Replies

As you state, the authors of the Federalist Papers argued that we didn't need a Bill of Rights in ensure because the Constitution did not grant anyone the power to take those rights away.

But again, the problem is that my pursuit of happiness is not necessarily yours. What if what makes you happy, deprives me of my pursuit of happiness?

Did the framers believe the First Amendment would take away prayer from the schools, or allow state secrets to be published, Satanism allowed as religion.

Did they anticipate the types of weapons we current are able to produce when they wrote the second?

Did they think the Fifth Amendment would allow crimes to go unpunished because people wouldn't testify?

Probably not.

They also thought public scurgings and whippings were not "cruel and unusual."

And are those people who seemingly disagree with you truly disbelievers?

I found this quote from Jeb I found quite interesting:

"We never said that unilaterally we would do something that's against the court," he said. "I've been asked to do it by a lot of people – a lot of the advice I'm getting over the Internet and over television and the like. I know that there were lots of rumors of things that aren't accurate. I have a duty to uphold the law and I have been very consistent about that. It seemed like a big story that never was confirmed because it wasn't true. If we had that ability to do it, if there wasn't an injunction, we would do it right now. We would stabilize her by giving her hydration. We couldn't put a feeding tube in. There was already a court order in place. The opportunity we had was appealing his decision."

If you swear an oath to God to uphold a set of rules, the Constitution, are you not moral obligated to uphold those laws even if you disagree with them?

"But again, the problem is that my pursuit of happiness is not necessarily yours. What if what makes you happy, deprives me of my pursuit of happiness?"

Ever hear the expression "Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose"? That is what the standard was. If it affected the rights of another negatively, it was impermissible. If your concept of happiness is burning down your neighbor's house, it would deprive your neighbor of his property, and possibly his life, and wouldn't be permissible. Mike Schiavo's standard of happiness seems to be to deprive his wife of her life. It isn't permissible. Problem being is that the courts have now said it IS! Ah, WRONG!

The 1st Amendment didn't take prayer from schools, nor did it allow 'state secrets' to be published. Judges did that. Men. Very fallible men. And as far as Satanism being allowed as religion? I am not about to say it isn't one. The practitioners of it think it is. I think they are idiots, but it isn't my place to say they can't, nor is it the governments.

The 2nd Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed. This allowed citizens to own cannon back then, capable of firing solid, explosive and grape shot. An 'assault rifle' pales in comparison, a mere pea shooter. The cannon were expensive, so few people actually owned them, but own them they did. Came in right handy in 1812. Most of the cannon we used against the British were privately owned.

The 5th Amendment doesn't allow crimes to go unpunished. The people who refuse to testify do. I note with dismay that I see a pattern to this post of yours. You blame the Constitution for the decisions of judges and others. The Constitution must be held blameless for the mistaken rulings judges have made, unless you are willing to blame the short skirt a woman wears for the rape the criminal commits.

I swore an oath to defend the Constitution, to defend it from enemies both foreign and domestic, not the laws of Florida. If the laws of Florida allow them to strip a disabled woman of her life, in contravention of her rights to Life, Liberty, and even your most treasured right to the pursuit of Happiness (I would think the first two would be the more important to you, but evidently not), then I must find myself in opposition to those laws.

What say you?