What if the U.S. institutionalized the Ten Commandments?

[Joe]

Curious then, that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not see their error in their interpretation of their own law.

Ah, so negligence is a mitigating factor in the gross misinterpretation of a constitutional amendment? That is, I must say, a rather unique piece of reasoning.

I suppose. It's too bad the framers didn't have Earl Warren around to inform them what the intent of their amendment really was.

[Patrick Degan]

Curious then, that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not see their error in their interpretation of their own law.

Ah, so negligence is a mitigating factor in the gross misinterpretation of a constitutional amendment? That is, I must say, a rather unique piece of reasoning.

I suppose. It's too bad the framers didn't have Earl Warren around to inform them what the intent of their amendment really was.

And that is why we have a Supreme Court in the first place.

You might also want to check your constitutional and judicial history; the ill-informed Plessy decision came down 28 years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868.

[Joe]

I was referring to the Slaughterhouse decision in my earlier post.

[Patrick Degan]

I was referring to the Slaughterhouse decision in my earlier post.

Noted. Unfortunately, there still is no legitimate argument around the phrase "No state shall make or enforce any law" in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the negligence of the courts in simply ignoring what the amendment actually says, or the failure of Congress to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment subsequently to both Slaughterhouse and Plessy, does not validate Slaughterhouse any more than it did Plessy.

[Joe]

But the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866, not to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. The law is the intent of the creator, and incorporation of the Bill of Rights was not the intent of the fourteenth amendment as originally conceived.

[Patrick Degan]

But the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866, not to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. The law is the intent of the creator, and incorporation of the Bill of Rights was not the intent of the fourteenth amendment as originally conceived.

You'll pardon me for laughing, I trust.

Just what part of "No state shall make any law which shall abridge the priviledges and immunities of citizens of the United States" escapes your grasp? It does not narrowly state: "the right to sue in court, give witness, or draft contracts and conduct business". It says "All persons are citizens of the United States". It says "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States". It says "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law". It says "no person shall be denied equal protection under the law". Indeed, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed because of attempts to deny black citizenship through such narrow legal pettifoggery which you seem intent upon defending as valid.

[Joe]

But the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866, not to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. The law is the intent of the creator, and incorporation of the Bill of Rights was not the intent of the fourteenth amendment as originally conceived.

You'll pardon me for laughing, I trust.

Just what part of "No state shall make any law which shall abridge the priviledges and immunities of citizens of the United States" escapes your grasp? It does not narrowly state: "the right to sue in court, give witness, or draft contracts and conduct business". It says "All persons are citizens of the United States". It says "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States". It says "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law". It says "no person shall be denied equal protection under the law". Indeed, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed because of attempts to deny black citizenship through such narrow legal pettifoggery which you seem intent upon defending as valid.

Yes, it protects the Lockean core of natural rights (life, liberty, and property) found in the Constitution from state encroachment. I am not denying this. Yes, it does protect certain other privileges and immunities such as those stated in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This is all within the intent of the framers. I am not trying to call the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment is an important and necessary tool for protecting certain rights from state encroachment into question. What I am saying is that I still fail to see how incorporation of the Bill of Rights is within the original intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now, with respect, I would like to opt out of any further debate, both because I am tired and because I see little chance of me being able to change your mind.

[Patrick Degan]

Yes, it protects the Lockean core of natural rights (life, liberty, and property) found in the Constitution from state encroachment. I am not denying this. Yes, it does protect certain other privileges and immunities such as those stated in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This is all within the intent of the framers. I am not trying to call the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment is an important and necessary tool for protecting certain rights from state encroachment into question. What I am saying is that I still fail to see how incorporation of the Bill of Rights is within the original intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I think this can settle the matter:



Debate over the anti-KKK bill naturally required exposition of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and none was better qualified to explain that section than its draftsman, Rep. John A. Bingham (R., Ohio):

Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the constitution of the United States. Those eight amendments are as follows:

article 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.


article ii

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.... [Amendments III-VIII, also listed by Bingham, are here omitted.](p.76)

These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the Fourteenth Amendment. The words of that amendment, "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," are an express prohibition upon every State of the Union....[51]


This is a most explicit statement of the incorporation thesis by the architect of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although he based the incorporation on the privileges and immunities clause and not the due process clause as did subsequent courts of selective incorporation, Rep. Bingham could hardly have anticipated the judicial metaphysics of the twentieth century in this respect. In any case, whether based on the due process clause or on the privileges and immunities clause, the legislative history supports the view that the incorporation of Amendments I-VII was clear and unmistakable in the minds of the framers of Amendment XIV.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senhal14.html



The statement of Rep. John Bingham (the authour of the Fourteenth Amendment) in support of the 1868 Anti-KKK act, is quite definitive. He is stating clearly that the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment is to apply the Bill of Rights to the states.

Indeed, it is worth noting that the entire issue of expansion of civil liberties in this manner came as a result of Southern legislatures passing laws disarming black freedmen and prohibiting them from bearing arms in state militias, and that the civil rights acts preceding the drafting and ultimate passage of the amendment all sought to address this issue of the right of blacks to keep and bear arms as well as other constitutional rights as defined and guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

Furthermore, the clear intent of the Fourteenth Amendment is further reinforced by both the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Anti KKK Act of 1868. Section 1 of that act, which derived from Section 2 of the 1866 act and which survives today as 42 U.S.C. § 1983, states the following:

That any person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any person within the jurisdiction of the United States to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities to which ... he is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States, shall ... be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress...."

The above provision was drafted to enforce Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In short, this entire "original intent" argument which attempts to justify Slaughterhouse and nullify the common interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment has zero historical or constitutional support.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Legalistic loophole.

The constitution is a body of laws.

The whole point of the article was that it would absurd to make the Ten Commandments into law, as fundies want to do.

How many fundamentalist Christians do you know of who explicitly go around saying they want to make the Ten Commandments part of the body of national law? I don't doubt a few fanatics do but that would be quite extreme indeed; I know a fair number of Christians you would consider fundamentalists and none of them have ever said that.

Indeed, they support the separation of Church and State as being a Biblical concept (Render unto God what is God's, and unto Caesar what is Caesar's).

Thomas Jefferson used the EXACT PHRASE "wall of separation between church and state" when describing and defending the ramifications of the first amendment.

What Thomas Jefferson says is not necessarily the meaning of the law, though certainly the intent of one of the framers is important in regard to definition.

Posting the Ten Commandments prominently in a public school would be establishing one religion as superior over the others.

Why would it? That isn't passing legislation.

[Mr Bean]

How many fundamentalist Christians do you know of who explicitly go around saying they want to make the Ten Commandments part of the body of national law? I don't doubt a few fanatics do but that would be quite extreme indeed; I know a fair number of Christians you would consider fundamentalists and none of them have ever said that.

I unforunatily do, Every year it comes up in the Mid-West Bastion of Big skys and empty heads
To the point at which last year in Indiana(I heard about this when I visted my Granmother on the 11th of Jan) it came close to get 40% of the Senate Votes here in this state before it was agian struck down, Its been tried EVERY year for the past fourty by one Senitor or another to get the Ten Commandments into Law

Considering IND has nearly as many old people living here as does Floridia except they don't have the massive hords of young kids who show up every year so that radical laws have a much stronger chance of being past

Hell, Last time I fliped on the FM dial the Local Collage Radio station had, 1 Add for Landscaping then 3 adds for Various churchs, Music, 2 More adds for churchs and one add for a home-repair shop who WORKED on said churchs and mentioned them

[Andrew J.]

Posting the Ten Commandments prominently in a public school would be establishing one religion as superior over the others.

Why would it? That isn't passing legislation.

Why does it matter if it's legislation?

[Darth Wong]

The constitution is a body of laws.

Correct. How does this change the fact that people try to use its letter to ignore its spirit?

The whole point of the article was that it would absurd to make the Ten Commandments into law, as fundies want to do.

How many fundamentalist Christians do you know of who explicitly go around saying they want to make the Ten Commandments part of the body of national law?

All of them, in my experience. I have never known a fundie who didn't think society would be better off if the Ten Commandments were made mandatory for everyone. If you can find a fundie who thinks society would not be better off with the Ten Commandments made into law, please convince him to post here.

Thomas Jefferson used the EXACT PHRASE "wall of separation between church and state" when describing and defending the ramifications of the first amendment.

What Thomas Jefferson says is not necessarily the meaning of the law, though certainly the intent of one of the framers is important in regard to definition.

In short, you are defending the use of a legalistic loophole to get around the obvious intent of the framers (although, as Patrick Degan pointed out, this loophole was technically closed by a subsequent amendment anyway).

Posting the Ten Commandments prominently in a public school would be establishing one religion as superior over the others.

Why would it? That isn't passing legislation.

Black/white fallacy. Are you suggesting that it is impossible to promote one religion over others in any way without making its edicts into law?

[Arrow]

That was a very educational debate. I've never had to the deal with the complexities of the law, so this was quite interesting.

How many fundamentalist Christians do you know of who explicitly go around saying they want to make the Ten Commandments part of the body of national law?

While many Christians won't come out and say it, many of them sure act like they want to. Quite frankly, I've found that most Christians were I live to be very judgemental and would love nothing more than to force their views on you. I have two examples, from 5 to 7 years ago when I was still in high school:

1) There was a girl in my class that thinks the same way as many (or at least a few) people on this board, in that she detests the Christian religion. To express this, she dressed in black and wore and upside down cross. This made her an instant target of derision (sp?) and was sent to the principle's office for the slightests thing. After high school she needed to get some records from the guidence office, called ahead to let the school know she was coming and was promptly faced with the threat of arrest when arriving (the adminstration was going to press some bullshit story about her to the police). I had classes with this girl during my first two years of college, and she's quite alright. One of the nicest and honest people I've ever met. But just because she wasn't mainstream Christian (as defined by the local hicks), she was the subject of a witch hunt.

2) High school graduation: The valvictorian gave a speech on being humble and loving God and Jesus and blah blah blah. In the speech he gave an example of a doctor, who did much for mankind, going to hell for not believing in Jesus. Then a drunkass bum went to heaven for simply loving Jesus. While this may seem innocient, its not - it was actually a personal attack on the salutitorian (sp?). The salutitorian was a muslim girl, who is extremely brilliant and had already done biology work that had attracted the attention of the US and state governments. She was going to study to be a doctor and had over $100,000 in scholarships. On the other hand, over half of the class was well on their way to being drunk bums. I knew it was an attack on her and so did she. I was seated across from her (I was 9th in the class ), and the look on her face was a painful one that I'll never forget.

So, yeah, if they could force the Ten Commandments on the population at large, every Christian in my area would do it.

[Falcon]

Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention June 28, 1787:

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proof I see of the truth - that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without this concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Government by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest. I therefore beg leave to move - that henceforth prayers imploring the audience of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service."

Thomas Jefferson:

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

John Adams:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion ... Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Patrick Henry:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason people of other faiths have been afforded asylums, prosperitity and freedom of worship here."


Whats this about the 'spirit of the founders' again? I suppose this is another 'appeal to tradition' which should be ignored in the face of overwhelming ignorent bias on your part? Agree with it or not, the Constitution is very plain, which everyone who isn't blinded by a hate of religion can see.

[Vympel]

Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention June 28, 1787:

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proof I see of the truth - that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without this concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Government by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest. I therefore beg leave to move - that henceforth prayers imploring the audience of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service."

Public rhetoric. He also said:

"Think how great a proportion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant Men and Women ... who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it"

Thomas Jefferson:

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Thomas Jefferson was an out and out deist, idiot. He's not talking about Jehovah. He's the one that enunciated the principle of Church-State seperation in the first place, which the Supreme Court has followed again and again.

John Adams:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion ... Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

LOL! More rhetoric. You realize John Adams signed the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli into law, don't you? It read: "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion ... the United States is not a Christian nation

Patrick Henry:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason people of other faiths have been afforded asylums, prosperitity and freedom of worship here."

More rhetoric. Please read the First Amendment. Actually, here's an exercise, can you find the words 'Jesus' or 'God' in the Constitution? It's a secular document. Period.

Whats this about the 'spirit of the founders' again? I suppose this is another 'appeal to tradition' which should be ignored in the face of overwhelming ignorent bias on your part? Agree with it or not, the Constitution is very plain, which everyone who isn't blinded by a hate of religion can see.

The Constitution is very plain? Plain on what? It is plainly a secular document, and your dredging up of irrelevant quotes does not change that fact.

[Arrow]

I wasn't saying that the founders didn't believe in God and didn't believe that all that was good in the world came from him. However, they did see the hell that religion caused. Look at the crusades, or better yet, the reformation. Look at all the civil strife and war England went through just because Henry VIII wanted a divorce. Look at the bloodshed that his successors caused in the name of religion. THAT is what the founders wanted to prevent from happening. They knew religion is dangerous and that minor difference can (and usually will) turn into outright conflict. Which is why they seperated church and state. You need look no farther than the middle east to see what religious differences (even within a religion) can do to a society.

[AdmiralKanos]

<snip a bunch of quotes saying that the country values religion>

Irrelevant rebuttal. You can prove that some of the founding fathers were religious (or claimed to be at one time or other, for the sake of their voters) if you like, but that does not prove that they intended to allow religions to shove their beliefs down the throats of others.

Whats this about the 'spirit of the founders' again?

None of those quotes contradicted the wall of separation quote. You even quoted Thomas Jefferson at one point, even though the "Wall of Separation" line came from him!

I suppose this is another 'appeal to tradition' which should be ignored in the face of overwhelming ignorent bias on your part? Agree with it or not, the Constitution is very plain, which everyone who isn't blinded by a hate of religion can see.

Yes, the Constitution plainly outlaws any attempt to shove religion down the throats of the people, which anyone not blinded by religious stupidity such as yours can see.

[Falcon]

If this was so plain and clear then why did the founders themselves, in their official capacity as delegates on the floor of Congress or Convention, engage in the very 'religious throat shoving' that you claim they were so adamently against? Why did they, as Presidents, engage in these religious throat shoving statements? WHY DOES ALL THE EVIDENCE SCREAM, 'YOUR WRONG'

[Falcon]

Public rhetoric.

You can't say one quote is 'what they believed and intended' and then say another quote is just 'public rhetoric' You have to take everything into context, not just use the statements you like and ignore all the rest.

[AdmiralKanos]

If this was so plain and clear then why did the founders themselves, in their official capacity as delegates on the floor of Congress or Convention, engage in the very 'religious throat shoving' that you claim they were so adamently against? Why did they, as Presidents, engage in these religious throat shoving statements? WHY DOES ALL THE EVIDENCE SCREAM, 'YOUR WRONG'

When did they attempt to enact religious edicts into law? Where is this "evidence" you speak of, demonstrating their actions shoving religion down the throats of others? Are you trying to say that if they mention "God" in any public speech, that represents evidence? Bzzzt, no it doesn't. They can say that the country was founded primarily by Christians, for example, without saying that it's OK to shove Christianity down every citizen's throat.

[Vympel]

You can't say one quote is 'what they believed and intended' and then say another quote is just 'public rhetoric' You have to take everything into context, not just use the statements you like and ignore all the rest.

Because one isn't likely to insult religion in public, dumbass; and when someone signs a treaty into law that flat out states America ain't a Christian nation, it blatantly contradicts and holds much more weight than pandering public pronouncements of piety to the predominantly Christian population.

I'm still waiting for your proof that the constitution is a relgious document advocating the government promotion of religion.

[Falcon]

If this was so plain and clear then why did the founders themselves, in their official capacity as delegates on the floor of Congress or Convention, engage in the very 'religious throat shoving' that you claim they were so adamently against? Why did they, as Presidents, engage in these religious throat shoving statements? WHY DOES ALL THE EVIDENCE SCREAM, 'YOUR WRONG'

When did they attempt to enact religious edicts into law? Where is this "evidence" you speak of, demonstrating their actions shoving religion down the throats of others? Are you trying to say that if they mention "God" in any public speech, that represents evidence? Bzzzt, no it doesn't. They can say that the country was founded primarily by Christians, for example, without saying that it's OK to shove Christianity down every citizen's throat.

So then you don't have a problem with the President of the United States talking about a Christian God as the One and True God? You don't have a problem with the leaders of Congress having a Christian prayer before each session? You don't have a problem with the elected officials of America talking about how the rights embodied in the Constitution come from the One and True God? The founders did ALL of these things, repeatedly, and the Constitution doesn't forbid it. No one here is saying that religion should be mandiated by the government, but indeed, the government was not ment to enforce a lack of religion either. Freedom of religion is just that, freedom of religion. If I want to pray in school, or talk about God in office, or post the Ten Commandments in my Congressional office, that is not unconstitutional.

[Falcon]

You can't say one quote is 'what they believed and intended' and then say another quote is just 'public rhetoric' You have to take everything into context, not just use the statements you like and ignore all the rest.

Because one isn't likely to insult religion in public, dumbass; and when someone signs a treaty into law that flat out states America ain't a Christian nation, it blatantly contradicts and holds much more weight than pandering public pronouncements of piety to the predominantly Christian population.

I'm still waiting for your proof that the constitution is a relgious document advocating the government promotion of religion.

I'm still waiting for you to get a clue. No one has said that the Constitution is a religious document that promotes relgion. That doesn't mean that the Constitution is an anthiest document to promote religious hate, such as you try to make it out to be.

[AdmiralKanos]

So then you don't have a problem with the President of the United States talking about a Christian God as the One and True God?

If he is speaking of his personal beliefs, he has the right to do that. He does not have the right to tell Americans that they must all worship this one and true God.

You don't have a problem with the leaders of Congress having a Christian prayer before each session?

I do, but of course, if I were a Congressman (not that this would happen), I would be the guy lounging around with my feet up during the prayer and daring somebody to charge me with something.

You don't have a problem with the elected officials of America talking about how the rights embodied in the Constitution come from the One and True God?

The Constitution does not contain the word God anywhere. The declaration of Independence refers only to Nature's God, ie- Mother Nature, a deist God. Not the Judeo-Christian God.

The founders did ALL of these things, repeatedly, and the Constitution doesn't forbid it.

I think you are fond of assuming that whenever someone says "God", they must be referring to your God, and insisting that this God be shoved down everyone's throat. The American Boy Scouts, for example, insist that everyone worship the Judeo-Christian God. The Canadian Boy Scouts, on the other hand, mention God but explicitly define it NOT to be specific to Christianity; it can be any kind of spirituality whatsoever, including Earth mother religions, deism, or even just a system of morality.

No one here is saying that religion should be mandiated by the government, but indeed, the government was not ment to enforce a lack of religion either.

Strawman. No one said the government should eliminate religion. We're saying the government should not promote it. What the fuck do you find so hard to understand about that?

Freedom of religion is just that, freedom of religion. If I want to pray in school, or talk about God in office, or post the Ten Commandments in my Congressional office, that is not unconstitutional.

If you use taxpayer money to do so, it is unconstitutional. If you bring in some placard of them from home to post on the walls of your own office, that's your business. But in a public school, that's a whole different matter and you know it. Stop changing the fucking subject.

[Vympel]

I'm still waiting for you to get a clue. No one has said that the Constitution is a religious document that promotes relgion. That doesn't mean that the Constitution is an anthiest document to promote religious hate, such as you try to make it out to be.

STRAWMAN you stupid fundamentalist moron dumb-fuck.

Who the fuck said that's what the consitution was?

I don't know if your brain is connected right now, but the word SECULAR does not mean "promote religious hate"

Fuck what an IDIOT.