[Ditto]

Here is a discussion of the constitutionality of the Northwest Ordinance that holds that the Ordinance is not constitutional. Link.

Yep. I have seen it before. It's hosted on left wing atheist forum that seeks to twist the 1st Amendment into being anti-religous and without saying so, use many of Taney's Dred Scott arguments to do so. They are stretching beyond any credibility.

If you care, read Justice McLean's dissent in Dred Scott. He ridicules the notion that the NW Ordinance was unconstitutional.

[rustbucket]

Yep. I have seen it before. It's hosted on left wing atheist forum that seeks to twist the 1st Amendment into being anti-religous and without saying so, use many of Taney's Dred Scott arguments to do so. They are stretching beyond any credibility.

Sorry, but you have not addressed the arguments about constitutionality discussed in the article I linked to but are instead trying to damn them by calling that site "left wing atheist" seeking "to twist the 1st Amendment." Address the constitutionality issue and the court opinions mentioned, please.

Perhaps the link you provided does address those arguments, but I can't read your link because Jim and John are apparently still having problems with the FR database (the reason why the system has been down this afternoon and evening) where your link to an FR item is archived. I'll try your link tomorrow when the database might be back up.