11
   

Revisiting the 1st amendment

 
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 15 May, 2012 03:36 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Now I can see why set is always dyspeptic with soma these clowns.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Tue 15 May, 2012 04:24 pm
@Rickoshay75,
I love people trying to rewriting history for their own purposes however we do have very detail records from that period of time written by the very people who created the first ten amendments. Not only at the time public records but private letters written back and forth between the authors on the subject.

We are not dealing with ancient history after all!!!!!!

Your claims or theory is complete nonsense on it face.



0 Replies
 
Rickoshay75
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2013 12:42 pm
@Setanta,
Every one of the first eight amendments is a direct reference to the greivances of the civil wars of the 17th century (1640-1651), or the acts of Parliament after 1660. Every one of them seeks to prevent or redress the abuses which the framers' fathers and grandfathers had been intimately familiar with.

If so, it's by inference, not by accepted grammar.
0 Replies
 
Rickoshay75
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2013 12:47 pm
@farmerman,
The first Amendment has been detailed in many Supreme Court decisions and each phrase has been addressed in unique and seperable rulings.>>

I don't deny the intended intent, just the sloppy grammar.
roger
 
  2  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2013 03:28 pm
@Rickoshay75,
I'll bite. What's your grammatical issue?

By the way, you should really learn to use the quote function. If it doesn't clarify your posts, at least we will know what is a quote and who you are quoting.

Is there such a thing as an unintended intent?
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2013 05:37 pm
@roger,
while the grammar may seem to conflict with the speech and writing patterns of today, it was , in its time, considered fully appropriate.

We read books like "Moby Dick" or anything by Dickens and we marvel at the phraseology , and its all the same.

I think Ricky is just trying to find a hole in his fence so he can slip away.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2013 06:43 pm
@farmerman,
In that, I wish him well.
0 Replies
 
Rickoshay75
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Nov, 2013 03:14 pm
@farmerman,
while set has his own pleasant style of greeting, he is correct and you are wrong Ricky. The first Amendment has been detailed in many Supreme Court decisions and each phrase has been addressed in unique and seperable rulings. >>

If that's true, why don't they amend the existing amendment.

You may insist that you are correct but insisting doesnt make it so. Itd be better to just accept that youre mistaken and just move on. Please dont compound your error with stubborn ignorance. >>

I'm just doing what the scientists on the TV science channel asks all of us to do -- QUESTION EVERYTHING.

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." - Sir Walter Scott
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Nov, 2013 04:36 pm
@Rickoshay75,
Quote:

If that's true, why don't they amend the existing amendment.
The Supreme court doesn't "amend" anything. There are severl methods for a,,emd,emt clearly stated in Article 5 of the US Constitution.

Weve, "amended" the 18th amendment by repealing it first.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  4  
Reply Wed 20 Nov, 2013 12:38 am
First Amendment wrote:
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech or the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Rickoshay75 wrote:
As you can see the first amendment is ALL about religion.
That is a non-sequitur, Rickoshay,
based apparently upon your confusion.
I (for one) cannot see what u allege. The Amendment simply sets forth
a list of different things that lie beyond the jurisdiction of Congress.






Rickoshay75 wrote:
freedom of speech, Press, and assembly are all church related.
Please indicate your evidence for this conclusion.



Rickoshay75 wrote:
That was and is very clear to independent grammarians,
O, really ?????
Which ones, Rick???
WHICH "grammarians" are those????
Please tell us.
The syntax of the Amendment is written in the DISJUNCTIVE,
using the word: "or" as in, for example hot or cold, right or rong,
North or South, accurate or mistaken, orthodox or liberal, up or down,
neat or sloppy free or slave, one thing or another. The Amendment simply
sets forth a list of different things that lie beyond the jurisdiction of Congress.

What is the problem, RicK?

IF Madison had actually been a religious fanatic, as u imply,
and not a libertarian, then he 'd have cast the Amendment into
different language to accomplish his theocratic desires, to wit:
James Madison woud have wrote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
and no law abridging a church's freedom of speech or of the ecclesiastical press;
and none of the right of the people peaceably to assemble in church,
and to petition the government for a redress of religious grievances."
Madison was articulate; he had no trouble in being lucid.




Rickoshay75 wrote:
and forth grade English students.
Yeah, I was in the 4th grade when I first read the Constitution.
I found it in the back of a history book,
but I did not fall into the error of understanding
that u have indicated.




Rickoshay75 wrote:
Why it was later interpreted to include everyone will probably never be known,
but you can be sure that it was about money or power.
I believe that we can be sure
that u simply don 't know what u r talking about
and that u made up and faked that reference to
anonymous "independent grammarians"
(unless u tell us who thay are and quote them).

Lord Salisbury wrote:
“No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated
by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts.”
Yeah, but u shud not trust anyone else, either.
( I thought u claimed that the experts ["independent grammarians" & 4th grade students]
were on YOUR side, Rick! Now u say not to trust them. )





David
CollierT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2015 12:42 pm
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

On 1st January 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association wherein he specifically sites the establishment clause as "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Since Thomas Jefferson was one of the authors of the Constitution, it seems pretty clear he is defining the establishment clause to include an individual right of conscience.

How can the Supreme Court rule a law constitutional if, in doing so, it violates an individuals right of conscience?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2015 01:02 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Bravo David! You said it perfectly.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2015 03:19 pm
@CollierT,
The Supreme Court isn't Congress.

Quote:
Congress shall make no law...
CollierT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2015 04:40 pm
@parados,
The First Amendment that to which Jefferson was referring when he defined the right of conscience to be part of the establishment clause.
My question is whether a law can be constitutional when that law contradicts established constitutional protections.
If the First Amendment protects my right of conscience, how can I be forced to rescind that right without amending the constitution?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2015 04:46 pm
@CollierT,
What is a "right of conscience"? Kim Davis has every right to hold to her conscience by resigning. She has no right to keep her job while not doing it.

Kim Davis is the government. The people trying to get marriage licenses are the citizens. The government (or people acting in the role of government) don't get to take rights away from the citizens whom they serve.




0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2015 04:58 pm
@CollierT,
First of all the first amendment says nothing about right of consience. It says Congress can't establish a religion. The fourteenth amendment then applied it to state governments as well.

When the government acts in a fashion that puts one religion above another it is violating the first amendment. Kim Davis is acting as the government and putting her religion above others when she is performing a legal duty the government is supposed to do. This has nothing to do with her conscience since she can resign her post any time she wants to no longer act as the government. What it clearly has to do with is she is attempting to get the government to establish her religion as the predominant one while she is supposed to be performing her legal duties.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2015 05:03 pm
@CollierT,
By the way, Kim Davis social duty is to not discriminate but rather to keep he religion solely between her and her God. Here is the rest of the paragraph from which you are attempting to take things out of context.

Quote:
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, & 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 separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2015 05:31 pm
@parados,
Well reasoned.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2015 06:29 pm
@CollierT,
Thomas Jefferson was not an author of the constitution, he was in France at that time. Furthermore, he was not an author of the first ten amendments, not being a member of the Congress. I notice religious types have no qualms about just making sh*t up as they go along.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2015 08:04 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
I notice religious types have no qualms about just making sh*t up as they go along.


I love the very idea that the religious types would try to get support from Jefferson of all people. They must have no idea of the man opinions on religion to try to do so or think not one else does for that matter.

Thomas Jefferson also was not a believer in the supernatural and was of the opinion that the Jesus of the Bible was a great man and a teacher but not the son of some god.

He in fact took the new testament of the bible and edit out all the supernatural elements out.

The results is now called the Jefferson bible.

Nor did he have a high opinion of those who claimed to have a pipeline to god.

Quote:
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813


0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/13/2020 at 11:57:09