Actually I figured out SB: he is Rick (or a wannabe) of the Young Ones, I'm going to come up with Cliff Richard quotes, just to see if I'm correct....:rock:

Oh, my gawd gee, SS, the first amendment says that the man cannot set up a state mandated religion (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion) yet it has been interpreted to be freedom to "practice" religion. I understand that is the "concept" of seperation of church and state, and looking at the times, understandable why this was important. It does not say that religion is above, property taxes, practices that may violate state law or municipal ordinances, or any qualifications as to become part of the sanctified, but, there lies a huge hole in logic, that anyone who wraps themselves in that somewhat wonderful but somewhat flawed, piece of paper....... let the broadsides continue.

I'm confused. You mention me specifically, and seem to be taking me to task over the Separation issue, but I never mentioned any Amendment but the Ninth. I'm glad to talk about it, but is that within the scope of the thread as it has been discussed so far?

I'm also confused about your meaning in the first place. Are you arguing for or against Separation?

I think we are in total agreement here. :up:

I agree there, but assuming that we were up to the task, what would be the most effective way of ensuring that this is done? What could we do as a people, to emphasize the importance of other voters making the correct choice?

Just my opinion, but there should be nothing we do to influence others than to remind them that "actions speak louder than words". We, as a whole, need to pay less attention to what is being said and more to what is being done. Unfortunately, that is too much work for many of our citizens who simply vote for A or B based on how slick a talker they are or what is sliding out of their mouths.

My apologies SS, I forgot to preface the statement (often happens when I'm thinking) . I was using the very first line of the 1st amendment as an example of literal text that has been interpreted to mean something completely different.


I agree with you in regards to the 9th, but shouldn't that have been number one?
The 1st which I interpret to be "setting the tone," seems to me more of a direct slap in the face to the British Empire rather then, a promotion of rights to the people.

I think I'm back on track, sorry for the confusion. ;)

Oh, okay, gotcha.


I'm not sure. I think they wanted to include all the rights they could think of and then at the end put the caveat in; sort of in and "Oh, by the way..." manner. Some people in the past have said that freedom of speech was most important, which is why they put it first, without realizing that 'They' didn't put it first, but third. There were originally twelve amendments, but the First (Changes to Proportions of Representation) and Second (Congressional Pay Raises) were not ratified by enough states to make it in; probably because they had nothing to do with citizens' rights. The original Second Amendment was finally ratified by 2/3 of the states in 1992, and became the Twenty-Seventh Amendment.

I don't see it that way. They listed rights that everyone agreed had been abused by the British, but they also saw the possibility of abuse by their own government. The main goal was to make absolutely sure that the new government was restricted, in writing, from trying to take away, or even 'infringe upon' the rights of the individual. After all, the Declarations specifically says "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men...", which I take at face value, meaning that we create government and laws to protect our rights from each other, and, as Jeffersons says "The legitimate purpose of Government is to prevent that which is injurious."

Often when people refer to 'The Constitution', or 'Constitutional Principles', they are actually referring to the Bill of Rights, treating it as more important than the main body of the document itself. I think this is proper and true, but sometimes in doing so they forget which is which. The Constitution itself is just the American Government Instruction Manual.

So now that you guys have all these comments, what exactly are you doing about it? When was the last time you contacted your representatives?

-S

In the past year, Rahm Emanuel's office and once himself has heard from me 4 times. All positive experiences, but I would cut off my right newt before I would ever talk to Durbin da Turban or the "rock"......

How 'bout your other represenitive:cool: . (hides behind couch with popcorn)

JJ jr is on the south side and south suburbs. Plus he basically divorced himself from his ole man during the "castration conversation" verasification.

And of course, no one bothers to read the manual:rotfl: