Constitutional Law IS the Law of the Land AND comes from the same God of Nature

[OohPooPahDoo]

Two words: Literary allegory.

You really just had to say "allegory" - "literary allegory" is redundant.

What is the allegory you are referring to?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What I'm saying is that there are two sources of the rules we live under: Civil Law and Religious Law.

There is also criminal law.

 

[editec]

Constitutional Law IS the Law of the Land AND comes from the same God of Nature

Anyone have an issue with that?

Well..Madison might disagree.

Apparently he and the floundering fathers were of the opinion that they wrote the constitution.

 

[pinqy]

Two words: Literary allegory.

You really just had to say "allegory" - "literary allegory" is redundant.

What is the allegory you are referring to?

He meant "allusion," not allegory. And "literary allusion" would be correct, although in this case it's a musical allusion.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Two words: Literary allegory.

You really just had to say "allegory" - "literary allegory" is redundant.

What is the allegory you are referring to?

Most likely several... What sparked my comment was your stating that the US Constitution promises nothing.

True, the word 'promise' does not appear in the text but the reality on paper is a promise of life, liberty and pursuit of a fulfilling life for ALL Americans. I look forward to that 'promise' filtering down to reality on the ground.

 

[AVG-JOE]

What I'm saying is that there are two sources of the rules we live under: Civil Law and Religious Law.

There is also criminal law.

Which is a sub-group of both Religious Law and Civil Law. For purposes of this discussion, I don't see any value in nit-picking the difference.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What I'm saying is that there are two sources of the rules we live under: Civil Law and Religious Law.

There is also criminal law.

Which is a sub-group of both Religious Law and Civil Law. For purposes of this discussion, I don't see any value in nit-picking the difference.

No it isn't.

The meaning of words is important if you want to use them.

 

[emilynghiem]

...
and were given to the Founding Fathers to put natural
laws in writing, from the same Divine Source,
God of Nature, who is the same God in the Bible.

It doesn't say that in the Constitution or the Bible. So you're full of crap.

Buddha's teachings aren't quoted in the Bible.
Does that mean his words of universal wisdom are garbage?

Jefferson's words about "just powers of government are
derived from the consent of the governed"
aren't in the Bible OR in the Constitution

yet that is the basis of natural law and social contracts

Are you saying that is garbage
because that's not in the Bible either?

 

[emilynghiem]

I think AJ means civil law to mean ALL govt laws together both civil and criminal. Like using "man" BROADLY to mean "all humanity," men and women together (not just men)

What I'm saying is that there are two sources of the rules we live under: Civil Law and Religious Law.

There is also criminal law.

Which is a sub-group of both Religious Law and Civil Law. For purposes of this discussion, I don't see any value in nit-picking the difference.

Can you define it by WHICH authority is in charge?
the State or the Church

by state, there is federal, state, local
including civil/criminal courts that are different
those are still under the GOVERNMENT

vs. being under a RELIGION or CHURCH

if the same act such as murder or wrongful death is
defined using CRIMINAL or CIVIL laws that is still GOVERNMENT
and secular laws

if murder is addressing citing Bible Scriptures
or the Quran etc. those are RELIGIOUS LAWS

Can we agree on the two main groups:
* NATURAL laws on which our SECULAR govt laws are based
(you can also include laws of science or psychology if you want)
* SPIRITUAL laws (on which RELIGIOUS and church groups are based)

so the secular laws of government
include both civil AND criminal and even local city ordinances under that.