Where the far left and far right overlap for fun and enlightenment
Our Constitution: Its Origins & What Followed
from higher education and [its] secular progressive bias” & claims training/ed’n on constitutional law from “Hillsdale College as well as a plethora of private studies and research.” God, per Beckwith, speaks to Beckwith. God sent “those riots” to D.C. on Jan 6. So here we go: 2/8
The next few weeks I’ll blog (civildiscoursenow) & tweet about origins of The Constitution. On a separate page sources for what I write will be listed. Sources will be primary (The Constitution itself & related official acts) and secondary (e.g., The Federalist, scholarly works, case law). 3/8
Unlike an authoritarian, I encourage ppl to read the sources I cite, as well as any other credible sources. Why the Convention was deemed necessary, who pushed for it, and how it was written are important. Contrary to Beckwith’s assertion, The Constitution is not “very easy to 4/8
understand.” First: “Who” wrote The Constitution might seem easy, especially for those who say “original intent” of the ppl who wrote The Constitution should control how we construe The Constitution today. All of the delegates were white, male & owned land; some owned a 5/8
lot of land. [FN1] At the end of the Convention, only 36 signed The Constitution, with 3 refusing to sign. The National Archives refers to the 55 delegates who attended, at one time or another between May 25 and the signing on September 17, 1787, as Framers. [FN2] States 6/8
had to ratify the document. [FN3] Conventions were held. North Carolina held two conventions because The Constitution was voted down in the first. [FN4]. The Framers’ intent on separation of church and State perhaps can be seen in the absence of one word: God does not appear 7/8
in The Constitution. Again, unlike Beckwith, I encourage people to read about the history of The Constitution. I’ll write more as time allows. And: I’m a candidate in the GOP primary for City-Council District 2. I approve of this message. Hell, I wrote it. 8/8
Comment
-
Comment by pogden297 on February 21, 2023 at 7:37am
-
The Framers’ intent on separation of church and State can be seen in the presence of one word" "establish." The prohibition on religion in the Vonstitution had to do with ESTABLISHING a national religion like there was in England. That's what the provision meant more than that - a very restrictive separation of church and state - came much later. In fact, at the time of the adoption of the First Amendment, most states had official state religions. There is no history that backs up your apparent theory that a strict separation of church and state was intended from the very beginning. The phrase "separation of church and state" appears in a letter Jefferson wrote at the time, but that's pretty much the only hook you can hang your theory on.
A more broad separation of church and state rather than a prohibition on establishing a national religion is probably good policy. But it's a stretch to say the history of the Constitution supports the theory that that is what the Founders intended.
Again, it's hard to get around the word "establish" which is the term the Founders used.
Videos
© 2024 Created by Mark Small.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Civil Discourse Now to add comments!
Join Civil Discourse Now