Proposed Constitutional Amendments
- Thread starter rachaella
- Start date
-
- Tags
- constitutional proposed
I always find it intertesting when humane judgement, considering things like the right to privacy -- especially in thought (as in separation of church and state -- for very good reasons) is considered "liberal."
Lincoln was liberal after faced with the political inhumanity of slavery and humans as property. I do not want a government that can remove my humanity because I am not a christian. Just as I would not want to live in a place where I had no private right to belief -- even if I was a Muslim.
BTW -- checks and balances in the constitution are there to allow anidealistic and even egalitarian overview overview to to be thought of.
And speaking of liberal -- just how liberal was the US supreme court in deciding our last presidential election? Expeditious yes, Liberal, no.
Lincoln was liberal after faced with the political inhumanity of slavery and humans as property. I do not want a government that can remove my humanity because I am not a christian. Just as I would not want to live in a place where I had no private right to belief -- even if I was a Muslim.
BTW -- checks and balances in the constitution are there to allow anidealistic and even egalitarian overview overview to to be thought of.
And speaking of liberal -- just how liberal was the US supreme court in deciding our last presidential election? Expeditious yes, Liberal, no.
teddygrahams
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Messages
- 276
Even it it does, the 14th says they can't.Outcast said:
Outcast said:
Can you point me to where it says this? Maybe I'm missing it.
From what I can find it says:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
rachaella said:
The "power" of promulgating an official religion is not delegated to the United States (in fact, it's specifically prohibited via the Bill of Rights), and therefore, if not prohibited to the states is reserved to the states.
However, the effect of the Fourteenth Amendment is to extend the prohibitions contained in the Bill of Rights to the states as well, under the "equal protection" clause (section 1 : "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws").
So, prior to 1868, it would have been legal for a state to establish an official religion;it is no longer. Sorry, Outcast.
How often do we forget the section that reserves the rest to the PEOPLE.
I have just finished re-reading the many of the speeches of FDR -- considered by many to be a president who "twisted" the constitution. In his presentation he respected those rights granted to the INDIVIDUAL while working toward the welfare of the whole more paramount than the rights of the economically powerful.
Need I also note, that the powerful have always been able to purchase voice, and the religious have a pulpit -- while the individual -- has had to struggle to be heard UNLESS it is in court.
The framers had no quarrel with a belief in God -- but sincerely feared the implementation of a state by those who claim to speak for God -- in and/or out of any written context such as the bible, koran or other system of morality that would demand blind obedience.
I have just finished re-reading the many of the speeches of FDR -- considered by many to be a president who "twisted" the constitution. In his presentation he respected those rights granted to the INDIVIDUAL while working toward the welfare of the whole more paramount than the rights of the economically powerful.
Need I also note, that the powerful have always been able to purchase voice, and the religious have a pulpit -- while the individual -- has had to struggle to be heard UNLESS it is in court.
The framers had no quarrel with a belief in God -- but sincerely feared the implementation of a state by those who claim to speak for God -- in and/or out of any written context such as the bible, koran or other system of morality that would demand blind obedience.
I am sorry, Soapy Sam, that you would take that attitude. After all, only men of breeding and intellegence should be allowed in any such pool. Maybe too, it would be a good idea -- to surpress rebellion in the ranks -- that the women, so pooled, would be the ones to set the criteria on intellegence and breeding, no?
In a more reflective light, however -
Yes, it did take an amendment to get women the right to vote (even in Florida where votes apparently do not count anyway) and three amendments to correctly count those of colour in the voting process (although Mississippi took a while to catch on.)
If indeed those who wrote the constitutiopn were "Christian" it would be still a requirement to count those of colour as only part men - and women not at all.
The morality of man has often grown in spite of religion, and has been documented in political documents like the constitution of the United States, not the Christian Bible, Koran, Upanishads, or other works or religious morality, ne: history.
In a more reflective light, however -
Yes, it did take an amendment to get women the right to vote (even in Florida where votes apparently do not count anyway) and three amendments to correctly count those of colour in the voting process (although Mississippi took a while to catch on.)
If indeed those who wrote the constitutiopn were "Christian" it would be still a requirement to count those of colour as only part men - and women not at all.
The morality of man has often grown in spite of religion, and has been documented in political documents like the constitution of the United States, not the Christian Bible, Koran, Upanishads, or other works or religious morality, ne: history.
It may be that way now, but it wasn't so until 1947. 79 years after the 14th amendment was written. Everson v. Board of Educationdrkitten said:
Kopji said:
I guess we're supposed to ignore the fact that many wars and atrocious activities were carried out by those inspired by the idea they are divinely blessed? I guess believing in a god and doing terrible things is far more comforting than not believing in a "higher power" and living a good life.
I'm sad Kopji. Hold me.
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,862
Outcast said:
It took court decisions to apply the rest of the Bill of Rights to the states as well. Are you opposed to that too? Or are you cherry-picking the rights that you have a problem with?
How about the Second Amendment, for example... is it "liberals" changing the meaning of the Constitution, when a court rules that the Second amendment applies to the States as well?
gnome said:
It's worse than that. He didn't even get the case right. The case that he really wants to cite is Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (Quoting from Everson: "The First Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth, Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 , 63 S.Ct. 870, 872, 146 A.L.R. 81, commands that a state 'shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'") And, of course, this goes back to Gitlow v. New York and the entire question of the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
However, Murdock was a case in which the church won their side of the case (it was found that the First Amendment required that Pennsylvania not mandate licences for JWs to go door-to-door). So, yes, he's cherry-picking not only from the bill of rights, but also from case law. He wants his church to have the freedoms granted in the bill of rights, but none of the limitations that come with it.
Funny how it's only "judicial activism" if you disagree with it, isn't it?
God/Government
Hopefully not too far off topic -- but did anyone else catch our (U.S.) "esteemed" president's comment about whether he consulted his father on invading Iraq? His answer -- his dad was not the father he consulted. Does this mean he prayed us into invading Iraq on the pretense of finding weapons of mass destruction that "might," in his apocolyptic dreams, be sold to terrorists?
And calling the invasion of Afghanistan a "crusade" shows either a sharp misunderstanding of history or a religious underpinning of his administration that is specifically prohibited (and might, in my mind, be a high crime or misdemeanor) in our form of government.
(BTW, I do think the invasion of Afghanistan was warranted because of its Al Queda Support in the attack of 9-11 and violations of human rights it was exporting over its borders.)
We are, as a people, constitutionally bound to oppose the mixing of Religion and Government in our own solemn jurisdictions. We may even be morally bound to promote that idea across the world, as we recognize the evils found in men who demand total fealty because they claim that they (and their government) are doing god's will.
It is well nigh impossible to change an individual person's "beliefs" because they do not (and cannot, without a lot of thought and experience) respond to the opposition of facts and evidence. Changing opinion is another story.
And, I am sorry to say that the US has lost a concept (probably during the McCarthy era), that of "loyal opposition." Along with this lost concept -- "believers" of unsubstantiated, contradictory or religious ideas, dogmas and processes -- seemed alsso to have lost the art of true compromise. They seem bent on doggedly turning American Politics into a win-lose situation, instead of the "win-win" situation of the thoughtful and evolutionary Republic as envisioned in the Constitution and its amendments.
Hopefully not too far off topic -- but did anyone else catch our (U.S.) "esteemed" president's comment about whether he consulted his father on invading Iraq? His answer -- his dad was not the father he consulted. Does this mean he prayed us into invading Iraq on the pretense of finding weapons of mass destruction that "might," in his apocolyptic dreams, be sold to terrorists?
And calling the invasion of Afghanistan a "crusade" shows either a sharp misunderstanding of history or a religious underpinning of his administration that is specifically prohibited (and might, in my mind, be a high crime or misdemeanor) in our form of government.
(BTW, I do think the invasion of Afghanistan was warranted because of its Al Queda Support in the attack of 9-11 and violations of human rights it was exporting over its borders.)
We are, as a people, constitutionally bound to oppose the mixing of Religion and Government in our own solemn jurisdictions. We may even be morally bound to promote that idea across the world, as we recognize the evils found in men who demand total fealty because they claim that they (and their government) are doing god's will.
It is well nigh impossible to change an individual person's "beliefs" because they do not (and cannot, without a lot of thought and experience) respond to the opposition of facts and evidence. Changing opinion is another story.
And, I am sorry to say that the US has lost a concept (probably during the McCarthy era), that of "loyal opposition." Along with this lost concept -- "believers" of unsubstantiated, contradictory or religious ideas, dogmas and processes -- seemed alsso to have lost the art of true compromise. They seem bent on doggedly turning American Politics into a win-lose situation, instead of the "win-win" situation of the thoughtful and evolutionary Republic as envisioned in the Constitution and its amendments.