Lawsuit Over Prayer Is Settled

[04SCTLS]

Didn't mean to be dismissive, sorry 'bout that. But I felt it needed to be pointed out that if you are gonna try to intellectually challenge religion, you can't base the argument on the fact that your claim can't be disproven, that isn't logical.

Interesting that he came up with the theory after drinking the drug. Only somebody high on drugs would come up with such an idiotic theory.

Actually I just wanted to comment on fossten's statement and show that some people high on certain drugs have come up with brilliant theories and discoveries contrary to the usual stereotype.

 

[fossten]

Didn't mean to be dismissive, sorry 'bout that. But I felt it needed to be pointed out that if you are gonna try to intellectually challenge religion, you can't base the argument on the fact that your claim can't be disproven, that isn't logical.



Actually I just wanted to comment on fossten's statement and show that some people high on certain drugs have come up with brilliant theories and discoveries contrary to the usual stereotype.

So what? You're submitting this as PROOF? Jeez, where do I begin with the logical flaws? Shall I start with non sequitur and end with generalizations?

 

[04SCTLS]

So what? You're submitting this as PROOF? Jeez, where do I begin with the logical flaws? Shall I start with non sequitur and end with generalizations?

I'm not submitting any proof here,
just commenting on your opinion:

"Only somebody high on drugs would come up with such an idiotic theory."

this is an emotional generalization which my examples show not to be true.

 

[Kbob]

These people all said hallucinogenic drugs enhanced their intellectual abilities
so I'll take them at their word.

Okay, you go ahead and do that.

The Air Force and Navy give their pilots small doses of Dexedrine (an amphetamine) to sharpen up their performance so one cannot just blithely say all drugs are bad and don't have a good use.
Soldiers on both sides in WWII also took amphetamines to keep going and win.
I'm sure Hitler's blitzkrieg was fuelled by these stimulants that the Germans had synthisized in 1927.
When you send out bomber crews and 40% of them aren't coming back conventional morality takes a back seat to winning at all costs when the stakes are so high.

I thought we were talking about hallucinogenic drugs? A far cry from a mild stimulant that most people get with a few cups of coffee (which wouldn't be practical on a several hour flight).

Christianity has been around for 2000 years so I'm sure it will withstand any onslaught.

On that we agree. :Beer

The first part of your post seems to argue against the Moses on drugs theory but your last sentence says:
"Sounds like a good theory to me"
So which is it?

I try to adhere to normal rules of grammar. That last line had to do with my last paragraph, not my first.

 

[04SCTLS]

I thought we were talking about hallucinogenic drugs? A far cry from a mild stimulant that most people get with a few cups of coffee (which wouldn't be practical on a several hour flight).

FYI
Coffee contains caffiene and not dexedrine (dextroamphetamine)
It is a much stronger stimulant and chemically related to chrystal meth (methamphetamine)which is a very dangerous substance.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dexedrine&btnG=Google+Search

Caffiene in coffee is mild enough even children can consume it and they do if they drink Coke or Pepsi.

 

[Mick Jagger]

Mick Jagger
You apparently have no idea what the common law rules of construction were when the Constitution was being made.

The other dude
I know what common law is and it's influence in our nations founding. As to the rules of construction, I have never heard of that before, and unless you can provide a better explanation (and maybe a few links to info on it), I have to assume you have no idea what those are.

The common law rules of construction were established by the English Courts in judicial decisions dating back to the 1500's. They were used to ascertain the will of the lawmakers at the time the law or constitution was made. They were universally accepted at the time the Constitution was made.

 

[Mick Jagger]

Mick
No. The rules of construction were used to ascertain the will of the lawmaker at the time the law was made.

Other dude
Again, need more then just your unsubstantiated assertion.

I thought you said you were well informed regarding the common law?

When determining the meaning of the constitution the Framers original intent is what is looked at

If you mean that the object of Constitutional Interpretation is to ascertain the will of the lawmakers at the time they made the Constitution, then I agree.

through the paper trail I showed.

Show me some evidence that the lawmakers meant for us to use "the paper trail" to ascertain the meaning of the words they used in the Constitution to express their will.

 

[Mick Jagger]

Mick
The rules have little to do with issues of procedure. They have to do with the will of the lawmaker when the law was made.

Other dude
Again, you are spinnin your wheels and not makin any progress here, unless you can expand on this (again, with some sort of link, or source, please).

If, during the making of the Constitution, the lawmakers had wanted to know what the English Common Law was regarding a particular matter, what book would they have consulted?

 

[Kbob]

FYI
Coffee contains caffiene and not dexedrine (dextroamphetamine)
It is a much stronger stimulant and chemically related to chrystal meth (methamphetamine)which is a very dangerous substance.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dexedrine&btnG=Google+Search

Caffiene in coffee is mild enough even children can consume it and they do if they drink Coke or Pepsi.

Noted. I will change the 2nd sentence you referred to as follows:

"A far cry from a small dosage of a stimulant that most people would get the equivalent effect of with a few cups of strong coffee."

You may argue the specifics of the effects of dextroamphetamine vs. caffeine, but I stand by my point.

 

[Mick Jagger]

The framers didn't define the terms they used in the Constitution.
No, they didn't need to. They had an understanding of what those terms meant.

How are we supposed to figure out what that understanding was?

Common law can be used to figure out what some terms ment to them (when the terms are vauge or understood differently by todays standards.

I thought you said there was no vague language in the Constitution. What sort of rules and principles should we use to ascertain the meaning of vague language. What about other "dubious" language?

 

[Mick Jagger]

Mick
There is no evidence whatsoever that the framers understood, believed, assumed or intended for the meaning of the Constitution to be ascertained from their own writing and the writings of the time, unless those writings were admissible under the rules of construction.

Other dude
That is just common sense. If you wanna understand what someone said or wrote (and why they did so), you look at their explanation for it.

Were did the lawmakers ever explain what the Constitution meant as regards religion and its relationship to the government?

 

[Mick Jagger]

Mick
What do those documents say about whether the rules of construction should be used to interpret the Constitution?

Other dude
I have yet to find anything about "rules of interpretation". I am beginning to wonder if you made that up.

Have you ever heard of Joseph Story?

 

[Mick Jagger]

Mick
There's a lot of ambiguous language in the Constitution, dude.

Other dude
DUDE!...that is why you go back and look at the explanations and clarification they wrote down and/or published.

Where did they explain or clarify the provisions respecting religion?

 

[04SCTLS]

Mick,
can you post some links to where you get your arguements from?
You are quoting your own statements and shagdrum's who you refer to as "Other Dude" then adding terse single sentence questions for the most part that only add to the confusion here and make most readers tune you out as it seems like you're talking to yourself.
Not meaning any disrespect but I for one am completely lost on what you want to say here with these multiple postings.

 

[shagdrum]

Syd was out of it by 1967 way before Pink Floyd's greatest albums.
He's the crazy diamond in Shine on you Crazy Diamond.
Their early stuff is unrefined IMO.
Dark side of the Moon 1973 which I saw performed live in 1975 is regarded by some as the greatest album of all time having spent 14 years on the Billboard Chart.
I also really enjoy most of the 1972 album Meddle, tracks Echoes and One of these Days. This album really set the tone for all subsequent Floyd albums.

Yeah, the best example of rambling music is probably some of ELP's stuff. I like pink floyd, but am much more of a Rush person myself. Being a drummer, I love the technical stuff.

 

[Mick Jagger]

Mick Jagger
It was defined that way in the "subject matter."

Other dude
What "subject matter"?

One of the rules of construction covers "subject matter." In my view, it's basically anything written on the same subject as the subject of the provision being interpreted, that could have been in the eye of the lawmakers as they made the Constitution. That automatically eliminates anything written or said regarding "religion" after the Constitution was adopted.

Previous laws made by the lawmakers would qualify as "subject matter." However, the legislative bodies that made the Original Constitution had never made any previous laws regarding religion.

State laws regarding religion would be subject matter. Also, petitions, essays, proposals, and other works regarding religion might be considered "subject matter."

You need to expand on your claims. You are not providing explanations, just answers when the question isn't all that clear. All you are doing, effectively is confusing the issue right now. It seems you may have a lot to offer, but you are just making quick statements without explanation.

I will be happy to explain.

I DID finally find the context of that definiton of religion at this link:
http://www.plymrock.org/leadership.html

George Mason submitted the first draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights to the committee assigned to present such a declaration to Virginia's first state constitutional convention in 1776. That committee's amended Article 18 reads:

That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrates, unless under color of religion any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or safety of society.
​

Basically this is talking about free exercise of religion within certian limits. But even further down on the page, it talks about those limits, and how that was changed:

James Madison was a member of the Declaration of Rights committee, And, as reported in the documentary record, his thought was that "toleration was a grant, freedom a right." 1 In proposing amendments to the original language of the committee's draft, the documentary record says that Madison started with the phrase "that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion", He drew two lines through "should" and above it wrote, "are equally entitled to," He then deleted the four words "the fullest toleration of" and before the noun "exercise" inserted the adjective "free."

The record refers to the phrase "unless, under color of religion any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or safety of society" as a "gaping loophole clause" because it obviously would given any civil magistrate the right to render his personal opinion with respect to someone's free exercise of religion. In the committee, the "entire loophole clause, beginning with 'unpunished and unrestrained' ... was excised -- any delegate could agree that a clear and present danger [in the original toileting language] justified forceful response."
​

This is consistent with the ruling in Employment Division v. Smith (1990).


If you are saying that religion, as an idea can't be tried in court directly, and as such is above the law, then yes that is accurate and I would agree with you. If you are trying to imply that religion can be used as an excuse to break the law (or a justification for that), then that would be inaccurate and wrong.

Please, clarify and explain what you are getting at here.

"Subject matter" matter can only be considered when there is dubious language and the first two rules of construction (the first covers the "most usual" meaning of the words and the second covers the "context" of the words) don't resolve the ambiguity.

 

[shagdrum]

Where did they explain or clarify the provisions respecting religion?

I don't remember the exact ones, but a few of the federalist papers do, for one. In fact, Madison said in Federalist 51:

If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.​

John Adams said;

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. ​

Jefferson in his Danbury Baptist letter:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.​

Jefferson in his Second Inaugural Address, March 1805:

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by constitution independent of the powers of the general [i.e., federal] government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.
​

These are just a few quotes I pulled from a paper I wrote on the subject a few years back. The paper was focused on the influence of religion (specifically Christianity) on the founding of this nation, it's role in this nation, and where the framers viewed religion in regards to government. I don't have a whole lot of time to look up more quotes for ya. the Federalist papers and the Federal Farmer pamphlets are good places to start. The personal diaries (if you can find them) of the delegate at the constitutional convention, and (I think) Jefferson took extensive notes at the constitutional convention. That should be a good starting point.

 

[shagdrum]

Have you ever heard of Joseph Story?

Yep! A few quotes from him...

The real object the First Amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infeidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.
​

And from his Commentary on the Constitution of the United States:

Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion was left exclusively to State governments, to be acted on according to their own sense of justice and the State constitutions

Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the First Amendment, the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State, so far as such encouragement was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation
​

Still doesn't help me here. I need a better explanation. I wikipedia'ed Story and found nothing abut "rules of construction".

 

[shagdrum]

Mick,
can you post some links to where you get your arguements from?
You are quoting your own statements and shagdrum's who you refer to as "Other Dude" then adding terse single sentence questions for the most part that only add to the confusion here and make most readers tune you out as it seems like you're talking to yourself.
Not meaning any disrespect but I for one am completely lost on what you want to say here with these multiple postings.

x2

Please, elaborate here.

 

[cammerfe]

Understanding Laws

I've just looked at this forum for the first time---and I found something of interest!! Just a couple of comments:

1. It is well settled (That's lawyer talk!) that those who wrote/brought into being any law understood the meanings of every word therein.

2. There is a Law Dictionary in existence that's the 'official' source for meanings of words--(they do change from time to time). At the present time Black's latest edition is accepted. However, there was another source in use in 1776. It's long out of print, but it's words are the law definitions that apply to any law made at that time. I have, somewhere, a link for those that've made photocopies to aid in decyphering our original laws, such as The Constitution. I'll try to dig it out and post it.
KenS from Ben's Place

 

[Mick Jagger]

I don't remember the exact ones, but a few of the federalist papers do, for one. In fact, Madison said in Federalist 51:

If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.​

What language in the Constitution, pertaining to religion, was Madison explaining when he wrote that?

John Adams said;

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. ​

John Adams wasn't even one of the lawmakers who made the Constitution.

Jefferson in his Danbury Baptist letter:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.​

Jefferson in his Second Inaugural Address, March 1805:

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by constitution independent of the powers of the general [i.e., federal] government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.
​

Jefferson wasn't one of the lawmakers, dude.

These are just a few quotes I pulled from a paper I wrote on the subject a few years back. The paper was focused on the influence of religion (specifically Christianity) on the founding of this nation, it's role in this nation, and where the framers viewed religion in regards to government.

Where did you get the silly idea that the Constitution should be construed according to the influence of religion?

I don't have a whole lot of time to look up more quotes for ya. the Federalist papers and the Federal Farmer pamphlets are good places to start.

Why don't you point out where they explain the no religious test clause and the non delegation of authority over religion?

The personal diaries (if you can find them) of the delegate at the constitutional convention

Why don't you point out the explanations pertaining to the no religious test clause and the non delegation of authority over religion?

and (I think) Jefferson took extensive notes at the constitutional convention. That should be a good starting point.

Jefferson wasn't even there, dude.

 

[Mick Jagger]

Yep! A few quotes from him...

The real object the First Amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infeidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.
​

And from his Commentary on the Constitution of the United States:

Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion was left exclusively to State governments, to be acted on according to their own sense of justice and the State constitutions

Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the First Amendment, the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State, so far as such encouragement was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation
​

Still doesn't help me here. I need a better explanation. I wikipedia'ed Story and found nothing abut "rules of construction".

Joseph Story wrote an entire chapter on the "Rules of Interpretation of the Constitution" in this famous "Commentaries." It's a good place to start if you want to learn about the common law rules of construction.

 

[shagdrum]

Jefferson wasn't even there, dude.

Yeah, wasn't sure on that. Someone took extensive notes there, I wasn't sure it was Jefferson, but that name kept popin' into my head. It might've been one of the three who wrote the Federalist papers, as I think that was one of the source materials for them.

 

[shagdrum]

What language in the Constitution, pertaining to religion, was Madison explaining when he wrote that?

It is more an example of his understanding of human nature which is based in christianity. That men are inherently "sinful" and selfish.

John Adams wasn't even one of the lawmakers who made the Constitution.

No, but he was a contemporary of them; working with a number of them, and active in it's ratification. In fact, he was president when it was ratified, and in large part, the author of the original constitution of this nation; the Articles of Confederation. He had a very informed understanding of what went into the creation of the constitution, as well as what the constitution ment.

Jefferson wasn't one of the lawmakers, dude.

But he did write the Declaration, and again was a contemporary of them at the time; with the same intellectual influences and understandings.

Where did you get the silly idea that the Constitution should be construed according to the influence of religion?

That is hardly a silly idea, as Christianity was very influencial to the Framers. It's teaching played a large part in the founding of this nation.

A group of contemporary political scientists engaged in a ten-year study to find out what sources the Framers tapped. The study examined over fifteen thousand political writings of the Founding Era (1760-1805). The study revealed that the most frequently cited authorities of the 180 names examined (listed in order of declining fequency, with the corresponding percentages representing the frequency of citations from that author in relation to the total number of citations examined) were: Montesquieu 8.3%, Blackstone 7.9%, Locke 2.9%, Hume 2.7%, Plutarch 1.5%, Becaria 1.5%, Cato 1.4%, De Lolme 1.4%, and Puffendorf 1.3%#. Obviously, these writers greatly influenced the thinking of the founding fathers, but the researchers concluded that the founders cited the Bible vastly more often then any other source. Scripture was cited four times more then Blackstone or Montesquieu and twelve times more then Locke. Thirty-four percent of the direct source quotations were from the Bible. Except for Hume, all the men mentioned have strong Christian credentials.​

Why don't you point out where they explain the no religious test clause and the non delegation of authority over religion?

I will admit, the main focus of my study ( in regards to religion and politics) has been on the 1st Amendment. As such, it would take some time for me to research that and get back to you, time which I don't have, currently. Maybe next week. The "non-delegation" thing...are you talking about the federalism in the Bill of Rights? Non-delegation has to do with delegation of authority; an example being the EPA as a delegation of legislative authority to the executive branch in that agency. There are constitutional issues there, but I really don't see how they connect to religion.

If you are talking federalism, that I understand. The Bill of Rights, as originally written and intended, was only a restriction on the federal government. As such, the Feds were the only ones restricted by the Free exercise and Establishment Clauses. The states were free to do as they wish, in regards to religion.

 

[shagdrum]

I've just looked at this forum for the first time---and I found something of interest!! Just a couple of comments:

1. It is well settled (That's lawyer talk!) that those who wrote/brought into being any law understood the meanings of every word therein.

2. There is a Law Dictionary in existence that's the 'official' source for meanings of words--(they do change from time to time). At the present time Black's latest edition is accepted. However, there was another source in use in 1776. It's long out of print, but it's words are the law definitions that apply to any law made at that time. I have, somewhere, a link for those that've made photocopies to aid in decyphering our original laws, such as The Constitution. I'll try to dig it out and post it.
KenS from Ben's Place

I would be interested in that link, if you ever find it.