The U.S. Constitution

[sean miguel]

there it is, right there. That obelisk.

have at it.

thank God for the wisdom and the foresight of our founding fathers to craft this document.

The United States of America is the greatest country in the history of this world because of it.

 

[Johan]

A masterpiece, indeed. But unfortunately, what was thought by the founding fathers as a living document seems now dead

To keep its relevance intact such a document needs a little refreshing once in a while. Unfortunately vertmy few people dares to make positive critics, to suggest some changes that would make a document written 250 years ago still adapted to America abd to the world in 2018

 

[sean miguel]

A masterpiece, indeed. But unfortunately, what was thought by the founding fathers as a living document seems now Dead

To keep its relevance intact such a document needs a little refreshing once in a while. Unfortunately vertmy few people dares to make positive critics, to suggest some changes that would make a document written 250 years ago still adapted to America abd to the world in 2018

a "living" document? please define that. 4 out of 9 SCOTUS justices consistently feel the same. Can it mean whatever you want it to mean based on whatever current social mores?

There's a process in place to AMEND the Constitution by ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, but other than that, it means what it says.

 

[Johan]

It means what it says but people aren't even agreeing on what it says.

For example, Alabama Chief' Justice Roy Morre said that in only christians have 1st amendment rights, not atheists , not buddhist, not hindis, not jews, not muslims, etc...
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/judge-first-amendment-only-christians
Although one could argue that, since the christian god, Allah and the god of the jews is the same, the First amendment applies to all of them...

We're not talking about soem uneducated John Doe living in a trailer in the middle of nowhere. We're not even talking about a well known conservative radio and podcast host like Bryan Fisher (who agrees with moore on that). We're talking about the former Alabama Chief Justice, a man who almost got elected to congress a few months ago.

 

[RJS13]

Learn it, love it, live it

Especially the 2nd

 

[Jack Davenport]

It means what it says but people aren't even agreeing on what it says.

For example, Alabama Chief' Justice Roy Morre said that in only christians have 1st amendment rights, not atheists , not buddhist, not hindis, not jews, not muslims, etc...
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/judge-first-amendment-only-christians
Although one could argue that, since the christian god, Allah and the god of the jews is the same, the First amendment applies to all of them...

We're not talking about soem uneducated John Doe living in a trailer in the middle of nowhere. We're not even talking about a well known conservative radio and podcast host like Bryan Fisher (who agrees with moore on that). We're talking about the former Alabama Chief Justice, a man who almost got elected to congress a few months ago.

More than likely Moore’s interpretation of the establishment clause is correct when considering the intent of the framers. “ God” to 18th century intellectuals most certainly meant the God of Abraham and the Holy Trinity. The Establishment of The Church Of England had played into the establishment clause as well.

The framers tried to create as perfect a document as possible and they succeeded. The only living and breathing part of the constitution is the ability to amend it which they gave to us.

Here’s a link to a timeline of religious persecution in England and Europe:

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

It gives insight into the mindset of those that framed the constitution and what inhabitants of the colonies were trying to stop from happening here. Of course that interpretation will not fly amongst conventional wisdom now, but atheists and other religions not based upon God or Christ were not the intended beneficiaries of the first amendment.

 

[Johan]

More than likely Moore’s interpretation of the establishment clause is correct when considering the intent of the framers. “ God” to 18th century intellectuals most certainly meant the God of Abraham and the Holy Trinity. The Establishment of The Church Of England had played into the establishment clause as well.

The framers tried to create as perfect a document as possible and they succeeded. The only living and breathing part of the constitution is the ability to amend it which they gave to us.

Here’s a link to a timeline of religious persecution in England and Europe:

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

It gives insight into the mindset of those that framed the constitution and what inhabitants of the colonies were trying to stop from happening here. Of course that interpretation will not fly amongst conventional wisdom now, but atheists and other religions not based upon God or Christ were not the intended beneficiaries of the first amendment.

To me, the Founding Fathers wanted to create a document that would last. They were probably aware that, with time, other religions would make their way to America and they did not wanted their followers to be persecuted.
To me, that's why their used quite a broad language all along the Constitution : because they di not wanted to use a more specific language that would make the document irrelevant as time would pass

 

[Jack Davenport]

To me, the Founding Fathers wanted to create a document that would last. They were probably aware that, with time, other religions would make their way to America and they did not wanted their followers to be persecuted.
To me, that's why their used quite a broad language all along the Constitution : because they di not wanted to use a more specific language that would make the document irrelevant as time would pass

They were seeking to protect the rights of those that worshiped a God that was understood to be the divine creator. They put in place a mechanism to change it. Their original intent was to protect the right to practice predominate religions in the colonies at that time.

 

[ChuckFaze]

I think it either:
(1) Is weak and useless
(2) Bends way more than a rubber band
(3) Is EXTREMELY subject to interpretation
(4) Means something way more different now than when it was written. Heck, it apparently means something way different now than it did 20 or 30 years ago.

How else would all the illegals be getting their way with everything they want. Especially with their slimebag enabling, aiding and abetting Federal Judges.