# The U.S. Constitution and The Declaration of Independence



## dpr112yme (Aug 26, 2016)

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America



hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

*We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*. —

The Declaration of Independence: Full text


U.S. Constitution - Table of Contents - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
*
We the People* of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

U.S. Constitution - Article 5 , Amendment 1:  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Were we *created* or did The Founding Fathers intend that we should be an irreligious people?


----------



## Grandma (Aug 26, 2016)

We were created by sperms & eggs, not magic sky fairies and delivered by storks.


----------



## Tennyson (Aug 26, 2016)

The quoted part of the Declaration of Indendendence was directed towards King George, the preamble was changed at the last minute and is not that reflective of the Constitution, and the establishment clause started with the Gentlemen's Agreement during the convention as protection for Protestant religions.


----------



## BettyYeti (Aug 27, 2016)

Their list of "created equal" sure excluded a lot of people.


----------



## regent (Aug 27, 2016)

The Declaration was an appeal for help and a form of propaganda. It was also a reflection of the period it was written: The Age of Enlightenment.  The usual question about the Declaration is why did Jefferson change "estates" to pursuit of happiness?


----------



## Ozone (Aug 27, 2016)

regent said:


> The Declaration was an appeal for help and a form of propaganda. It was also a reflection of the period it was written: The Age of Enlightenment.  The usual question about the Declaration is why did Jefferson change "estates" to pursuit of happiness?


because the founding fathers smoked a lot of weed, dude.


----------



## Tennyson (Aug 27, 2016)

regent said:


> The Declaration was an appeal for help and a form of propaganda. It was also a reflection of the period it was written: The Age of Enlightenment.  The usual question about the Declaration is why did Jefferson change "estates" to pursuit of happiness?



This is Jefferson's original draft:



> We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 27, 2016)

Why doesn't the constitution mention Jesus?


----------



## regent (Aug 27, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > The Declaration was an appeal for help and a form of propaganda. It was also a reflection of the period it was written: The Age of Enlightenment.  The usual question about the Declaration is why did Jefferson change "estates" to pursuit of happiness?
> ...


I was referring to Locke. The Congress changed Jefferson's Declaration over eighty times.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Aug 27, 2016)

Thankfully they didn't say 'hatched' or the bird people would have been lording it over everyone for the last 200 years. 

Many of the founders were Deists, they didn't believe in a Christian god they believed in a 'power'. 'by their creator' is ubiquitous. It doesn't say 'by their god', or 'by god', or 'by Jesus' or 'by the lord'. Creator is a neutral word that Christian like to give present day weight to.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 27, 2016)

Freedom of religion is protected simply the fact of the law and the Constitution. No amount of you atheist assholes to change that will matter.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 27, 2016)

dpr112yme said:


> IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
> 
> 
> ...


Neither.

It was the intent of the Framers that government be religiously neutral, where the people are at liberty to practice whatever faith they so desire – or to be free from faith altogether – absent unwarranted interference from the state.

“The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”

_Everson v. Board of Education_ (1947)


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 27, 2016)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Freedom of religion is protected simply the fact of the law and the Constitution. No amount of you atheist assholes to change that will matter.


It is not ‘atheists’ who have contempt for settled, accepted Establishment Clause jurisprudence, and seek to codify religious dogma in secular law in violation of the First Amendment, that would be for the most part Christians. 

Indeed, those free from faith are the most ardent defenders of Establishment Clause jurisprudence, and advocates of religious liberty and freedom.


----------



## dpr112yme (Aug 27, 2016)

Grandma said:


> We were created by sperms & eggs, not magic sky fairies and delivered by storks.



So who would the 'Their Creator' be in reference to?


----------



## Tennyson (Aug 28, 2016)

"Their Creator" references the Christian God of the Bible. The term was used in the same context in all of the state constitutions and other documents. The changes by the Commitee of Five and Congress were references to the same God.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Sep 3, 2016)

regent said:


> The Declaration was an appeal for help and a form of propaganda. It was also a reflection of the period it was written: The Age of Enlightenment.  The usual question about the Declaration is why did Jefferson change "estates" to pursuit of happiness?



'They' went one better and dropped the 'e' from estates to form non other than the word 'state', you can find that they mean the same in any dictionary of the time.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Sep 3, 2016)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Freedom of religion is protected simply the fact of the law and the Constitution. No amount of you atheist assholes to change that will matter.



that bullshit spread by the courts, freedom to 'exercise' your religion is a 'reserved' right that dates back to the magna charta, it means the gubmint has no jurisdiction what so ever to regulate speech, religion, arms amongst its citizens.  The paper only provides a means of remembering what the agreement was, it protects *nothing* what so ever.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Sep 3, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> "Their Creator" references the Christian God of the Bible. The term was used in the same context in all of the state constitutions and other documents. The changes by the Commitee of Five and Congress were references to the same God.



state constitutions et al *do NOT* recognise the right to *'exercise'* your religion, only a right to pray and whine, despite the fact they agreed to recognise your right in the federal constitution, and they and the feds established their own religion why they trumped the morman religion with their own religion by enforcing a ban against polyamory.


----------



## Tennyson (Sep 4, 2016)

KokomoJojo said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> > "Their Creator" references the Christian God of the Bible. The term was used in the same context in all of the state constitutions and other documents. The changes by the Commitee of Five and Congress were references to the same God.
> ...



I do not understand what you are saying or the basis.

*The Constitution of Virginia - June 29, 177: *

SEC. 16. 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 all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.​
*Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776:*

SECT. 45. Laws for the encouragement of virtue, and prevention of vice and immorality, shall be made and constantly kept in force, and provision shall be made for their due execution: And all religious societies or bodies of men heretofore united or incorporated for the advancement of religion or learning, or for other pious and charitable purposes, shall be encouraged and protected in the enjoyment of the privileges, immunities and estates which they were accustomed to enjoy, or could of right have enjoyed, under the laws and former constitution of this state.​
*Constitution of Maryland - November 11, 1776:*

XXXIII. That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty;​


----------



## HenryBHough (Sep 4, 2016)

The operative word in so much of this is:  "was".

This is post-constitutional America.  

Get over it.


----------



## Votto (Sep 4, 2016)

Grandma said:


> We were created by sperms & eggs, not magic sky fairies and delivered by storks.



Says you!


----------



## Votto (Sep 4, 2016)

HenryBHough said:


> The operative word in so much of this is:  "was".
> 
> This is post-constitutional America.
> 
> Get over it.



JFK:   "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country?"

Hillary:  "We will give you free abortions and college!"


----------



## KokomoJojo (Sep 4, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Tennyson said:
> ...




which today has been reduced to have the right to pray:


No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, *nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or  belief*; but *all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion*, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
Constitution of Virginia

yep there you go, your right to exercise is reduced to prayer and pissing moaning and whining.

If you exercise your muscle you put something into action, you dont pray, opine, express beliefs or argue about it.  Exercising your religion means acting upon your beliefs, which if course carries the caveat that you cannot harm or injure another in the process of _*exercising*_ your religion.

So think about what they are 'acknowledging' in their sense.

A right not in the sense it was intended, but in a sense that they cant stop you from praying anyway, hence you have to the right to do what nothing can be done about, but people today lost site of what the meaning and intent is. 

The right to _*exercise*_ your religion has been stripped from you.  



Pennsylvania same thing:
All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; *no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience*, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or *modes of worship*.

Now pa gets a bit closer to exercise, IF they uphold the right of conscious, but they dont, no state acknowledges the mormon right to practice polyamory.  The states established religion overules.



Now Maryland made me-LOL!



*We, the People of the State of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty,...............*

*Art. 36.* That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their *religious liberty*; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for *his religious practice*,  unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall _*infringe the laws of morality*_, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come. 

 Nothing shall prohibit or require the making reference to belief in, reliance upon, or invoking the aid of God or a Supreme Being in any governmental or public document, proceeding, activity, ceremony, school, institution, or place. 

 Nothing in this article shall constitute an establishment of religion _(amended by Chapter 558, Acts of 1970, ratified Nov. 3, 1970)_. 


Daym!  We almost had a winner until they establised the state religion to trump your religion. _*"*__*infringe the laws of morality*_" 

Otherwise that one actually has the most precise wording that coincides with the religion clause.

*Nothing in this article shall constitute an establishment of religion*

*so after establishing themselves as a religion they tell you not to interpret it that way.  No shit I LOL'd over that one!  Nice orwell move.*






.


----------



## Tennyson (Sep 6, 2016)

KokomoJojo said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...




I cannot find any connection of your post to mine. I also cannot make any sense of your interpretations of the state's constitutions.


----------



## dpr112yme (Sep 7, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Tennyson said:
> ...




So, maybe those laws should be kept.


----------



## dpr112yme (Sep 7, 2016)

KokomoJojo said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> > "Their Creator" references the Christian God of the Bible. The term was used in the same context in all of the state constitutions and other documents. The changes by the Commitee of Five and Congress were references to the same God.
> ...




And, interestingly enough, there is a clause formed by past President that states that all non profits have NO say to government advocacy, for or against.  And this includes Church.  The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations


----------



## Tennyson (Sep 7, 2016)

dpr112yme said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Tennyson said:
> ...



Churches do not need 501(c)(3) status to be non-profit. Some churches have 501(c)(3) status for various reasons and some do not have 501(c)(3) status and are still non-profit.


----------



## sartre play (Sep 7, 2016)

Votto said:


> Grandma said:
> 
> 
> > We were created by sperms & eggs, not magic sky fairies and delivered by storks.
> ...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Sep 7, 2016)

dpr112yme said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Tennyson said:
> ...




well 'religion' is a broad term.  technically everyone worships a god (even atheists) despite their rejection of the idea, as a god does not have to be a sky pilot to be worshiped as a god which is not the primary issue.

The primary issue is that if you believe eating pork and beans every day helps reduce the chances of cancer and is for your own well being that is in fact part of your religion.

Exercising your religion is the 'single' most important right that you have as a man or woman.  Without it all you have left is the state...(everyone elses religion).  That is why you see little to nothing regarding religion in the courts, its a hot potato, and like speech and arms because when you shake off the dust, if you want to uphold the strict interpretation of the contract, these are what is known as 'reserved' rights.   In other words the gvmnt was not allowed to come into existence without first agreeing 'NOT' to trespass on said rights.

Not a little bit here is ok and a little bit there is ok, or a thin slice here or there is acceptable because some so called 'democracy' decided to *'vote' your rights away*, (usually for their convenience) and setting up profit institutions.


----------



## dpr112yme (Sep 8, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> dpr112yme said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



And still neither the non for profit nor for profit can have any say for the advocacy of any matter towards government.


----------



## regent (Sep 12, 2016)

The Constitution came about during the Age of Enlightenment. It was the age of Nature's God. Nature was  the biggie and nature had rules and those rules  ruled the earth. The question then became, did nature have rules for governments? The Declaration holds some of those rules as the reason for our declaring independence.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 13, 2016)

BettyYeti said:


> Their list of "created equal" sure excluded a lot of people.



What list?  Where is THAT published?  Who actually drafted it?  Details and specifics, please.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 13, 2016)

regent said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



How could you possibly have been referring to Locke, when your post was about the Declaration of Independence, and Locke wasn't involved in that?


----------



## regent (Sep 13, 2016)

Cecilie1200 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Tennyson said:
> ...


Jefferson wrote the Declaration and Locke was  very much involved through Jefferson.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Sep 14, 2016)

regent said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



the philosophy at the time most of which still stands strong to this day, though often incorrectly interpreted.


----------



## regent (Sep 15, 2016)

The founders created two documents to rule the new nation. The second one a little less liberal than the first but perhaps more practical for the nation some envisioned. Could we find fifty Americans, at this time, to write a Constitution that would last as long as the one we have? Just fifty Americans?


----------



## Tennyson (Sep 20, 2016)

regent said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Jefferson only wrote the first draft. He was part of the Commitee of Five. They revised it and the Continental Congress revised it further.


----------



## Tennyson (Sep 20, 2016)

regent said:


> The Constitution came about during the Age of Enlightenment. It was the age of Nature's God. Nature was  the biggie and nature had rules and those rules  ruled the earth. The question then became, did nature have rules for governments? The Declaration holds some of those rules as the reason for our declaring independence.



There is no enlightenment influence in the Constitution. There are parts directly from enlightenment thinkers such as Locke and Montesquieu, but they were outliers in the enlightenment.


----------



## Tennyson (Sep 20, 2016)

dpr112yme said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> > dpr112yme said:
> ...



The federal government amended the tax code in 1954 preventing churches from giving political speeches. No church's had lost its tax exempt status since 1954.


----------



## regent (Sep 23, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution came about during the Age of Enlightenment. It was the age of Nature's God. Nature was  the biggie and nature had rules and those rules  ruled the earth. The question then became, did nature have rules for governments? The Declaration holds some of those rules as the reason for our declaring independence.
> ...


"The American Founders belonged to the Age of Enlightenment."


----------



## KokomoJojo (Sep 24, 2016)

regent said:


> The founders created two documents to rule the new nation. The second one a little less liberal than the first but perhaps more practical for the nation some envisioned. Could we find fifty Americans, at this time, to write a Constitution that would last as long as the one we have? Just fifty Americans?


anything can last when you have big enough guns and great iron curtain.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Sep 24, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution came about during the Age of Enlightenment. It was the age of Nature's God. Nature was  the biggie and nature had rules and those rules  ruled the earth. The question then became, did nature have rules for governments? The Declaration holds some of those rules as the reason for our declaring independence.
> ...


they created a parliamentary dictatorship, no different in operation than jolly ole kingville.

they tell us we have the right to vote, on which constitutional amendment did we ever vote?

Which supreme court case did we ever vote on?

The law is not ours, it belongs to the gov and their judges.


----------



## regent (Sep 24, 2016)

KokomoJojo said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


Maybe the framers should have made the Constitution  and the laws under it the supreme laws of the land?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 7, 2016)

regent said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Tennyson said:
> ...



you will find the people on these boards at best for th emost part are koolaid slingers.  They have no clue what its like in the trenches.  All they see is the glossy paint that covers rotted wood.


see if you can pick out *anything* that resembles the constitution there.


----------



## ding (Nov 4, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> The quoted part of the Declaration of Indendendence was directed towards King George, the preamble was changed at the last minute and is not that reflective of the Constitution, and the establishment clause started with the Gentlemen's Agreement during the convention as protection for Protestant religions.


You get a gold star for knowing your history, Mickey Mouse.  Bravo.

Not many people understand the establishment clause.


----------



## ding (Nov 4, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> Thankfully they didn't say 'hatched' or the bird people would have been lording it over everyone for the last 200 years.
> 
> Many of the founders were Deists, they didn't believe in a Christian god they believed in a 'power'. 'by their creator' is ubiquitous. It doesn't say 'by their god', or 'by god', or 'by Jesus' or 'by the lord'. Creator is a neutral word that Christian like to give present day weight to.


And yet, they all believed that liberty and freedom were dependent upon religion and morality.  Go figure.


----------



## ding (Nov 4, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dpr112yme said:
> 
> 
> > IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
> ...


That's not entirely true.  The establishment clause was written to prevent the federal government from establishing a national religion.  The states were free to do so and roughly half of the states had one at the time of ratification.  The establishment clause was written to prevent the federal government from interfering with the state established religions.  Look it up.  Don't make me make you look foolish.


----------



## ding (Nov 4, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Freedom of religion is protected simply the fact of the law and the Constitution. No amount of you atheist assholes to change that will matter.
> ...


You are woefully ignorant on what the establishment clause means and the history behind it.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 4, 2016)

ding said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > dpr112yme said:
> ...


You are completely clueless about the Supremacy Clause


----------



## ding (Nov 4, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


I just left you a message that I was going to school you on the establishment clause.  How fortuitous was this?  Why don't we start with the 1st Amendment and what the Founders intended first.  How about that?  So tell me, what exactly do you believe the purpose was of the establishment clause?


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 4, 2016)

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



The establishment clause was moot finally and forever with the passing of the 14th amendment 

Agree!


----------



## ding (Nov 4, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


No.  That's not true either.  That may have been the ruling from a bunch of idiots, but need I remind you that a different group of idiots had found that some human lives people were not human beings but property to be disposed of at the will of their owners.  Twice.  So let's not try to pretend that SCOTUS is infallible, ok?

What I am asking you is if you know what the original intent of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment was?  Also, maybe if you knew about any of the history about the different versions. 

I will explain the idiotic and wrong supremacy clause later as the explanation and PROOF that they were constitutionally wrong is related to how this went through the senate and also a very specific bill that went through the senate at about the time the 14th Amendment was ratified.  I know you have no clue about what I am talking about and I know you want to know what I am talking about.  So, if you want to know what I am talking about, you are going to have to tell me what you believe the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment really meant.  How's that?


----------



## Tennyson (Nov 4, 2016)

ding said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > dpr112yme said:
> ...



Keep in mind that there were two purposes of the establishment clause: what you stated and the the same purpose at the no religious test clause. This was to protect all Protestant relgions by not elevating one over the other.


----------



## ding (Nov 4, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


They are one in the same, right?  To not establish a national religion and to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions.  Am I missing something else?


----------



## Tennyson (Nov 4, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



If the establishment clause was moot after the Fourteenth Amendment, why did the same men try to pass eight amendments to apply the First Amendment to the states starting in 1871?


----------



## ding (Nov 4, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Do you know what failed bill I was referring to that proves the 14th Amendment was never meant to apply to the establishment clause by the framers of the 14th Amendment?  If you do, don't tell him.  I want him to be honest about the 1st Amendment.


----------



## ding (Nov 4, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Darn it.  You told him.


----------



## Tennyson (Nov 4, 2016)

ding said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


It was very nuanced. The power, control over the state, and abuses by the Church of England and other Protestant religions being left out and not receiving federal government tax and other support. Very similar.


----------



## Tennyson (Nov 4, 2016)

ding said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


 
I know it, but there was the orginal Sixteenth Amendment in 1871 that preceded it and one other. Both were prior to the Slaughter House cases.


----------



## ding (Nov 4, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Tennyson said:
> ...


I can't be mad at Mickey Mouse!  Slaughter House cases?  I was talking about a bill that failed the same exact senate that passed the 14th Amendment.  It was effectively the same language that was rejected at the time the 1st Amendment was written.  So there is no way in hell, the Framers of the 14th Amendment ever believed that the 14th Amendment "corrected" the first Amendment.  And I'm not going to even get into the illegality of improperly amending the 1st Amendment by SCOTUS a right they don't have.


----------



## ding (Nov 4, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Tennyson said:
> ...


That guy is an ass but since he reminds me of me, I can't dislike him very much!


----------



## Tennyson (Nov 4, 2016)

ding said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Blaine?


----------



## ding (Nov 4, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Tennyson said:
> ...


Is that who rightwinger is?


----------



## Tennyson (Nov 4, 2016)

ding said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I thought you were referring to the Blaine Amendment.


----------



## ding (Nov 4, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Tennyson said:
> ...


Dang it now he knows the name!  Yes, the Blaine Amendment.


----------



## ding (Nov 4, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Tennyson said:
> ...


I still can't get mad at Mickey Mouse.


----------



## Tennyson (Nov 4, 2016)

ding said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



The first was Samuel Swinfin Burdett's Sixteenth Amendment on April 19, 1870. Identical language to the Blaine Amendment. I brought up the Slaughter House cases because some argue that the Blaine Amendment was as response to Slaughter House, but there were two identical amendments before it.


----------



## ding (Nov 5, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Tennyson said:
> ...


You know your shit.


----------



## Tennyson (Nov 5, 2016)

ding said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Following Burdett's amendment, William M. Stewart proposed an amendment on December 19, 1871, that had the same language as the Blaine Amendment. To complicate it further, the Blaine Amendment was proposed on August 4, 1876, but was never voted on. Before it made it out of the Senate committee, Senator George Edmunds edited it and proposed his Edmunds’ Amendment on August 8, which was the amendment that was voted down.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 6, 2016)

ding said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > dpr112yme said:
> ...



In case you didn't notice, CC does a bang-up job of making himself look foolish with no assistance whatsoever.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 6, 2016)

ding said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > dpr112yme said:
> ...


The 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights to the states, protecting the rights and liberties of citizens who happen to reside in the states, where state governments are prohibited from engaging in class legislation, consistent with the original understanding an intent of the Amendment.

The rights and liberties of citizens are paramount, the states and local jurisdictions subordinate to those rights and liberties, rights and liberties immune from attack by the states.

That Federal laws and the rulings of Federal courts are the supreme law of the land is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute – acknowledged and codified by Article VI, and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, whose decisions are binding on the states and local jurisdictions (see _Cooper v. Aaron_ (1958)).


----------



## Tennyson (Nov 6, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Can you explain why no one in the 39th Congress, the ensuing Congresses, and the first and second generation Supreme Court following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment were unaware that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights? Or no one was aware that the Bill of Rights were incorporated until the mid-twentieth century?


----------

