Why Jefferson wrote "separation of Church and State"

[Howard the Duck]

No idea what your point is??How could Republicans control it with 4 liberals and one centrist???

The GOP named 5 of the 9 supreme court justices before Kennedy retired. That is how they controlled it.

 

[TurtleDude]

The GOP named 6 of the 9 supreme court justices before Kennedy retired. That is how they controlled it.

really

Sotomayor-Obama
Kagan Obama
RBG and Breyer-Clinton

that's four

 

[crazyme]

The statute was drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1777 and was introduced in the Virginia General Assembly in 1779. It did not pass the General Assembly until 1786.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause


And so because of a semantical faux, Mr. Jefferson's credit for the Establishment Clause was handed to Mr. Franklin all due a slip in understanding.


The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom granted these rights to men, whereas the First Amendment to the United States Constitution grants rights to persons, as does the 1689 Bill of Rights and the colonial constitutions in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

An initial draft by John Dickinson was prepared in conjunction with his drafting the Articles of Confederation. In 1789, then-congressman James Madison prepared another draft which, following discussion and debate in the First Congress, would become part of the text of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The second half of the Establishment Clause includes the Free Exercise Clause, which allows individual citizens freedom from governmental interference in both private and public religious affairs.

-

Or which allows Government to be free of and from individual citizens' religious affairs.


The L.B.J 501-c(3) law already goes to show that Government has and can place a 'rule' on Religious affairs IF they want/wanted to. The 'Establishment Clause' helps the Government not need to get entangled with religious politics if any such thing should arise. But why would they think that they needed such an escape? Government has 1 agenda. To keep the land and citizens safe and secure. Religiosity is supposed to 'assist' them have an easier time with Governmental responsibilities. But with new 'arrivals' and with 'new' ideas and 'new' acceptable forms of Society and societal living, the Establishment Clause enables them, The Government, from needing to change their ideas and amendments and such over and over again depending on the 'climate' of the population/ethnic/values/ideas/religiosities/etc...


Before 1868, there was not 325+ million persons in the U.S' states.

But in all honesty... do you really believe that Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Franklin and the other original scribes within The U.S were not of a 'religious' standard? Do you believe that the literacy rates were just as high then as now?

Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn shows that many might have sough the great adventure which they left England for in those days.

With youths with no education and an increasing of available 'hands' to work, what would they do besides 'adventure'. And do we believe that youths left to their own will 'do the right' thing if not corrected?

A very similar thing is occurring in parts of the m.East such as Pakistan and Afghanistan. Their lack of Educational Stabilities and laws, such as the U.S', Compulsory Education Law(s) each State has, is causing many of their youths to be as Huckleberry Finn in their own 'adventures'.

 

[crazyme]

However, they are being bombarded with outside propaganda coming in from outside Countries and ideologies which their 'land' with their own 'people(s)' never had in its entire past. Scary.. Iran was a Monarch until the Republic of Iran was ratified in 1971, 47 years ago.

-

Iran had been a monarchy ruled by an emperor almost without interruption from 1501 until the 1979 Iranian Revolution, when Iran officially became an Islamic republic on April 1, 1979
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iran


So what's killing everybody now days? Religion? The Lack of The Establishment Clause? Profiteering? Greed? Personal interests?

Personal interests as far as illiteracy?


The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn...




Is it 'what's in your wallet', or is it, 'what's in your agenda'?



Definition of agenda


1 : a list or outline of things to be considered or done
//agendas of faculty meetings


2 : an underlying often ideological plan or program
//a political agenda


Politically, politicians have a lot they can do every day. Individually, some have nothing much to do every day.


Do you honestly believe that all the 4-20 partiers in every State with 'legal' marijuana are full time employees somewhere? Honestly?

 

[crazyme]

Why do I call them, 'scribes'?

They were U.S whigs, so to say.




'Thoth'... Scribe/Law keeper




-

troth


noun
1.faithfulness, fidelity, or loyalty:
by my troth.

2.truth or verity:
in troth.

3.one's word or promise, especially in engaging oneself to marry.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/troth




Before they were U.S Constitutionalists, they were U.S Senators, I think.

Article I, Section 3

At least 30 years old
A U.S. citizen for at least nine years at the time of election to the Senate
A resident of the state one is elected to represent in the Senate

https://www.thoughtco.com/requirements-to-be-a-senator-3322307


No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Annenberg Classroom - Article I Section 3


Does 'and [who] shall not, [when elected] be an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen' mean:

A resident of the state one is elected to represent in the Senate


I'm a resident of State A but when I was elected, I was not an inhabitant of State A.

I was born and claimed 'residency' in State B, but when I was elected, I was not an Inhabitant of State B.

 

[crazyme]

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.


And in which year did The U.S have its first female Senator?

1932
First elected female senator

Ophelia Wyatt Caraway, a Democrat from Arkansas, becomes the first woman to be elected to the U.S. Senate. Caraway, born near Bakerville, Tennessee, had been appointed to the Senate two months earlier to fill the vacancy left by her late husband, Thaddeus Horatio Caraway.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/first-elected-female-senator


Hattie Wyatt was born near rural Bakerville in Humphreys County in west central Tennessee, the daughter of William Carroll Wyatt, a farmer and shopkeeper, and the former Lucy Mildred Burch. At the age of four, she moved with her family to Hustburg in Humphreys County. After briefly attending Ebenezer College in Hustburg, she transferred to Dickson (Tennessee) Normal College, where in 1896 she received her Bachelor of Arts degree. She taught school for a time before in 1902 marrying Thaddeus Caraway, whom she had met in college. They had three children: Paul, Forrest, and Robert; Paul and Forrest became generals in the United States Army. The couple settled in Jonesboro, Arkansas, where he established a legal practice while she cared for the children, tended the household and kitchen garden, and helped to oversee the family's cotton farm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattie_Wyatt_Caraway


She was an 'inhabitant' of Arkansas when elected.


The first Senators in the First Continental Congress, when 'elected' were not inhabiting in the State of their 'residency' when they were 'elected'.


'and [who] shall not, [when elected] be an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen'


It was more based around 'reputation' then than an Election Campaigning. So it's pretty obvious that instead of 'amending' the Artilce 1 section 3 'stipulation', it has been 'avoided'. It has only been 231 years since 1787. Article 1 Section 3 could have been trampled upon since the very early beginnings.

But even top Law Universities teach that one needs to be a 'resident' of the State in which he/she is elected.

 

[James972]

The GOP named 5 of the 9 supreme court justices before Kennedy retired. That is how they controlled it.

do you understand that naming and controlling are different words with different meanings??

 

[James972]

Nonsense. Marbury v Madison is 215 years old and the Republican party has controlled the Supreme Court since 1969.

no idea why you're pointing out that Marbury is 215 years old?? Do you care to tell us??

 

[Bodi]

Many people like to point out that the words "Separation of Church and State do not appear in the Constitution. Which seems odd to me, because I'm not aware of anyone who claims they do. But, just as "right to a fair trial" is not explicitly stated, but is still a fundamental cornerstone of our legal system, separation of Church and State is a fundamental cornerstone of our Government.

So where did the phrase come from, and what did Jefferson mean?

The State of Connecticut was founded as a religious colony by the Congregationalist Church. The Church elders had firm control over the legislature and until 1816 Congregationalism was the established church, and attendance and taxes to support the Church were mandatory unless you provided documentation that you belonged to, attended, and paid for the support of a different church. The government and the Church were firmly intertwined and non-Congregationalists were in effect second-class citizens.

Now, Thomas Jefferson was well known to be opposed to established religions, to the point where his opponents denounced him as an atheist during his Presidential campaign. After he won, the Danbury Baptist Association wrote him a letter congratulating him on his victory and expressing the hope of his positive influence on the states.
From the Danbury Baptist Association:
Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty—That Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals—That no man aught to suffer in Name, person or effects on account of his religious Opinions—That the legetimate Power of civil Goverment extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbour: But Sir, our constitution of goverment is not specific. Our antient charter, together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted as the Basis of our goverment, At the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, & such still are; that religion is consider’d as the first object of Legislation; & therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expence of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistant with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondred at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretence of goverment & Religion should reproach their fellow men—should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the united States, is not the national Legislator, & also sensible that the national goverment cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial Effect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine & prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the Earth

In his ]url=https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/draft-reply-danbury-baptist-association]Draft Reply to the Danbury Baptist Association, Jefferson wrote:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate 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 [eternal] separation between church and state. Connce out of fear it would offend people who thought the President should pronounce days of Thanksgiving or prayer, especially those in New England, where such practice was common.

While your mileage may vary, my take is that Jefferson understood the Constitution to create a wall of separation by not allowing the government to use religion, or any religion to use the government, to support its own ends, but rather to keep the two spheres separate.

That is a myth... he wrote Separation of Church and State because the Church was literally across the street (Separated) from the State Dept.

You are welcome...

 

[James972]

While your mileage may vary, my take is that Jefferson understood the Constitution to create a wall of separation by not allowing the government to use religion, or any religion to use the government, to support its own ends, but rather to keep the two spheres separate.

Jefferson deeply believed that human morality came from Jesus (after all, we were all amoral Romans before Jesus reset our calendar to year 0 ) and that civilization was dependent on that morality, but he never did understand or worry much about the proper role central govt needed to play in promoting morality primarily because at the time religious morality had great momentum on its own. Fast forward to today when liberals have attacked church, religion, marriage, family, the unborn, education, and black people, and you wish Jefferson and the others had anticipated the full breath of liberal moral depravity and built protections against that aspect of liberalism too into our anti-liberal Constitution. Thankfully the saintly Reagan picked up the slack by politely asserting that since religious morality had "mysteriously" all but disappeared it was necessary for Republican central govt to pick up the slack. Now it is our duty to see that the legacy of Jesus, Jefferson, and Reagan is fulfilled!!!

 

[Howard the Duck]

Now it is our duty to see that the legacy of Jesus, Jefferson, and Reagan is fulfilled!!!

 

[James972]

View attachment 67241645

I know you are a liberal but can you say why it is dumb? Do you even know that having a reason is necessary?

 

[jimbo]

The 1st Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion.

The first amendment prevents Congress from making any law establishing a religion. Left unsaid is whether any other body can establish a religion.

My view is that the first is the amendment most open to interpretation.

 

[Zachariah]

The first amendment prevents Congress from making any law establishing a religion. Left unsaid is whether any other body can establish a religion.

My view is that the first is the amendment most open to interpretation.

Many, if not all, of the individual states had established state religions, so it's clear the clause only intended to limit Federal power to do so for the entire nation. The last stare to do away with their state favored denomination was Massachusetts, around 1833 or so. Demographic changes are mostly responsible for the states finally doing away with the laws.

The 'separation of church and state' was a Baptist invention, it's one of their sect's founding platforms, and had nothing to do with freedom from religion, as many modern myths keep claiming as 'original intent'. See Thomas Helwys for the origin of separation of church and state; he died for espousing the principle.

While Washington was being built, church services were held in the Treasury building and the Congressional building; Jefferson attended both at one time or another. he also used Federal funds to subsidize missionaries, including Catholic ones.

 

[wellwisher]

Separation of Church and State came from the founding fathers of the founding fathers. The British-American colonies, like in Plymouth Massachusetts, were founded by Pilgrims escaping religious persecution by the State run Church of England. Separation was to prevent political influences from controlling religion. Dirty hands cannot keep the linen clean.

The mistake that is often made is to start the separation analysis at the founding fathers of the Constitution. The trick is these men, had their own version of the founding fathers. Their founding fathers, who influenced their thinking of original intent, were those people who set the tone for what America needed to become as they molded it from scratch. Boston and Philadelphia were both small settlements at one time. They were not always cites like in 1776. Philadelphia was named after one of the seven churches spoken of in Revelations. This connection to the Constitution is not coincidence.

Revelation 3:7-13 To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:

These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 8 I know your deeds. See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. 9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you. 10 Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth.

 

[jimbo]

Many, if not all, of the individual states had established state religions, so it's clear the clause only intended to limit Federal power to do so for the entire nation. The last stare to do away with their state favored denomination was Massachusetts, around 1833 or so. Demographic changes are mostly responsible for the states finally doing away with the laws.

The 'separation of church and state' was a Baptist invention, it's one of their sect's founding platforms, and had nothing to do with freedom from religion, as many modern myths keep claiming as 'original intent'. See Thomas Helwys for the origin of separation of church and state; he died for espousing the principle.

While Washington was being built, church services were held in the Treasury building and the Congressional building; Jefferson attended both at one time or another. he also used Federal funds to subsidize missionaries, including Catholic ones.

Yup. What's forgotten is that the largest abuse of the Constitution is the gradual increase of federal government at the expense of states rights.

 

[VanceMack]

"Congress shall make no law regarding an Establishment of Religion." meaning no national church. The 14th amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights and applies them to the States, so no state churches either. And, of course, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which naturally also means the government can neither compel someone to participate in religion or restrict their (private) exercise.

What then is your interpretation of the "plain language" of the 1st amendment?

If your position is that states are bound by the Bill of Rights, do you also champion the notion that state laws on firearm ownership is invalid? And since marriage is NOWHERE found in the Constitution do you also support that states MAY pass laws governing marriage?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[VanceMack]

The Constitution ensures guarantee if the free practice OF religion. It does NOT ensure the freedom FROM religion...only that the Federal government may not establish an official religion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pinqy]

If your position is that states are bound by the Bill of Rights, do you also champion the notion that state laws on firearm ownership is invalid?

Any state laws that conflict with the second amendment are invalid. That doesn’t mean the states can’t have any laws at all. And a law can be stupid, but still constitutional.

What’s your view on whether the 2nd applies to the states?

And since marriage is NOWHERE found in the Constitution do you also support that states MAY pass laws governing marriage?

well i’m Glad you agree that Congress had no right to pass the Defense of Marriage Act.
And of course states can pass their own laws on marriage, as long as they don’t conflict with Federal laws on Civil Rights: states cannot forbid mixed race ir mixed religion marriages. But for things like minimum age, and whether first cousins can marry, that’s entirely up to the states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

 

[VanceMack]

Any state laws that conflict with the second amendment are invalid. That doesn’t mean the states can’t have any laws at all. And a law can be stupid, but still constitutional.

What’s your view on whether the 2nd applies to the states?

well i’m Glad you agree that Congress had no right to pass the Defense of Marriage Act.
And of course states can pass their own laws on marriage, as long as they don’t conflict with Federal laws on Civil Rights: states cannot forbid mixed race ir mixed religion marriages. But for things like minimum age, and whether first cousins can marry, that’s entirely up to the states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[/QUOTE]I believe the Constitution to be the Supreme law of the land. Anything SPECIFICALLY covered by the Constitution is covered by Constitutional law. Firearms are certainly and specifically governed by the 2nd Amendment and as such, all laws, state or federal, that seek to infringe upon the citizens rights to keep and bear military grade firearms any infantryman might reasonably be expected to carry as a militiaman are unconstitutional.

I DO agree...DOMA was not a federal issue. States, as guaranteed by the Constitution, may make all laws on issues not specifically addressed by the Constitution. And frankly...marriage as an institution has no business being governed by federal OR state laws as it is primarily a religious institution. Civil Unions are the ONLY matter states should have the legal right to decide on.

As for civil rights laws...those again ONLY apply to government entities.

 

[pinqy]

I believe the Constitution to be the Supreme law of the land. Anything SPECIFICALLY covered by the Constitution is covered by Constitutional law.

Including no establishment of religion? Or anything that would require people to participate in a religious exercise?
But your use of “specifically” concerns me. Is it your contention that only those rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution are protected by it?

Firearms are certainly and specifically governed by the 2nd Amendment and as such, all laws, state or federal, that seek to infringe upon the citizens rights to keep and bear military grade firearms any infantryman might reasonably be expected to carry as a militiaman are unconstitutional.

That is an interesting interpretation. You do realize that the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment ONLY applied to the Federal government in both 1876 (U.S. v Cruikshank) and again in 1939 (U.S. v Miller)?
It was online in 2010 (McDonald v City of Chicago) that is was ruled to apply to the states.

It furthermore I find your restriction of gun rights to military grade firearms odd. Under that understanding, derringers, .22 pistols, 20 gauge shotguns etc could’ve banned, but not Javelin anti-tank guided middles or 40mm grenade launchers. Seems odd to me.

I DO agree...DOMA was not a federal issue. States, as guaranteed by the Constitution, may make all laws on issues not specifically addressed by the Constitution. And frankly...marriage as an institution has no business being governed by federal OR state laws as it is primarily a religious institution.

In other words, marriage should have no legal standing and in no way be recognized by the government? I think that’s a bit extreme.

Civil Unions are the ONLY matter states should have the legal right to decide on.

What is the difference in your mind between a “marriage” and a “Civil Union.” It’s already the case that the government has no right to decide anything in a purely religious marriage.

As for civil rights laws...those again ONLY apply to government entities.

I’m sorry, which Court decision are you citing for that claim? Or are you just saying that’s your opinion on how things should be, not how they actually are?

 

[VanceMack]

Including no establishment of religion? Or anything that would require people to participate in a religious exercise?
But your use of “specifically” concerns me. Is it your contention that only those rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution are protected by it?


That is an interesting interpretation. You do realize that the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment ONLY applied to the Federal government in both 1876 (U.S. v Cruikshank) and again in 1939 (U.S. v Miller)?
It was online in 2010 (McDonald v City of Chicago) that is was ruled to apply to the states.

It furthermore I find your restriction of gun rights to military grade firearms odd. Under that understanding, derringers, .22 pistols, 20 gauge shotguns etc could’ve banned, but not Javelin anti-tank guided middles or 40mm grenade launchers. Seems odd to me.

I DO agree...DOMA was not a federal issue. States, as guaranteed by the Constitution, may make all laws on issues not specifically addressed by the Constitution. And frankly...marriage as an institution has no business being governed by federal OR state laws as it is primarily a religious institution.

In other words, marriage should have no legal standing and in no way be recognized by the government? I think that’s a bit extreme.



What is the difference in your mind between a “marriage” and a “Civil Union.” It’s already the case that the government has no right to decide anything in a purely religious marriage.


I’m sorry, which Court decision are you citing for that claim? Or are you just saying that’s your opinion on how things should be, not how they actually are?

I wish people would just learn how to organize their arguments rather that parsing them. It just causes the site to screw up their quotes and makes a mess out of things.

Where have you ever seen me suggest a government at ANY level has the right to establish an official religion? The amendment is pure and not at all hard to understand. Congress may not establish a religion or ban the free practice thereof. That DOES NOT mean people must be free of religious influences. ANY collective group of individuals will be guided by commonalities. Religion is just one of MANY influences. Religious organizations in majority religious communities may well be expected to have similar influence to minority communities, senior citizen communities, labor entities, etc. But the government must not ESTABLISH a religion. That's not hard to understand.

As to the 2nd...it APPEARS that you are arguing that the states DO have the right to pass whatever restrictive laws they want despite the protections guaranteed by the Constitution. As to ordinance...nah...its only 'odd' if you are trying to make ridiculous arguments about what armaments an infantryman might reasonably be expected to carry. One need only READ the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment to understand EXACTLY what was meant. Citizens...the Militia...armed with weapons that can be used to augment forces and fight to defend the free state in the gravest extreme. Hunting...personal protection...those were all considered natural rights. The 2nd isnt about hunting and personal defense...it is about national defense. I do not disagree with you if your opinion is that the SCOTUS has on occasion made incorrect decisions in their interpretation of the Constitution. ANYONE that thinks the 2nd Amendment was written to preserve the right to hunt or for personal defense is, in a word, mistaken.

Civil unions are legal engagements...contracts...recognized by the state and afforded certain legal protections. A marriage has always been considered first and foremost a religious union, one that the state usurped. All marriages are, by state definition, a civil union, but not all civil unions are marriages.

 

[pinqy]

Where have you ever seen me suggest a government at ANY level has the right to establish an official religion?

Where have you ever seen me claim you thought they did?

The amendment is pure and not at all hard to understand. Congress may not establish a religion or ban the free practice thereof. That DOES NOT mean people must be free of religious influences.

That depends on what you mean by “influences.” Required participation, coerced participation, any pressure or expectation of participation in a religious practice is clearly a violation of free exercise. And having an unofficial or de facto religion is not acceptable either.

As to the 2nd...it APPEARS that you are arguing that the states DO have the right to pass whatever restrictive laws they want despite the protections guaranteed by the Constitution.

I have no idea how it appears that way to you since I have specifically said the opposite. But “shall not be infringed” does not mean “shall not be subject to any restrictions or regulations at all.”
Some laws, such as the DC law that banned handguns and required rifles and shotguns in the home to be disassembled and have a trigger lock clearly infringed on the right to keep and bear arms.
But forbidding weapons in a courthouse or requiring an instant background check are not (a long or overly complex check would)

As to ordinance...nah...its only 'odd' if you are trying to make ridiculous arguments about what armaments an infantryman might reasonably be expected to carry.

An Army Infantry Rifle squad consists of a Squad Leader, armed with an M4 select fire rifle (semi auto or three round burst), 2 Team Leaders armed with M4s, 2 Riflemen (M4), 2 Grenadiers (M4 with attached M203 or M320 40mm grenade launcher) and 2 Automatic Riflemen (M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, select fire semi auto or full auto). A Platoon consists of 3 Rifle squads and a Weapons Squad. The Weapons Squad has 1 Squad Leaser (M4) 2 Machinegunners (M240B machine gun), 2 Anti-Armor specialists (FGM-148 Javelin Anti-Tank Guided Missle) And 2 assistant machinegunners and 2 ammo bearers.

On the other hand, no Infantryman carries a derringer, any weapon chambered in something as light as a .22 or a shotgun with any bore smaller than a 12 gauge.

Do you even want to talk about what Infantry MOS 11C carries?

But please, explain how my argument mischaracterized in any way what a typical infantryman would or would not carry.

One need only READ the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment to understand EXACTLY what was meant.

That’s rather arrogant of you to say considering people have arguing about what exactly it means for around 200 years. So either it is not obvious, or everyone who disagrees with you is a liar.

Citizens...the Militia...armed with weapons that can be used to augment forces and fight to defend the free state in the gravest extreme. Hunting...personal protection...those were all considered natural rights.

The 2nd isnt about hunting and personal defense...it is about national defense. I do not disagree with you if your opinion is that the SCOTUS has on occasion made incorrect decisions in their interpretation of the Constitution. ANYONE that thinks the 2nd Amendment was written to preserve the right to hunt or for personal defense is, in a word, mistaken.

Interesting. You are the only person I have ever heard that claims the 2nd amendment only protects military weapons and the right to own firearms for hunting and self-defense are not protected by the second amendment. The Supreme Court (and pretty much everyone who has ever lived in this country) strongly disagrees with you. And you don’t see anything wrong with the states being able to ban a .22 squirrel gun, but not an anti-tank missle (the former is in no way a military weapon and the latter is a very common one)?????

The militia clause is a framing clause, not a limiting clause. It does not limit the right to bear arms to milia weapons or use.

Civil unions are legal engagements...contracts...recognized by the state and afforded certain legal protections. A marriage has always been considered first and foremost a religious union,

Bull****. Recognition of Common Law marriages goes back centuries. There is not and has never been any kind of religious ceremony for marriage in this country. Plus, a religious only marriage is not legally recognized as a marriage in any state.

 

[VanceMack]

Where have you ever seen me claim you thought they did?


That depends on what you mean by “influences.” Required participation, coerced participation, any pressure or expectation of participation in a religious practice is clearly a violation of free exercise. And having an unofficial or de facto religion is not acceptable either.


I have no idea how it appears that way to you since I have specifically said the opposite. But “shall not be infringed” does not mean “shall not be subject to any restrictions or regulations at all.”
Some laws, such as the DC law that banned handguns and required rifles and shotguns in the home to be disassembled and have a trigger lock clearly infringed on the right to keep and bear arms.
But forbidding weapons in a courthouse or requiring an instant background check are not (a long or overly complex check would)


An Army Infantry Rifle squad consists of a Squad Leader, armed with an M4 select fire rifle (semi auto or three round burst), 2 Team Leaders armed with M4s, 2 Riflemen (M4), 2 Grenadiers (M4 with attached M203 or M320 40mm grenade launcher) and 2 Automatic Riflemen (M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, select fire semi auto or full auto). A Platoon consists of 3 Rifle squads and a Weapons Squad. The Weapons Squad has 1 Squad Leaser (M4) 2 Machinegunners (M240B machine gun), 2 Anti-Armor specialists (FGM-148 Javelin Anti-Tank Guided Missle) And 2 assistant machinegunners and 2 ammo bearers.

On the other hand, no Infantryman carries a derringer, any weapon chambered in something as light as a .22 or a shotgun with any bore smaller than a 12 gauge.

Do you even want to talk about what Infantry MOS 11C carries?

But please, explain how my argument mischaracterized in any way what a typical infantryman would or would not carry.


That’s rather arrogant of you to say considering people have arguing about what exactly it means for around 200 years. So either it is not obvious, or everyone who disagrees with you is a liar.


Interesting. You are the only person I have ever heard that claims the 2nd amendment only protects military weapons and the right to own firearms for hunting and self-defense are not protected by the second amendment. The Supreme Court (and pretty much everyone who has ever lived in this country) strongly disagrees with you. And you don’t see anything wrong with the states being able to ban a .22 squirrel gun, but not an anti-tank missle (the former is in no way a military weapon and the latter is a very common one)?????

The militia clause is a framing clause, not a limiting clause. It does not limit the right to bear arms to milia weapons or use.


Bull****. Recognition of Common Law marriages goes back centuries. There is not and has never been any kind of religious ceremony for marriage in this country. Plus, a religious only marriage is not legally recognized as a marriage in any state.

Apparently we can put away the religion discussion as we appear to agree that the Constitutional law is constant. No government...federal OR due to the specific provisions of the Constitution, state, may establish an official religion or deny the free practice OF religion.

Infringe: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

Not that difficult a concept to understand. And for some reason...you are all about following the Constitution...when it is convenient to your causes. The Freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Constitution...especially where they are specifically enumerated...preclude state laws. That is an unconstitutional trend that has been corrected in some cases and hopefully will be in all cases.

Your citizen soldier may well be engaged to carry a rocket launcher if pressed into service in moments of dire need. It isn’t realistic that he would be issued it without specific training.

As for the smaller arms...you keep missing...deliberately or otherwise...the times were I have stated that hunting and personal defense are NATURAL RIGHTS...and NOT what the 2nd Amendment was written for. You should not need an amendment to protect your right to self defense. But please...by all means...show in the 2nd Amendment where the words ‘hunting’ or ‘personal defense are found.

Marriage was from its foundation a religious ordinance. Legal civil unions or common law associations exist...but not as marriage. And since you CANNOT find marriage anywhere in the Constitution, states should be able to write laws governing civil unions. Marriage should be a religious act.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Grand Mal]

Apparently we can put away the religion discussion as we appear to agree that the Constitutional law is constant. No government...federal OR due to the specific provisions of the Constitution, state, may establish an official religion or deny the free practice OF religion.

Infringe: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

Not that difficult a concept to understand. And for some reason...you are all about following the Constitution...when it is convenient to your causes. The Freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Constitution...especially where they are specifically enumerated...preclude state laws. That is an unconstitutional trend that has been corrected in some cases and hopefully will be in all cases.

Your citizen soldier may well be engaged to carry a rocket launcher if pressed into service in moments of dire need. It isn’t realistic that he would be issued it without specific training.

As for the smaller arms...you keep missing...deliberately or otherwise...the times were I have stated that hunting and personal defense are NATURAL RIGHTS...and NOT what the 2nd Amendment was written for. You should not need an amendment to protect your right to self defense. But please...by all means...show in the 2nd Amendment where the words ‘hunting’ or ‘personal defense are found.

Marriage was from its foundation a religious ordinance. Legal civil unions or common law associations exist...but not as marriage. And since you CANNOT find marriage anywhere in the Constitution, states should be able to write laws governing civil unions. Marriage should be a religious act.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Marriage is more than a religious act. Theres legal aspects to marriage that apply whether you're religious or not. As such, the status needs to be available to everyone, religious or not.