APP - “One Nation Under God”

Socrtease said:
Bullshit. You know nothing about your State Constitution or how language is removed. A court ruling cannot remove a provision of your states consitution. It must be removed during a constitutional rewrite, the last of which occurred in your state in 1971, 8 before a NC State court struck it down. Soooo you fail again. You really aren't just a Federal Constitutitard, you are a State Constitutitard as well.
Click to expand...
The legislature can do a re-write any time they please. Instead they tell the court to pound sand. :)
 
Southern Man said:
:lol: You used Wikipedia as your source and didn't have the balls to link it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Constitution#Infeasible_Provisions
Click to expand...
and there is no error in it at all. You are trying to get out of being so overwhelmingly wrong that you use appeal to ridicule rather than telling me how I was wrong. I kicked your fucking ass in this debate. YOU didn't even know that your own state court had struck down that provision. You have ZERO knowledge of your own states legal system or your constitution. It was simple research that took less than 10 minutes
 
Interesting, a sorta Sarah Palin view of reality, except Sarah would be lost on what most of these people accomplished. I found it curious he excluded FDR and LBJ, and even Nixon, three presidents who did some tough things that actually helped people. But he included Reagan who is by far the worse president of modern times when it comes to a 'sermon on the mount' theme painting. Schweitzer and Pasteur are missing too but then a great deal of goodness is missing from this soap opera moral hooey.


I would recommend anyone interested in religion in our founding check out:
The Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State by Isaac Kramnick, R. Laurence Moore (see below)

"Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton's flippant responses when asked about it: According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of "foreign aid"; according to another, he simply said "we forgot." But as Hamilton's biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important.

In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has remarked, in the "only Heaven knows" sense). In the Declaration of Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," and the famous line about men being "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." More blatant official references to a deity date from long after the founding period: "In God We Trust" did not appear on our coinage until the Civil War, and "under God" was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy hysteria in 1954 [see Elisabeth Sifton, "The Battle Over the Pledge," April 5, 2004]."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/allen

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Godless-Constitution-Moral-Defense-secular/dp/0393328376/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205111362&sr=1-1"]Amazon.com: The Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State (9780393328370): Isaac Kramnick, R. Laurence Moore: Books[/ame]
 
What united the three groups, Holmes writes, was their belief in a guiding Providence and eternal life, the importance of virtue and Jesus’ ethical teachings, and love of religious freedom and hatred of tyranny.
Click to expand...

In other words, they were all spiritual people and believed in something greater than man. This makes sense, given the original premise on which America declared independence and established a nation. The Constitution does not mention God, it's not supposed to mention God, it is presumed you understand it exists only because God endowed us with certain unalienable rights, one of which, was to pen a Constitution of self-governance. It specifically doesn't mention God because it doesn't need to. The Constitution is the rule of law we live by, and freedom of religion is part of that.

Our nation was founded on the principle of our endowed rights from God. Because these rights are divine province, they can't be taken away or restricted by man. It is on that basis, we are able to justify independence from Britain, and form our nation. If that premise is removed, we can not justify departing from the British government, or provide the cornerstone for religious freedom in America, or any other freedoms we consider endowed by our Creator. This truth has to be "self-evident" or the entire principle of what America stand for, fails.
 
Socrtease said:
and there is no error in it at all. You are trying to get out of being so overwhelmingly wrong that you use appeal to ridicule rather than telling me how I was wrong. I kicked your fucking ass in this debate. YOU didn't even know that your own state court had struck down that provision. You have ZERO knowledge of your own states legal system or your constitution. It was simple research that took less than 10 minutes
Click to expand...
Wiki can be written by anyone and thus is rarely a reliable source. It provides no details of the case, therefore is a failure as a source. The fact that you neglected to provide a link tells me that you knew that, but did it anyway hoping I wouldn't notice.
 
Southern Man said:
Once again your wiki source is wrong, omitting the Constitution of 1835. http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/32/entry
Click to expand...

Actually you fucking retard I got this directly from http://statelibrary.ncdcr.gov/nc/stgovt/preconst.htm#1835 which spells out that in 1835 there were only amendments and NOT a rewritting of the constitution. Again you KNOW shit about your own states history. But that is fine, I still owned your ass with this one. I have shown everyone that can actually admit that you know nothing about your states own constitutional history.

From that website, which is the state library:

Constitution of 1971
From 1869 through 1968, there were submitted to the voters of North Carolina a total of 97 propositions for amending the Constitution of the State. All but one of these proposals originated in the General Assembly. Of those 97 amendment proposals, 69 were ratified by the voters and 28 were rejected by them. The changing attitude of the voters toward Constitutional amendments is well illustrated by the fact that from 1869 to 1933, 21 of the 48 amendment propositions were rejected by the voters, a failure rate of three out of seven. Between 1933 and 1968, only seven of 49 proposed amendments were rejected by the voters, a failure rate of one out of seven.
After the amendments of the early 1960's, the pressure for Constitutional change seemed at the time to have abated. Yet while an increasingly frequently used amendment process had relieved many of the pressures that otherwise would have strengthened the case for Constitutional reform, it had not kept the Constitution current in all respects. Constitutional amendments usually were drafted in response to particular problems experienced or anticipated and generally they were limited in scope so as to achieve the essential goal, while arousing minimum unnecessary opposition. Thus amendments sometimes were not as comprehensive as they should have been to avoid inconsistency in result. Obsolete and invalid provisions had been allowed to remain in the Constitution to mislead the unwary reader. Moreover, in the absence of a comprehensive reappraisal, there had been no recent occasion to reconsider Constitutional provisions that might be obsolescent but might not have proved so frustrating or unpopular in their effect as to provoke curative amendments.

The highlighted part shows that the only time obsolete provisions are removed is during a complete rewrite. Again, Constitutitard, you lose. This is too easy.
 
Jeebus, dude. It's really nothing to argue. The SCOTUS and your state courts agree, it simply cannot be applied. Plus a Satanist could easily say they believe in God... It wouldn't even be effective even if somebody tried to apply it today.
 
Damocles said:
Jeebus, dude. It's really nothing to argue. The SCOTUS and your state courts agree, it simply cannot be applied. Plus a Satanist could easily say they believe in God... It wouldn't even be effective even if somebody tried to apply it today.
Click to expand...
He will never admit he is wrong. His own courts don't count. No court counts. The only thing that counts is original intent. This is someone that does not believe in the sovereignty of his own courts.
 
Socrtease said:
He will never admit he is wrong. His own courts don't count. No court counts. The only thing that counts is original intent. This is someone that does not believe in the sovereignty of his own courts.
Click to expand...
It's a bit ridiculous, the original intent of the constitution allowed for Amendments to change it. One that was properly ratified applied all the rights appertaining to all US citizens to the government at all levels, this simply made it so that all your guaranteed rights, including that of the 1st Amendment, applied at every level of government, not just that of the Federal government (like the religious test clause).

This isn't rocket science, and it is fully within the original intent of the founders who added that portion that allowed for amendments.
 
Damocles said:
It's a bit ridiculous, the original intent of the constitution allowed for Amendments to change it. One that was properly ratified applied all the rights appertaining to all US citizens to the government at all levels, this simply made it so that all your guaranteed rights, including that of the 1st Amendment, applied at every level of government, not just that of the Federal government (like the religious test clause).

This isn't rocket science, and it is fully within the original intent of the founders who added that portion that allowed for amendments.
Click to expand...
Still what kills me is SM's claim that if this was challenged that it would no doubt survive muster and what he didn't know about his own state is that 30 years ago his own court struck down the law. Also he doesn't now how the text of his constitution gets changed. He is a moron and yet too many people on this board think he is a genius. Floors me. But then again, tons of people from his perspective think that Palin is a political genius. So I guess should be no suprise.
 
Socrtease said:
Actually you fucking retard I got this directly from http://statelibrary.ncdcr.gov/nc/stgovt/preconst.htm#1835 which spells out that in 1835 there were only amendments and NOT a rewritting of the constitution. Again you KNOW shit about your own states history. But that is fine, I still owned your ass with this one. I have shown everyone that can actually admit that you know nothing about your states own constitutional history.

From that website, which is the state library:

Constitution of 1971
From 1869 through 1968, there were submitted to the voters of North Carolina a total of 97 propositions for amending the Constitution of the State. All but one of these proposals originated in the General Assembly. Of those 97 amendment proposals, 69 were ratified by the voters and 28 were rejected by them. The changing attitude of the voters toward Constitutional amendments is well illustrated by the fact that from 1869 to 1933, 21 of the 48 amendment propositions were rejected by the voters, a failure rate of three out of seven. Between 1933 and 1968, only seven of 49 proposed amendments were rejected by the voters, a failure rate of one out of seven.
After the amendments of the early 1960's, the pressure for Constitutional change seemed at the time to have abated. Yet while an increasingly frequently used amendment process had relieved many of the pressures that otherwise would have strengthened the case for Constitutional reform, it had not kept the Constitution current in all respects. Constitutional amendments usually were drafted in response to particular problems experienced or anticipated and generally they were limited in scope so as to achieve the essential goal, while arousing minimum unnecessary opposition. Thus amendments sometimes were not as comprehensive as they should have been to avoid inconsistency in result. Obsolete and invalid provisions had been allowed to remain in the Constitution to mislead the unwary reader. Moreover, in the absence of a comprehensive reappraisal, there had been no recent occasion to reconsider Constitutional provisions that might be obsolescent but might not have proved so frustrating or unpopular in their effect as to provoke curative amendments.

The highlighted part shows that the only time obsolete provisions are removed is during a complete rewrite. Again, Constitutitard, you lose. This is too easy.
Click to expand...

The Convention of 1835 changed the Constitution hugely, for example representation by population instead of property values, and reducing the religious requirements to hold office. It's essentially a rewrite with regards to the issue we are discussing and you didn't know that due to your reliance on Wikipedia.
 
Damocles said:
Jeebus, dude. It's really nothing to argue. The SCOTUS and your state courts agree, it simply cannot be applied. Plus a Satanist could easily say they believe in God... It wouldn't even be effective even if somebody tried to apply it today.
Click to expand...
Sure they could lie and I suspect that they would. They wouldn't bring out the ACLU for fear of losing.
 
Socrtease said:
He will never admit he is wrong. His own courts don't count. No court counts. The only thing that counts is original intent. This is someone that does not believe in the sovereignty of his own courts.
Click to expand...
The courts are not sovereign; they are subservient to the legislature and the People. :palm:
 
Southern Man said:
In other words, free speech is only OK when its liberal free speech. :pke:
Click to expand...
How comes when you cons get crushed on a point your reacction is make something up and put words in peoples mouths they didn't say. McIdiot in an intolerant prick. He's not conservative. He's just a garden variety bigot.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
How comes when you cons get crushed on a point your reacction is make something up and put words in peoples mouths they didn't say. McIdiot in an intolerant prick. He's not conservative. He's just a garden variety bigot.
Click to expand...
You don't know that; its you who is being intolerant of the man's views.
 
Southern Man said:
The Convention of 1835 changed the Constitution hugely, for example representation by population instead of property values, and reducing the religious requirements to hold office. It's essentially a rewrite with regards to the issue we are discussing and you didn't know that due to your reliance on Wikipedia.
Click to expand...
The 1835 convention was NOT a rewrite. And I got that DIRECTLY from the NC State Library and NOT Wikipedia, which gets most of it's information from your state site. Again, appealing to ridicule based on the source does nothing to bolster your argument. Why don't you e-mail the PhD in the other source and ask him about it. Hell when you get his answer you can post it here. My bet is you don't have half a ball in your sack to do it. You would be terrified to be proven wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top