Building A Wall To Keep God Out

[Tron4JC]

Article Six of the U.S. Constitution

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Kind of makes your reasoning irrelevant, doesn't it?

That is binding on Congress, not state governments. Note the word Senators and Representatives mentioned?

Or do you believe the very founders who gave us the Constitution don't know what they mean when they gave us the state constitutions?

[Iconic]

I am fully aware of the 14h amendment that in effect eradicated the 10th amendment (to have the states follow what the fifth amendment bound the federal government to do). And I am aware of the original clauses of the state constitutions cannot be enforced. Nor am I for them being enforced.

I was merely pointing out what the founders intended is NOT how the courts say they intended today.

Then why was Article Six written as to preclude a religious test for holding office? The state constitutions were written years prior to the ratification of the Constitution. Obviously our founders intended the exact opposite of what was written in the state constitutions.


You claim original intent changed over time by citing Supreme Court decisions.

Baloney. I said, "Original intent doesn't mean very much anymore except to historians" and "… Constitution has been amended many times since it was adopted, thus altering its original intent." Saying the Constitutional amendments altered the original intent of the Constitution does not mean the 'founders' original intent has been subject to historical revision.

[Iconic]

That is binding on Congress, not state governments. Note the word Senators and Representatives mentioned?

Or do you believe the very founders who gave us the Constitution don't know what they mean when they gave us the state constitutions?

Haha, that's very funny! Please read what is says after " The Senators and Representatives before mentioned." "… the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States"
Kind of makes your reasoning irrelevant, doesn't it?

[Iconic]

THE ORIGINAL 13-A Documentary History of Religion in America's Original Thirteen States - "The whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the State governments, to be acted upon according to their sense of justice and the State Constitutions," wrote Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833.

Who was Joseph Story? He was the founder of Harvard Law School and appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison - the same James Madison who introduced the First Amendment in the first session of Congress.

What Justice Story says is very relevant, but look at the date, his commentary was written in 1833 and the fourteenth amendment was adopted in 1868. This amendment changed much about how the first amendment was applied and interpreted. Why can't you understand that?

Our founders may very well have meant what Story said, but all that changed when the Constitution was amended in 1868.

[Tron4JC]

What Justice Story says is very relevant, but look at the date, his commentary was written in 1833 and the fourteenth amendment was adopted in 1868. This amendment changed much about how the first amendment was applied and interpreted. Why can't you understand that?

Our founders may very well have meant what Story said, but all that changed when the Constitution was amended in 1868.


Because a judge who knew the founders would know what they intended much better than those living way after the fact.

And it didn't change on the religious aspect til the 1950s and 1960s.

The fourteenth amendment dealt directly with Negro suffrage after the Civil War.

[Tron4JC]

nt

[Iconic]

Because a judge who knew the founders would know what they intended much better than those living way after the fact.

What Story said concerning the founders original intent is irrelevant when it comes to the later amendments of the Constitution; that much should be obvious.

And it didn't change on the religious aspect til the 1950s and 1960s.

If so it took the court long enough wouldn't you say?

The fourteenth amendment dealt directly with Negro suffrage after the Civil War.

Amongst other matters, please read the entire text; this amendment had broad reaching implications for anyone born within the entire U.S.

[Iconic]

Tron:

I'm beat, nice arguing with you, goodnight.

[Tron4JC]

What Story said concerning the founders original intent is irrelevant when it comes to the later amendments of the Constitution; that much should be obvious.



If so it took the court long enough wouldn't you say?



Amongst other matters, please read the entire text; this amendment had broad reaching implications for anyone born within the entire U.S.

The fact that you said the courts took "long enough" backs my point- before then no one understood the first amendment in the way the courts came up with their novel interpretations.

And I didn't deny that the fourteenth amendment had far reaching implications. The fact remains it dealt directly with Negro suffrage. Yes, it applied the fiifth amendment to the states. And it had far reaching implications.

But that does not change what the original intent as founders saw it.

But the fact remains it took til really 1962 for the courts to give its novel interpretation with the idea of seperation of church and state in ways that went beyond Jefferson (who was not even at the Constitutional Convention).

[Tron4JC]

"What Story said concerning the founders original intent is irrelevant when it comes to the later amendments of the Constitution; that much should be obvious."


The later amendments never proclaimed the liberal version of "seperation of church and state."

You simply backed my point- the original intent of the founders IS different from what the courts say today.