How the Separation of Church and State has been distorted

[Gawain]

Just study American history.


Did America Have a Christian Founding?

I site it to refute the treaty of Tripoli lol.

there

 

[Gawain]

Tisk tisk you said "You do realize" assuming that I did not realize. But I simply do realize that the federal Government is just as bound by the Constitution as the states are.

The primary purpose of the constitution is to limit the power of the feds not the states.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

14th was never constitutionally passed

Whackjob nonsense.

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members...

-- Article 1, Section 5

 

[Gawain]

Whackjob nonsense.

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members...

-- Article 1, Section 5

THE 14th AMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void and unconstitutional for the following reasons:

1. The Joint Resolution proposing said amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress per Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U. S. Constitution.

2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article I, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution.

3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one-fourth of all the States then in the Union, and it was never ratified by three-fourths of all the States in the Union as required by Article V of the U. S. Constitution.

THE UNCONSTlTUTIONAL CONGRESS

The U. S. Constitution provides:

Article I, Section 3. "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State"

Article V provides: "No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

The fact that 28 Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U. S. Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following State Legislatures:

The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution of March 27, 1868, protested as follows:

"The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent the three-fourths of the states, which is necessary to make it valid, the natural and constitutional right of this state to withdraw its assent is undeniable ".

"That it being necessary by the constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty representatives from eleven states of the union, upon the pretence that there were no such states in the Union: but, finding that two-thirds of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in palpable violation of the constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this state, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two-thirds of the said houses." [Cite 1]

The Alabama Legislature protested against being deprived of representation in the Senate of the U. S. Congress. [Cite 2]

The Texas Legislature by Resolution on October 15, 1866, protested as follows:

"The amendment to the Constitution proposed by this joint resolution as article XIV is presented to the Legislature of Texas for its action thereon, under Article V of that Constitution. This article V, providing the mode of making amendments to that instrument, contemplates the participation by all the States through their representatives in Congress, in proposing amendments. As representatives from nearly one-third of the States were excluded from the Congress proposing the amendments, the constitutional requirement was not complied with; it was violated in letter and in spirit; and the proposing of these amendments to States which were excluded from all participation in their initiation in Congress, is a nullity." [Cite 3]

The Arkansas Legislature, by Resolution on December 17, 1866, protested as follows:

"The Constitution authorized two-thirds of both houses of Congress to propose amendments; and, as eleven States mere excluded from deliberation and decision upon the one now submitted, the conclusion is inevitable that it is not proposed by legal authority, but in palpable violation of the Constitution." [Cite 4]

The Georgia Legislature, by Resolution on November 9, 1866, protested as follows:

"Since the reorganization of the State government, Georgia has elected Senators and Representatives. So has every other State. They have been arbitrarily refused admission to their seats, not on the ground that the qualifications of the members elected did not conform to the fourth paragraph, second section, first article of the Constitution, but because their right of representation was denied by a portion of the States having equal but not greater rights than themselves. They have in fact been forcibly excluded; and, inasmuch as all legislative power granted by the States to the Congress is defined, and this power of exclusion is not among the powers expressly or by implication, the assemblage, at the capitol, of representatives from a portion of the States, to the exclusion of the representatives of another portion, cannot be a constitutional Congress, when the representation of each State forms an integral part of the whole.

This amendment is tendered to Georgia for ratification, under that power in the Constitution which authorizes two-thirds of the Congress to propose amendments. We have endeavored to establish that Georgia had a right, in the first place, as a part of the Congress, to act upon the question, 'Shall these amendments be proposed?' Every other excluded State had the same right.

The first constitutional privilege has been arbitrarily denied.

Had these amendments been submitted to a constitutional Congress, they never would have been proposed to the States. Two-thirds of the whole Congress never would have proposed to eleven States voluntarily to reduce their political power in the Union, and at the same time, disfranchise the larger portion of the intellect, integrity and patriotism of eleven co-equal States." [Cite 5]

The Florida Legislature, by Resolution of December 5, 1866, protested as follows:

"Let this alteration be made in the organic system and some new and more startling demands may or may not be required by the predominant party previous to allotting the ten States now unlawfully and unconstitutionally deprived of their right of representation to enter the Halls of the National Legislature. Their right to representation is guaranteed by the Constitution of this country and there is no act, not even that of rebellion, can deprive them of its exercise." [Cite 6]

The South Carolina Legislature by Resolution of November 27, 1866, protested as follows:

"Eleven of the Southern States, including South Carolina, are deprived of their representation in Congress. Although their Senators and Representatives have been duly elected and have presented themselves for the purpose of taking their seats, their credentials have, in most instances, been laid upon the table without being read, or have been referred to a committee, who have failed to make any report on the subject. In short, Congress has refused to exercise its Constitutional functions, and decide either upon the election, the return, or the qualification of these selected by the States and people to represent us. Some of the Senators and Representatives from the Southern States were prepared to take the test oath, but even these have been persistently ignored, and kept out of the seats to which they were entitled under the Constitution and laws.

Hence this amendment has not been proposed by 'two-thirds of both Houses' of a legally constituted Congress, and is not, Constitutionally or legitimately, before a single Legislature for ratification." [Cite 7]

The North Carolina Legislature protested by Resolution of December 6, 1866 as follows:

"The Federal Constitution declares, in substance, that Congress shall consist of a House of Representatives, composed of members apportioned among the respective States in the ratio of their population, and of a Senate, composed of two members from each State. And in the Article which concerns Amendments, it is expressly provided that 'no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.' The contemplated Amendment was not proposed to the States by a Congress thus constituted. At the time of its adoption, the eleven seceding States were deprived of representation both in the Senate and House, although they all, except the State of Texas, had Senators and Representatives duly elected and claiming their privileges under the Constitution. In consequence of this, these States had no voice on the important question of proposing the Amendment. Had they been allowed to give their votes, the proposition would doubtless have failed to command the required two-thirds majority.

If the votes of these States are necessary to a valid ratification of the Amendment, they were equally necessary on the question of proposing it to the States; for it would be difficult, in the opinion of the Committee, to show by what process in logic, men of intelligence could arrive at a different conclusion."

There you go

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Most people have it backward and think the feds are sovereign when the truth is the individual is then the State and lastly the feds.

We have built jail cells for those vain enough to fancy themselves at the top of the pecking order.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Well then perhaps you should take that accusation to SCOTUS then? Until you can get a legal ruling the 14th is indeed really in the Constitution whether you believe so or not.

An appeal to Congress to deem the the amendment deratified, then repass it and resubmit it to the states would be more in order. There was no Constitutional flaw the first time around that a court could order corrected.

 

[Gawain]

SO what church do you want the Church of America to be then? I ask because you keep dogmatically asserting that there is no separation of church and state which means that you think that there is a church that is inseparable from our Government, which church would that be sherlock?

I dont want any church of America as thats the thing the 1st amendment was written to avoid. Religion and ideas are inseparable from governemt no church is and thats the whole idea.

 

[Gawain]

We have built jail cells for those vain enough to fancy themselves at the top of the pecking order.

I guess some just dont get it.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Actually its the other way around. The States and their constitutions were around before the constitution.

The Constitution is an amendment to the Articles of Confederation which had extended the function of the Continental Congress that had originated in 1774.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

What has that to do with anything?

Everything, to a historian.

 

[Gawain]

The Constitution is an amendment to the Articles of Confederation which had extended the function of the Continental Congress that had originated in 1774.

No thats what it was intended to be. But lets give you that

http://americanvision.org/721/where-god-constitution-part-2/

You are correct in that the constitution does not stand alone as our founding document. It has precedents including the articles.

 

[Gawain]

Everything, to a historian.

Please link it then. Im big on history. And real big on the civil war. My great great grandad is US Grant

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Yes I pay attention. Maybe you should try it sometime.

LOL! The powers implied in the Constitution are equally a part of it with those enumerated, and no contrary thinking has ever held sway. The provision and importance of judicial reveiw was meanwhile discussed in Federalist No. 78. It had been widely practiced in the states previously with both the founders and the public at large being familiar with and approving of the sense and purpose of it. The Constitutional Convention discussed the matter, but as a fait accompli. It did not need to be specifically enumerated as a judicial power.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

They used the word lord not jesus and it was only to make the date clear.

And that closing was not in the final version that the Convention ratified.

 

[Gawain]

LOL! The powers implied in the Constitution are equally a part of it with those enumerated, and no contrary thinking has ever held sway. The provision and importance of judicial reveiw was meanwhile discussed in Federalist No. 78. It had been widely practiced in the states previously with both the founders and the public at large being familiar with and approving of the sense and purpose of it. The Constitutional Convention discussed the matter, but as a fait accompli. It did not need to be specifically enumerated as a judicial power.

Many things were discussed in the federalist and anti federalist papers. But if they were not put in the constitution they dont mean much. Theres a reason they were left out. Jefferson opposed it and it seems Roberts agrees with Jefferson. He said its not our business but most missed that.

 

[Gawain]

And that closing was not in the final version that the Convention ratified.

And who was their lord? So tell me a non christian nation in 1787 that signed its official documents according to the christian calendar. Next you will deny its a christian calendar.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Just study American history.

I seem so far to have a far better command of it than you. The question meanwhile is not over the one-time practices of colonies or even of states. The question that continues to be avoided is over the long term intents of the founders. You seem to be of the absurd view that they foresaw a citizenry duly protected from evisl wrought at the federal level while at the same time subject to the very same evils when perpetrated at the state level. Some inalienable rights, those were!

I site it to refute the treaty of Tripoli lol.

How do you propose explain the writing of the words to begin with? Can this have been the only way to reassure these Berbers? And whence the silence of Congress concerning that language? Should they not have been at least as outraged as you? Yet not a single peep out of a one of them. You've go some explaining to do.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

No it was one christian church suppressing others that they feared.

By using the tools of the state. The only escape from such contentious factionalism was a divorce of religion from the state, which was happily also the only way to embrace freedom of conscience, which along with the right to be left alone is one the great human rights embodied in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

It was any religion. They knew about Islam and the crusades.

Yes, any religion. It's just that Chrisians have so often been the ones to watch out for.

They never created any wall of separation.

They most certainly did, and Jefferson was hardly the first to talk about it in such terms, the notion of walls and hedges of separation having been around by then for 150 years.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

The primary purpose of the constitution is to limit the power of the feds not the states.

LOL! The primary purpose of the Constitution was to TAKE POWER AWAY from the states and give it to the central government so that it might actually become capable of governance where the weak central government of the Articles was forever being checked by and stumbling over the excessive power of the states.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

There you go

Copy-and-paste cowardice. The exclusion of rebellious southern states was an entirely valid exercise under the Constitution. Congress had every right to establish terms and conditions for the reseating of state delegations.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

I guess some just dont get it.

There is nothing in your claim to get. It is transparent garbage.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Please link it then. Im big on history.

No, you aren't. You've made half a dozen errors in just a few posts. The whole complaint here is just more "Noble Cause" crybaby whining. The South lost. End of story. People who start wars and can't finish them don't have much room to complain. Ben Franklin noted in 1776 that we must all hang together or assuredly we shall all hang separately. By such standards, the rebels did rather well.

And real big on the civil war. My great great grandad is US Grant

US Grant has had many descendants who were ignorant of history. There isn't a gene for it.

 

[Gawain]

LOL! The primary purpose of the Constitution was to TAKE POWER AWAY from the states and give it to the central government so that it might actually become capable of governance where the weak central government of the Articles was forever being checked by and stumbling over the excessive power of the states.

No power was ever taken from the states by the constitution.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

An appeal to Congress to deem the the amendment deratified, then repass it and resubmit it to the states would be more in order. There was no Constitutional flaw the first time around that a court could order corrected.

I suspect though that all the whining is not over how the 14th was ratified but about what is in the 14th.