I am honestly trying to understand what you are talking about, but I need more then assertions; I need explanations, examples, applications, quotes....something.
Lawsuit Over Prayer Is Settled
- Thread starter Mick Jagger
- Start date
I am honestly trying to understand what you are talking about, but I need more then assertions; I need explanations, examples, applications, quotes....something.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
I don't know that he codified it. But he certainly advocated the use of objective rules of construction.
Are you familiar with the discussions during the the Constitutional Convention regarding whether or not to use the term "post ex facto?"
According to the common law in 1787, the object of interpretation was to ascertain the will of the legislator at the time the law was made by the most natural and probable signs.
Not so much...
Ok, I can understand that, it provides an objective method of interpretation of the intent of the legislator. How? What are the methods? I don't need a disertation of those methods, just what those methods are, and how they applied.
Also, how does that apply to the consitution, since it doesn't so much create laws, but creates the framework the laws are created in.
AbrahamLincoln
Dedicated LVC Member
this wasn't even a supreme court case, the last one had to do with prayer in school in Ponotoc... they ruled that prayer in school is against church and state - you can't even have moment of silence... however you can have religion inside the school building after school if it doesn't involve the faculty such as an after school club. Thats what I learned this week in school... feel free to enlighten me.
AbrahamLincoln
Dedicated LVC Member
because seperation between church and state is in the constitution, it is ultimately decided by the supreme court through judicial review
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
What provision of the Constitution are you interpreting?
What are you responding to?
Separation of church and state was never in the constitution. the term was coined by Jefferson during his first term as president, and his meaning of it was most likely is completely different then what you understand it as.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
What part of the Constitution are you interpreting?
What part of the Constitution are you interpreting?
Show me some evidence that the lawmakers intended us to use Originalism.
Are you familiar with the discussions during the General Convention regarding whether to use the word "resident" or the word "inhabitant" in the provision of the Constitution regarding the qualifications for a member of the House of Representatives?
The common law rules were abandoned, or rather perverted, because they didn't allow conservative justices to substitute their personal views for the will of of the lawmakers when they made the law. A good example is McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).
I am showing the influence in the idea of Natural Rights which informed and inspired the creators of the constitution to base it on those principles.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
If the object is to ascertain the will of the lawmakers at the time they made the Constitution, we should use the methodology they assumed would be used. Show me just one piece of evidence indicating that they assumed the meaning of their words should be gathered from "historical context."
Because the lawmakers assumed the rules would be used to ascertain their will at the time the made the Constitution.
Beats me, dude. I think the rules of construction should be used for that purpose.
Again, no specific part, but the influence and justification for certian overarching ideas; in this case, checks and balances
That is just common sense. You need to understand the constitution in the historical context, to understand it's meaning, as conveyed by the Framers. You would have to use a form of originalism to draw the conclusion you do about "common law rules of construction"; unless you have a time machine and can go back to that time and ask them...
No, please elaborate.
By conservative judges? That is kinda hard to believe, as conservatism wasn't really around in America then. That is due to the philosophical nature of what conservatism is; namely traditionalism, in large part.
That is beside the point; I need elaboration, not just questions. Explanations, please! Elaborate.
We seem to be talkin past each other here. I really wanna meet you halfway here; work with me.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Beats me. In my view, the rules of construction should be used to determine what it means.
You would only turn to common law if dictated to do so by the rules of construction.
Again, that is just common sense. Talk to any history professor about how they determine the meaning of a historical document (assuming translation isn't an issue) and they will start there.
Show me the evidence showing they ment for "rules of construction" to be used. Assertions and questions are worthless without explanations. Give me a history lesson! educate me!
Again, proof (not questions or assertions) is needed.
Now you are just confusing me. First you cite common law rules of construction. Now you are throwing out common law?
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Are you familiar with the reference to the rules of construction in Federalist Paper No. 40?
I have it right in front of me:
There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason as well as founded on legal axioms...
That part?
I am reviewing it, but it seems to be, basically, rules of logic in interpretation that has been used in the legal community.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
What are the rules of construction?! List them! Please!
You will find them in Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Introduction, Section the First : On the Study of Law, starting on page 59. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/introa.htm#1
point of my link was to disprove the thought that america was founded as a christian nation. and only ben franklin mentions calvinism. but obviously, you didn't read much of it. written about jefferson
"Even most Christians do not consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the morality of Jesus, Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."
quoted from madison himself
""During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
and about franklin,Dr. Priestley, an intimate friend of Franklin, wrote of him:
"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers"
and the constitution itself
The most convincing evidence that our government did not ground itself upon Christianity comes from the very document that defines it-- the United States Constitution.
If indeed our Framers had aimed to found a Christian republic, it would seem highly unlikely that they would have forgotten to leave out their Christian intentions in the Supreme law of the land. In fact, nowhere in the Constitution do we have a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802:
"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."
Some Religious activists try to extricate the concept of separation between church and State by claiming that those words do not occur in the Constitution. Indeed they do not, but neither does it exactly say "freedom of religion," yet the First Amendment implies both.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom:
"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
James Madison, perhaps the greatest supporter for separation of church and State, and whom many refer to as the father of the Constitution, also held similar views which he expressed in his letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822:
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
Today, if ever our government needed proof that the separation of church and State works to ensure the freedom of religion, one only need to look at the plethora of Churches, temples, and shrines that exist in the cities and towns throughout the United States. Only a secular government, divorced from religion could possibly allow such tolerant diversity.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
There is no nation named America, dude.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
What does "Christian Nation" mean?
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
This search for meaning as the best way to ascertain the legislative will, has became known as the “plain meaning doctrine.”...
...The pedigree of this rule extends to the English Common Law and Sir William Blackstone:
The fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislature, is by exploring his intentions at the time the law was made, by signs the most natural and probable. And these signs are either the words, the context, the subject matter, the effects and consequences, or the spirit and reason of the law.1 WILLIAM. BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES *59.
...The pedigree of this rule extends to the English Common Law and Sir William Blackstone:
The fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislature, is by exploring his intentions at the time the law was made, by signs the most natural and probable. And these signs are either the words, the context, the subject matter, the effects and consequences, or the spirit and reason of the law.1 WILLIAM. BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES *59.
--PSI ENERGY, INC., and CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO. v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (2004)
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Obviously you don't know much about the Bible. Everything you believe that is morally based comes from the Bible. Everything that is related to justice and morals comes from the Bible. To believe that our system of laws and right vs. wrong didn't originate with the Bible and the Ten Commandments is to be grossly ignorant.
Whether or not your parents taught you right vs. wrong, or your church did, or your school, regardless of your personal source, it all comes from the Bible. Our nation was founded on principles that originated with the Bible, and you cannot dispute that because you cannot trace an older source than the Bible.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
How do you know everything he believes?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
That's a trollish remark. Please use your common sense. Also, please allow him to answer for himself.
The fact is that it doesn't matter. Anything morally based comes from the Bible. That's a fact.