Discounting the more learned and talented explanations that could and probably
will pour forth, my meager and practical understanding of the how we (the
people) are governed is: "...what did the members of Congress intend...."
devolves to what the U.S. Supreme Court decides "what they intended"; and, we
(the people) are, for the most, to this point, at this time, faithful and
obedient to those decisions. We are so and will probably and hopefully will
remain so, because we have embraced the belief that, despite a past of numerous
stumbles and failures, the great bulk of the "governed" -- we -- believes there
is and remains an earnest attempt to govern by "reasoned, fairly fashioned laws"
applicable to all.
But I ramble. To specifics. To attempt to separate the Bill of Rights from the
"Original" Constitution is suspect in my opinion. I read that assertion as an
inference that they are somewhat lesser law . My source is "The Story of the
Constitution" by Sol Bloom, 1937, Chapter XVI, Ratification, page 27 - 51, "Thus
the government of the United State of America began actual operations under the
Constitution, except that the Supreme Court did not organize until February 2,
1790".
I fully appreciate that the codification of the Constitution was a torturous,
twisted, and "dicey" trail and tale. But I am of the opinion that its
ratification would never have been achieved without the inclusion of the Bill of
Rights -- the compromise that made our Constitution our guiding governing
instrument.
Anyway that what I learned in grade school.
So, I deduce that (a) the "framers" of the Constitution were not "members" of
Congress prior to its ratification; (b) it's too bad for certain members of our
society that they didn't also include an additional phrase -- "freedom from
religion"; and, c) it doesn't matter what I or anybody else deduces; the U.S.
Supreme Court will decide what is the meaning of "of", "from" or "is" as it
applies to the application of the Constitution; and (d) if we don't like the
decision we (the people) have the right to bring the same issue up for a
determination over, and, over, and over again.
Now, you either embrace an admittedly generalized view that you accept a
government of law or you embrace the 9th and 10th amendments that gives the
people (we) the power to change the government and fashion it to whatever
pleases them by whatever means they so choose. Virginia tried that on 17 April
1861, when its duly empowered representatives (delegates) met in a most legal
and open fashion and voted to go a separate way. Mr. Lincoln said "thou will
not" and, de facto, not de jure, his will prevailed.
Shall we fast forward to the future when all of the California, Texas, New
Mexico, and Arizona state representatives are aligned with Mexico and they vote
to give back those "territories" to its previous owner. Will we settled that "de
facto" or "de jure" I ask of you rhetorically? Better yet, maybe we just might
make Mexico our 51st State?
Have fun with all that and Merry Christmas one and all!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brent Tarter" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: Religious freedom?
The First Amendment (not the original Constitution) actually states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The words "freedom of religion"
are not in the Constitution or the First Amendment.
Which raises an interesting question: What did the members of Congress
intend when they wrote that "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion"? We assume the words means that Congress may
not establish one. But it is also logical and grammatical to assume that
Congress could not disestablish one or make any law that countenanced or
discountenanced or altered any state's laws "respecting" church and
state.
Brent Tarter
The Library of Virginia
[log in to unmask]
Visit the Library of Virginia's web site at http://www.lva.lib.va.us
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of jadams957
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 9:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Religious freedom?
Here we go again.
The Constitution says FREEDOM "OF" RELIGION, not freedom from religion.
Learn what the prepositions mean. If everyone will remember that our
President tried to explain the meaning of IS. Law has gotten to the
point of being an English lesson. Our forefathers designed our statutes
to codify the separation of religion and to not have a State religion,
but allow the worship of the Christian doctrine, as represented, in the
1700's as the concept worth fighting our cousins the English. Maybe if
we pay attention to the teaching of the values and the beliefs our
country was built upon the NEED for private schooling would not need to
be in such great demand.
This also goes for West Virginia not being in existence before 1863.
Thanks
John Philip Adams
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/193 - Release Date: 12/6/2005
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/194 - Release Date: 12/7/2005
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
