Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (24619)	6/4/2003 10:58:38 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 25898

The Consitution is not and has never been a blueprint for anarchy. Who said it was? It was brought into existence because the Articles of Confederation were not working. The Convention was supposed to just touch up the Articles and removed their blemishes; instead the delegates ignored their instructions and came with a whole new document. The Constitution is about the communal relations of the people of the U.S. In your socialist dreams. The original Constitution had to do with the communal relations of the states and barely mentioned the people. Remember, those delegates at the Constitutional Convention represented the gov'ts of the states, not the people in them. You think they were so concerned about your rights? Remember that bit about "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion"? Well, they meant CONGRESS. Proof? Several states entered the Union under that Constitution WITH THEIR OWN ESTABLISHED CHURCHES! Massachusetts was one of them: 1833. Constitutional amendment separates church and state; ends Puritanism in government. masshome.com They weren't trying to expand YOUR freedom; they were attempting to limit the power of that new federal gov't to crimp the rights of their states.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (24619)	6/4/2003 1:25:54 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Here: He argues that the mandate that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" does not create an individual right to be free from established religion; it simply leaves that determination to the states: the clause only "prohibited the national legislature from interfering with, or trying to disestablish, churches established by state and local governments" (32). In support of this interpretation, Amar points to both the legislative history of the clause and early judicial interpretation of it, as well as the fact that the six states with established churches at the time of the Amendment's ratification were not forced to disestablish them. yale.edu Now why don't you try a different approach to posting for a change: Find out what the F*** your talking about before banging on the keyboard?