Originally Posted By mrkthompsn It was not ratified on that date. It was ordained and established as a baseline per its terms and as attested by the signators representing the unanimous states present in convention. It was basically a certification by the designers (the framers), giving the baselined document value worthy of progression to the next level, which at that time wasn't fully determined. It could have stood still in time if the states did not call for ratifying conventions, much less have them, much less ratify. So yes, "Done" means that the doc was ordained and established. But all those designers (and ratifyers) involved are centuries dead. Is that "ordaining and establishing" still recognizable today? It's easy to answer "yes", but is it recognized according to its own terms? That is what is left contestable. The fun part with all this is that we're scrutizing words that are there and for what they mean. Those words mean something. Is your strategy to removed meaning from them? If that's the case, are there any words anywhere in the Const. that require "Separation of Church and State" that can be scrutized at all? No. My argument championing God's presence in the Constitution is more complete and more reasonable than those who champion separation.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 Just out of curiosity mrkthompsn...are you a constitutional lawyer? Did you actually major in anything even close to constitutional law? Because your assertions here are pretty far off from how most constitutional scholars, as well as federal judges and Supreme Court justices, interpret the language. You said: "But if one were to do that (show that its truth is deniable), they could force an attempt to invalidate the document... to demonstrate that the ratifying conventions did not ratify something that was able to be ratified. If that contest was presented, would the court system have jurisdiction over this clause? a clause that establishes their own existence?" The done clause simply states that the document has the rule of law. Since the ability and methods needed to ratify the constitution is written into the Constitution, and there is part of the "done" in the done clause, there really are no ratifications that could be undone, unless by another ratification. The way the constitution is written, once an amendment is ratified it becomes part of the constitution, with as much weight as any other part of the constitution. That is why it is so difficult to get an amendment added to the constitution. Anything can be added, no matter how it amends the original body, and will have the full weight of constitutional law once it is. This is not even "constitutional scholar" level knowledge. This is what any good civics teacher teaches their high school students when they study the constitution. It is not high level...the "done clause" does not mean what you think it means...it does not establish any religion, in fact it solidifies the first amendment's statement that the government cannot establish a national religion. It applies to the whole document, amendments and all. If you ever do get your book published, be prepared for any constitutional scholar, or first year law student for that matter, that happens to read it to completely and totally disagree with your assertions.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 "and there is part of the "done" in the done clause" should be and is therefore part of the "done" in the done clause
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn >>The done clause simply states that the document has the rule of law<<. You just restated my position. Thanks. All Constitutional scholars to this point in history have glossed over or disregarded the importance and relevance of the Done clause. So I do not consider their positions as none have really been stated at all (amazingly). At best, they remove any meaning from the text, because their focus is drawn to the meat of the Constitution, not its fulcrum. I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I am an development engineer. I understand the nature of development and the nature of requirements documents - including charters. I understand the concepting process, the proposal process, the concepting process, the architecting process, the versioning process, the affirmation process, the approval process, the release process, and the events leading to (and from) effectivity. It's really simple. This charter is constructed so completely and brilliantly. It's entire development followed these processes (which I detail in the book) The Done clause is indeed vital. Its is related to these processes. It is the lynch pin, the fulcrum, that hooks the requirements to their application. Contesting the validity of the hook pulls that lynch pin, separating the requirements from any application. With the enormous weight that the Constitution carries, don't we deserve such a lynch pin? Don't we deserve something that constantly provides a framework for meaningful validity? The Done clause does this. As a consequence, it ineed carries the establishment of acknowledging God the Creator, Supreme Judge of the World, He who we depend upon for his Divine providence, and Jesus Christ - all in the provision for positioning the event of baseline into a singular, temporal, and uncontestable position. It carries this by the logic of its own terms. The first amendment, as you state, does not carry a statement "that the government cannot establish a national religion". Read the first amendment, and tell me ~precisely~ what it says by its own terms. I am well prepared for a litany of Constitutional scholars. They need to prepare ~themselves~ for the content, context, and vitality of this clause that they have never sought.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I understand the concepting process, the proposal process, the concepting process<< Hedley Lamarr: You said "concepting process" twice. Cowboy: I like the concepting process.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn ahhhhhh!!.... overtyping. Thanks. Y'all get off LP and get back to work...
Originally Posted By ecdc >>All Constitutional scholars to this point in history have glossed over or disregarded the importance and relevance of the Done clause.<< This is vintage pseudo-scholarly thinking. Substitute "Constitutional scholars" for scientists, zoologists, etc., and you have the exact kind of thinking that cryptozoologists, Truthers, and ghost hunters engage in. Now, if someone stumbles onto a genuinely new idea, they may face resistance at first. But if their theory holds up, it becomes the mainstream. That's how good history and science work. But once they start making excuses for why real scholars ignore them or dismiss them, you're in trouble. In this case, it doesn't even take scholars to know the absurdity of the thesis presented. But true to pseudo-historical form, arguments are dismissed or ignored. In this case, there's also the bias that can't be trusted. We get witness bearing about how swell Jesus is, then we're asked to take tortured arguments about a single phrase in the Constitution seriously.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 So every Constitutional scholar to date has not interpreted the constitution the same way you do, but you know more than them because you are development engineer? That makes sense. ">>The done clause simply states that the document has the rule of law<<. You just restated my position. Thanks." No, I did not. You think that the done clause somehow supersedes the first amendment, but it doesn't because it actually gives the first amendment the same legal weight as the rest of the constitution. "The first amendment, as you state, does not carry a statement "that the government cannot establish a national religion". Read the first amendment, and tell me ~precisely~ what it says by its own terms." It says "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." They shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. They cannot establish a national religion. And the Supreme court, which is full of actual constitutional scholars, has upheld that interpretation time and time again. "I am well prepared for a litany of Constitutional scholars. They need to prepare ~themselves~ for the content, context, and vitality of this clause that they have never sought." Umm...I think you have delusions of grandeur, and are taking your very odd interpretations far more seriously than any constitutional scholars are going to. Are you by any chance a member of the Tea Party?
Originally Posted By dshyates "As a consequence, it ineed carries the establishment of acknowledging God the Creator, Supreme Judge of the World, He who we depend upon for his Divine providence, and Jesus Christ - all in the provision for positioning the event of baseline into a singular, temporal, and uncontestable position. It carries this by the logic of its own terms." And you get all this from the phrase "in the year of our Lord" in the signatory? And then have the audacity to use the word logic?
Originally Posted By dshyates My guess is that is what you WANT it to mean and will bend logic to fit your wants.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <. And it's not me who loses. The United States loses. > The US wins if it upholds its principles, including the fact that we do not have a national religion. It wins if it respects those of all faiths and those who have none. It loses if it becomes just another country ripped apart by sectarian differences, each convinced that their faith is the only "right" one. <Seem like a stretch? > Jack LaLanne never stretched so far. <It's way less of a stretch than drawing out "Separation of Church and State" from the Constitution or its amendments.> Hardly. The phrase "wall of separation between church and state" was coined by one Thomas Jefferson, contributor to the Constitution, and author of the Declaration of Independence you claim to revere. He is explaining exactly what the Founders MEANT when they wrote the First Amendment. The whole quote is: "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 prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. " He quotes the First Amendment, and then says "thus..." and explains exactly how the Founders understood it. The "thus fulcrum" means that because the First Amendment says what it says, we thus have a wall of separation. No tortuous re-definitions of words like "done" needed. (And to paraphrase the Princess Bride, "That word does not mean what you think it means.") <All Constitutional scholars to this point in history have glossed over or disregarded the importance and relevance of the Done clause.> Ah! So mrkthompsn, alone among all Americans and centuries of Constitutional scholars, has discovered what "Done" really meant and knows the "true" meaning of the Constitution! LOL!!! "Delusions of grandeur," as PJ put it, doesn't begin to cover it! Jefferson himself tells us what they meant. I'll consider him a slightly better authority than you.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I wrote a 450 page book about this subject. In the process of publishing.<< Oh yeah? My 666 page book says you're full of beans. >> I still say "Oh my God, or other general references. << See? that proves the existence of God. You could have always used "jeepers", or "Jumpin' Jiminy Christmas", or "Great Caesar's Ghost". But you didn't. Victory is mine. We thank thee, Lord, in thy mer-- Oh, and the rapture was so too on May 21st. My 1776 page book says so. >>Those words mean something.<< I bet you say that after Sarah Palin speeches too. >>All Constitutional scholars to this point in history have glossed over or disregarded the importance and relevance of the Done clause.<< Those scalawags. Thank Baal that you and your posts on LP are here to set them straight.
Originally Posted By dshyates Be nice, mrkthompson discovered that we are and always have been a theocracy and this is the thanks he gets?
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///It(USA) wins if it respects those of all faiths/// .......careful there------some faiths should be outright dishonored
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///I am 100% atheist./// More often than not I find that those who proclaim to practice 'atheism' actually belong to the agnostic family. But if you absolutely REFUTE(as opposed to remaining unconvinced)the notion that ther is a God/all powerful force/creator, then more power to ya......I guess.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "careful there------some faiths should be outright dishonored" Not governmentally.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn Y'all are fun. Thanks. BTW, my argument does not lend us to be a theocracy. It only lends to recognition and acknowledgement. It does not lend to converting God's law to US law. And, yes, the Done clause absolutely supersedes the first amendment. It must. None of the amendments exist without the Constitution to carry them. The Constitution cannot exist with the Done clause to carry it. And the Supreme Court can speak no opinion or interpretation of the Done clause. That belongs exclusively to the people, the states, and the convention. The Supremes would have to recluse themselves of any interpretation of the Done clause. Any interpretation from them would lend to bias toward their survival as an entity. They have no power to remove its established recognition of God. The First Amendment reads "~Congress~ shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion...". "Congress"... not "the total plurality of American government". Now if (say) a state like Alabama decides to place a monument of the ten commandments on its state courthouse property, what does the US Congress have to do with that? You said that the First reads "The government shall not establish a religion." How is translating "Congress" into "the Government" not performing a higher level of mental gymnastics? Even if congress could involve themselves contrary to the First, they wouldn't have the need. Congress never needs to respect the establishment of religion. The framers and ratifiers already did that before Congress (as designed by the Constitution) existed. Congress need not apply. I know that Jefferson coined the phrase "Separation of Church and State". I know that would stated in a letter to the Danbury Baptists while was America's third president. Is his letter an official addendum to the Constitution? Is it?? What other letters shall the Supreme justices latch onto the back of the Constitution without a convention, congressional, or states' approval? Is Jefferson's name listed on the Constitution? Has he attested to the "Done-ness" of the Constitution draft? No. I admit that he did perform most of the writing of the Declaration. He penned the phrase at its attestation clause "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence". He knew there was no real separation at that very moment. Franklin knew there was no separation when he coin the Done phrase on September 17th as he adopted the Declaration into the Constitution. My argument holds much more water than Justice Black's "interpretations", and all those built upon its loose foundation.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn Ugh. I wish I could edit these posts for my horrible, unedited grammar. Sorry guys.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "My argument holds much more water than Justice Black's "interpretations", and all those built upon its loose foundation." Your "argument" is utter bollocks. Are you really serious with this stuff? There is no such thing as the "Done Clause". There are three Santa Clause movies, but no Done Clause. And the Supremes would not have to either "recluse" themselves any more than they would have to "recuse" themselves interpreting any part of the Constitution. Moreover, nothing supersedes the First Amendment.nor any of the Amendments. Speaking for lawyers everywhere, you're a hoot. That you say you've spent 450 pages on this drivel speaks more of your delusion than any devotion to scholarly research. Run all this by Erwin Chemerinsky. He's a preeminent Con Law scholar and the founding Dean of the UC Irvine Law School. Here's his contact info. Let us know what he says. echemerinsky@law.uci.edu 949-824-7722 401 East Peltason Drive, 1095 Irvine, CA 92697-8000
