Posted on 06/29/2002 1:57:34 PM PDT by theoverseer
Ignorance?...SOS...DD.
FMCDH
Are you seriously contending that TJ & Madison were wrong, and that the constitution should mention that our government derives power from god through our consent? -- I hope I'm wrong. Please explain.
This idea stems from 18th century liberalism [specifically from the French revolution], which was hostile to all previous forms of political theory...specifically the theory that sovereignty resides with God....and that if power isn't exercised in harmony with God's laws, it wasn't legitimate, no matter how many people consented to it.
And again...God isn't mentioned in the constitution. And by placing sovereignty in the people alone, rather than in Divine law, the framers left the door open for any evil so long as it was justified by majority rule.
The framers specified in the constitution a republican form of government, not majority rule. -- And they also specified that congress shall make no [divine] law respecting an establishment of religion, -- .
Ultimately, the reason the constitutional system was perverted is not the fault of the governmental system set forth in the constitution, but rather that the constitution allows matters of truth and morality to become open questions.
Again, the framers specificly enumerated some rights, but left all others to the people. -- And your questions of religious truth & morality are best left to your discussions with your God, imo.
Not in our courts or legislatures.
Over time, those 16 words have been debated as However, before the American Revolution, five of the 13 states had government-sponsored churches supported by tax revenue, and most schools were church run. For many of the earliest settlers, the First Amendment came in answer to their prayers.
What is clear is that the men who framed and ratified the Constitution, as well as the Bill of Rights, sought to protect religious freedoms and to provide an active role for the government in promoting the "moral character" of the people.
George Washington, in his Farewell Address, said "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
James Madison, who wrote much of the Bill of Rights, said: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions ... upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
One Nation Under Siege
Yes yes, the old "the worlds going to the devil in a hand basket" argument, which there has always been a certain amount of the people, in every generation, since the beginning of the country making that claim.
So has does one make the determination that the moral value of the country is in decline?
In the state where I live years ago we use to have a law on the books that mandated that one was not allowed to go outside of the boundaries of there home on Sunday morning before noon, unless the were going to church. Eventually the law was repealed and people could go wherever they wanted on Sunday morning.
So does this represent a decline in moral values because people were no longer mandated by law to be setting in church on Sunday morning fearing God, or being a prisoner in there own homes? Or does it represent a rise in moral values because some people made a stand for their rights of freedom and the ability to determine where they wanted to go on Sunday morning?
I'm sure it would depend on who you ask.
There is no mention of apples or roller skating in the Constitution either. I guess the government is therefore free to prohibit those as well.
What a dumb argument. And how pathetic it is that Hentoff constructed a whole column around it.
For one thing, the above quoted sentence is in violation of the Ninth Amendment.
Are you seriously contending that TJ & Madison were wrong, and that the constitution should mention that our government derives power from god through our consent? -- I hope I'm wrong. Please explain.
This idea stems from 18th century liberalism [specifically from the French revolution], which was hostile to all previous forms of political theory...specifically the theory that sovereignty resides with God....and that if power isn't exercised in harmony with God's laws, it wasn't legitimate, no matter how many people consented to it.
And again...God isn't mentioned in the constitution. And by placing sovereignty in the people alone, rather than in Divine law, the framers left the door open for any evil so long as it was justified by majority rule.
The framers specified in the constitution a republican form of government, not majority rule. -- And they also specified that congress shall make no [divine] law respecting an establishment of religion, -- .
Ultimately, the reason the constitutional system was perverted is not the fault of the governmental system set forth in the constitution, but rather that the constitution allows matters of truth and morality to become open questions.
Again, the framers specificly enumerated some rights, but left all others to the people. -- And your questions of religious truth & morality are best left to your discussions with your God, imo.
Not in our courts or legislatures. --------------------------- Hmmm -- Italics begone?
I am attempting an explanation as to why the constitution and its system of checks and balances was perverted so quickly. Certainly, TJ and Madison never envisioned the supreme court becoming virtually absolute with no real check on power, and yet...it has become just that.
Why? The political philosophy of the founders was based on French liberalism, which made the individual conscience the sovereign judge of truth--religious and otherwise. Thier philosophy was formulated by atheists, agnostics and deists, who rejected moral absolutes. It emphasizes that men should be free to do whatever they want in moral matters and that political authority comes from the people themselves who should be free to overthrow the government--by violence if necessary--and set up new governments based on the will of the majority, as interpreted and guided by "intellectual" leaders. This stuff sparked the French revolution.
Here in America Jefferson, Franklin, and Henry, who were familiar with the writings of the French philosophers, adopted much of their philosophy and applied it to the American situation.
So...was the breakdown of our constitutional system the ramifications of liberalism? I think so. I am never popular for stating this opinion around here, but I would remind folks that all authority comes from God and if authority isn't exercised in harmony with God's law, then it isn't legitimate.
The framers specified in the constitution a republican form of government, not majority rule. -- And they also specified that congress shall make no [divine] law respecting an establishment of religion, --
Understood. But if the people were allowed to have a vote on abortion, and voted to allow all forms, the majority will have spoken. Doesn't make it right, which is why I mentioned the moral values of citizens and its leaders. Any system is only as good as the people who live under it. Also, one can acknowlede a divine creator without establishing a religion.
And why do you think the constitutional system corrupted so quickly? Please don't say "Abe Lincoln!"
I am not a fan of Henthoff, nor a libertarian, but He is technically right in saying that God isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution. In fact, its the one serious flaw that the constitution has.
Madison stated that sovereignty should rest with the people alone--or from the consent of the governed. Jefferson made the same point in the declaration of independance when he wrote: "Government's derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Are you seriously contending that TJ & Madison were wrong, and that the constitution should mention that our government derives power from god through our consent? -- I hope I'm wrong. Please explain.
This idea stems from 18th century liberalism [specifically from the French revolution], which was hostile to all previous forms of political theory...specifically the theory that sovereignty resides with God....and that if power isn't exercised in harmony with God's laws, it wasn't legitimate, no matter how many people consented to it.
And again...God isn't mentioned in the constitution. And by placing sovereignty in the people alone, rather than in Divine law, the framers left the door open for any evil so long as it was justified by majority rule.
The framers specified in the constitution a republican form of government, not majority rule. -- And they also specified that congress shall make no [divine] law respecting an establishment of religion, -- .
Ultimately, the reason the constitutional system was perverted is not the fault of the governmental system set forth in the constitution, but rather that the constitution allows matters of truth and morality to become open questions.
Again, the framers specificly enumerated some rights, but left all others to the people. -- And your questions of religious truth & morality are best left to your discussions with your God, imo.
Not in our courts or legislatures. --------------------------- Hmmm -- FULL Italics begone?
Yes there is; see the Fifth Amendment (private property shall not be taken without due process) as well as the Tenth Amendment which would seem to render a federal "Department of Education" unconstitutional, leaving it a state matter.
As for religion, the only thing forbidden by the Constitution is for Congress to make a law respecting the establishment of a religion. States are principle still free to do so, and did. (Not that I want this to happen, mind you :)
Best,
That's bull and you know it. Any child can refuse to say the pledge if he wishes. Some children even choose to say it incorrectly ("for witches' stands...."). ;)
It is worth discussion on a forum like this, but will really make little if any difference in our lives, or the fate of our country, again IMHO.
I pledge of legions to the flag... one nation, under God, invisible...
I think I learned the real words in about 3rd grade or so.
---------------------------
I am attempting an explanation as to why the constitution and its system of checks and balances was perverted so quickly. Certainly, TJ and Madison never envisioned the supreme court becoming virtually absolute with no real check on power, and yet...it has become just that.
[No, it hasn't, but granted, its rarely tested.]
Why? The political philosophy of the founders was based on French liberalism, which made the individual conscience the sovereign judge of truth--religious and otherwise. Thier philosophy was formulated by atheists, agnostics and deists, who rejected moral absolutes. It emphasizes that men should be free to do whatever they want in moral matters and that political authority comes from the people themselves who should be free to overthrow the government--by violence if necessary--and set up new governments based on the will of the majority, as interpreted and guided by "intellectual" leaders. This stuff sparked the French revolution. Here in America Jefferson, Franklin, and Henry, who were familiar with the writings of the French philosophers, adopted much of their philosophy and applied it to the American situation. So...was the breakdown of our constitutional system the ramifications of liberalism? I think so. I am never popular for stating this opinion around here, but I would remind folks that all authority comes from God and if authority isn't exercised in harmony with God's law, then it isn't legitimate.
-----------------------------
-- Whew! That's a near indecipherable lecture, imo. Sorry. ------ So, you seem to advocate some sort of 'God' amendment? -- Care to frame a sample of one?
----------------------------
The framers specified in the constitution a republican form of government, not majority rule. -- And they also specified that congress shall make no [divine] law respecting an establishment of religion, -- .
----------------------------
Understood. But if the people were allowed to have a vote on abortion, and voted to allow all forms, the majority will have spoken. Doesn't make it right, which is why I mentioned the moral values of citizens and its leaders. Any system is only as good as the people who live under it. Also, one can acknowlede a divine creator without establishing a religion. And why do you think the constitutional system corrupted so quickly? Please don't say "Abe Lincoln!"
You write 'understood', -- but then go on, and on, - making it quite clear that you haven't. -- Again, sorry I asked.
I thought it was a fairly concise description of where the founders got their political ideals from. It wasn't a condemnation of the system itself--just that it leaves God out of the equation, which then leaves questions of morality open for speculation. In fact, just about anything can be justified if its declared constitutional [i.e roe vs. wade]. That, imho, is a serious flaw. I would have preferred a little except acknowledging that the source of all authority rests with a supreme creator followed by a paragraph concerning natural law.
The framers specified in the constitution a republican form of government, not majority rule. -- And they also specified that congress shall make no [divine] law respecting an establishment of religion, -- .
Acknowledging God is a far cry from establishing a religion a la Henry VIII.
You write 'understood', -- but then go on, and on, - making it quite clear that you haven't. -- Again, sorry I asked.
I gave you an example of how the majority can vote just about anything in as constitutional. I know you understand what I am getting at. Don't be sorry. I enjoy the challenge. I undesrtand you disagree. So, what is your opinion on why the system corrpted so quickly?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.