You profess that you agree with the Biblical admonition to not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouth, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen, yet you have posted lies. You have spent most of your posts on this thread attempting to tear down the less educated readers of this forum by taking a bowel movement on the Constitution. That you profess to believe in wholesome speech is the greatest indication that your motive behind the lunacy you have posted is malicious deception. Lies do not build others up and it is a Christian imperative to reveal lies by truth, so that is what I have done with the slop you've presented here, post by post and line by line.
D)
1) The spirit of the constitution is a)protect the sovereignty of the nation-state of the US and b) protect the religious freedom in the US. BOTH. But, both are being attacked by a thousand paper cuts.
The very words of that sacred document declare openly what its intended purpose is. Your interpretation of its 'spirit' is not required.
2) Article I, Section 8, beginning in paragraph 9 is where you will find the Constitutional Law regarding the specifics of how Congress may declare war, raise and support Armies (but no appropriation of funds shall be for more than 2 years), provide and maintain a Navy and land forces, call forth the Militia, erect forts, arsenals, etc., and make all laws necessary and proper to the execution of the foregoing powers.
Article II, Section 2, paragraph 1 names the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and of the Militia of the several states when called into service of the United States.
3) These specifics in the body of the United States Constitution addressing war and the protection of our borders, sovereignty, and lands notwithstanding, that sacred document's intended and clearly written purpose is to establish our unique form of government, define how powers of the United States government are divided into three coequal branches, what specific powers each of those branches holds, and what checks and balances are available when one branch seeks to usurp more power than it is Constitutionally allowed.
4) The freedom of religion is not addressed in any Article of the Constitution's body, but rather in the Amendments known as the Bill of Rights. Arguably, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have not since their ratification existed as separate or independent documents, but exist as one whole, defining the Law of the Land, and it is generally accepted that the reference to the one includes by inference the reference to the other.
5) The freedom of religion which is man's right by birth (see Declaration of Independence) is protected as a natural right under the Laws of these United States specifically addressed in Amendment I of the Bill of Rights. No "spirit" of any law is needed; the plain words of the written law are there for all to read.
6) My point it this: leftist have used LEGAL LAWS to OUTLAW RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION. They have twisted the spirit of the constitution, succesfully, through worshipping legalism. Ditto with regards to the multi-national organizations, esp the U.N.
Such filth you have spewed on this forum concerning the sacred text of our Constitution!
a) There is no such thing as a "legal law" in the United States which can "outlaw religious expression" short of a Constitutional Amendment. Any ruling attempting to do so is by its nature in opposition to the very clearly worded law of the U. S. Constitution/Bill of Rights and therefore void. Even should an Amendment to the U. S. Constitution be passed which in any way abridges the human right to freedom of religion it would, according to the organic law of the Declaration of Independence, be null, and subject to that founding document's provision for the right of the people to alter or abolish any form of government which becomes destructive of its intended institution to secure the God-given rights of the people.7) The 'true' conservatives who hate Bush over the immigration issue, are using legalisms to justify their hatred of Bush. They are, in an unintentional way, following the model of the trojan horse islamo/communists that are DESPERATELY trying to bring on a major economic meltdown on earth.
b) Leftists do not worship legalism. I have addressed this in a previous post. Because repetition makes such an excellent teacher I will say again that the liberal democrats have not sought and do not seek to enforce current U. S. law; they have not sought and do not seek to change the law of the land by Amendment, which is the only legal path to doing so; and they have no intention, method, consensus, or majority by which to seek future changes in law. They have not used legal means in their attempts to make new law and/or nullify the old, rather they have usurped powers not granted them in the courts, and the Constitution provides a very clear check to this usurpation: impeachment of judges by Congress. The leftists have also made use of their propaganda machine known as the Mainstream Media. Saying a thing is so does not make it so; as you have demonstrated, any liar can do that. For this very reason our Founders sealed in writing and with the consent of the governed our very specific laws pertaining to the form and function of our government and the freedoms of our people.
c) Organizations such as the United Nations have authority over our nation and her laws only insofar as Congress gives it to them by treaty. No treaty made with any nation or conglomerate of nations can by fiat or force nullify the Law of the Land of the United States of America. The only legal means by which our Constitution and our sovereignty can by changed is by amendment, with the consent of the governed. Any word or claim to the contrary is at best a lie and at worst treason according to our charters.
con·ser·va·tism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-sûrv-tzm)
n.
The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
______________________________________________________
8) I don't know any conservatives that "hate Bush over the immigration issue." I know many conservatives (as well as liberals, libertarians and disaffected voters) who disagree with him stridently on that issue and are opposed to the implementation by Congress of the President's proposal.
9) As far as using "legalisms" to justify one's position for or against Illegal Alien Forgiveness, the Law of the Land is the Law of the Land and if a proposal does not come in line with the Law of the Land it can not be made into law without amending the Law of the Land. You have a very unhealthy disrespect for Law, gobucks, evidenced by every reference to 'legalisms.' The Law is the Law and there are very specific ways to change Law legally, or to make new Law legally. If it is illegal for immigrants to enter the United States in any way other than that prescribed by Congress, and if there are laws in place by which this illegal behavior is punished, the only way the breaking of the law can be forgiven is by a Presidential pardon. Presidents pardon criminals all the time. As Americans we have the protected right of disagreeing with this practice. As Americans living in a century of terrorist attacks upon our soil we would be remiss in failing to disagree with such a practice.
10) RE: Trojan Horse
n.
1: a subversive group that supports the enemy and engages in espionage or sabotage; an enemy in your midst [syn: fifth column]
__________________________________________________________