's a real tongue-twister. Just so I can get my head around this, would you please provide an example of government influence over religion? And something more than a three-word answer (or some variation on "common law rules of construction") would be appreciated.

 

[Mick Jagger]

That's a real tongue-twister. Just so I can get my head around this, would you please provide an example of government influence over religion? And something more than a three-word answer (or some variation on "common law rules of construction") would be appreciated.

The 1789 law that compelled the people to contribute to the financial support of the Chaplains to Congress is an example.

 

[nightriddah]

humm.....

 

[fossten]

The 1789 law that compelled the people to contribute to the financial support of the Chaplains to Congress is an example.

That's a pretty boring and lame example. No offense. Got anything more impressive?

 

[shagdrum]

Any powers not granted in the Constitution to the government were denied.

Wrong. any powers not granted in the constitution to Congress were reserved for the states.

I challenge you to produce an item of evidence that the lawmakers believed the government would have jurisdiction over religion.

Under the constitution, the federal government was specifically prohibited from interfering with the free exercise of religion or establishing a religion. The state and local governments were free to do as they pleased. Many states had state churches at the time of the ratification.

 

[shagdrum]

That's a myth. The Constitution was ratified without any assurances that it would be amended.

"Madison proposed the Bill of Rights while ideological conflict between Federalists and anti-Federalists, dating from the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, threatened the overall ratification of the new national Constitution. It largely responded to the Constitution's influential opponents, including prominent Founding Fathers, who argued that the Constitution should not be ratified because it failed to protect the basic principles of human liberty."

Just because it wasn't guaranteed it would be amended, doesn't disprove my point of it being in response to a lack of clarity in regards to right in the original constitution. Mak no mistake; the constitution would not have become law without the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment might imply that the federal government was granted general power over religion, however, it certainly doesn't make it clear.

Actually, it does. The establishment and free exercise clause spell out the limits of the federal governments authority over religion. Inasmuch as the federal government has authority over any other social institutions, it has authority over the institution of religion, which is effectively incidental at best. The two biggest areas that government could effect religion are taken off the table for the federal government; free exercise and a national religion.

Upon closer inspection, one discovers that the instrument is denominated as a Constitution of government, ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves and their posterity.

What?

 

[Mick Jagger]

That's a pretty boring and lame example. No offense. Got anything more impressive?

Show us where the Constitution grants Congress authority over our duty to contribute to the financial support of religion?

 

[Mick Jagger]

Wrong. any powers not granted in the constitution to Congress were reserved for the states.

Any powers not granted to the Federal Government in the U. S. Constitution, were denied to the U. S. Government. Any powers not granted to the federal government were reserved to the states or to the people.

No authority over religion was granted to the federal government. That authority was reserved to the people except for those few who were stupid enough to surrender it to the state governments.

Under the constitution, the federal government was specifically prohibited from interfering with the free exercise of religion or establishing a religion.

There is not a shadow of a right in the federal government to involve itself in religion.

The state and local governments were free to do as they pleased.

The state constitutions said otherwise.

Many states had state churches at the time of the ratification.

Not one of the states, except perhaps for Connecticut, had a state church at the time of ratification. If you disagree, provide the name of the state church, the state that established it and the relevant legal statutes.

 

[Mick Jagger]

Madison proposed the Bill of Rights while ideological conflict between Federalists and anti-Federalists, dating from the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, threatened the overall ratification of the new national Constitution.

Madison was in no position to propose amendments to the Constitution in the House of Representatives, until after it was ratified, elections were held to choose the member of the House and Senate and Madison won a seat in Congress.

It largely responded to the Constitution's influential opponents, including prominent Founding Fathers, who argued that the Constitution should not be ratified because it failed to protect the basic principles of human liberty."

The Constitution was ratified by 11 of the 13 states with no assurances there would be a Bill of Rights. If you disagree, explain who provided these assurances.

Just because it wasn't guaranteed it would be amended, doesn't disprove my point of it being in response to a lack of clarity in regards to right in the original constitution.

I forgot what your point was. What was it, exactly?

Make no mistake; the constitution would not have become law without the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution could, and did, become law without a Bill of Rights.

Actually, it does. The establishment and free exercise clause spell out the limits of the federal governments authority over religion.

The Constitution grants the government no authority whatsoever over religion. The amendments were "calculated merely to amuse, or rather to deceive."

 

[fossten]

Show us where the Constitution grants Congress authority over our duty to contribute to the financial support of religion?

How is this a response to my question? Got an example, or are you going to continue to troll vaguely in your own thread?

 

[Mick Jagger]

How is this a response to my question? Got an example, or are you going to continue to troll vaguely in your own thread?

I understand you to mean that you can't show us were the Constitution grants Congress authority over our duty to contribute to the financial support of religion.

 

[fossten]

I understand you to mean that you can't show us were the Constitution grants Congress authority over our duty to contribute to the financial support of religion.

Again, so what? Please show me real concrete examples where this authority is being breached. Not some lame Chaplain's fund bullcrap.

 

[Mick Jagger]

Please show me real concrete examples where this authority is being breached.

I've already done that.

Not some lame Chaplain's fund bullcrap.

You may believe the establishment of the Congressional Chaplainships is a lame bull crap example of civil authority over religion. However, James Madison believed "the law appointing Chaplains...to be paid out of the national taxes" was "a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles..."

 

[fossten]

I've already done that.

You may believe the establishment of the Congressional Chaplainships is a lame bull crap example of civil authority over religion. However, James Madison believed "the law appointing Chaplains...to be paid out of the national taxes" was "a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles..."

We're going in circles. As I said earlier, if that's all you've got, I'm not impressed.

 

[Mick Jagger]

We're going in circles. As I said earlier, if that's all you've got, I'm not impressed.

You still haven't shown us where the Constitution grants the government authority to establish religion....