I thought you would never find it. I transposed 59 to 95, to put you in proximity to Blackstone's comments on interpretation of law.

__________________
I find it appalling that Justice Antonin Scala, in his dissenting opinion in McCreary County v. ACLU, constructed his model of "the relationship between church and state" in America without even considering the actual text of the Constitution. How do incompetents like him get on the U. S. Supreme Court?

The fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator, is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made, by signs the most natural and probable.

--Sir William Blackstone

Where's the contradiction, grasshopper?

__________________
I find it appalling that Justice Antonin Scala, in his dissenting opinion in McCreary County v. ACLU, constructed his model of "the relationship between church and state" in America without even considering the actual text of the Constitution. How do incompetents like him get on the U. S. Supreme Court?

Just for clarity, posting of the Commandments in a courthouse is not "establishment" of religion, it is an act respecting an establishment of religion. In answer to your question -- paying for a chaplain probably is, too. However, as the recent decision reinterpreting (and in effect rewriting) the Second Amendment demonstrates, sometimes the courts interpret the Constitution in ways that do not violate common sense and the public good, even at the occasional expense of consistency. The military bends over backwards to ensure it doesn't favor one religion over another; all military chaplains have to deal with soldiers of all religious faiths, from Christianity to Buddhism, from Wicca to Islam. Strictly speaking I believe this does violate the First Amendment, but I don't care to challenge it in court, because that would be just obnoxious. Let it pass.

I just gave you some above. The government is enjoined from favoring any religion over another, or religion over irreligion (or vice-versa). Can it make government property available for religious purposes consistently with this requirement? Apparently we now believe it cannot. At one time, it was believed that it could.

Since you inserted the word "knowingly," of course not. Nor did I suggest that. I did suggest that the religious makeup of the American people has changed over time. It was not incorrect to call us a Christian nation at the time the Constitution was ratified, even though in terms of our civic foundations we were and remain a secular nation. In those days, Jews were a tiny mnority and faiths outside the Abrahamic group were all but unknown, as were Muslims. So when people thought of "establishment of religion," what they were worried about was the Presbyterians lording over the Catholics or vice-versa, not Christians lording it over non-Christians. And so as long as the Congressional chaplain was non-denominational, nobody worried about it and everyone took it for granted. Why do they still do that? Because it's a TRADITION, nobody cares enough to challenge it, and even if they did I am unconvinced that Congress cannot make its own rules which don't count as "laws" for purposes of the First Amendment.

Really? I think it might be a good idea at this point, for sake of illustration, to present the amendment in full. The context of it in terms of the time-frame becomes apparent if we do.

Section 1 is the part that's usually quoted, but if we look at the other sections, we can see very clear post-Civil War implications, and it's in that context that we need to interpret it if we want to consider original intent. Hence section 3, banning from all elected or appointed political office those who had previously held such office and thereafter supported the Confederacy.

Side-note: The clear original intent of this passage is to do just that -- deny public office to anyone who had held such office and then supported the Confederacy. BUT, despite this, it is not restricted to that; if someone today were to take an oath of office, and then commit treason, they would be banned from public office thereafter, even though they had never supported the Confederacy. Sometimes one must recognize that passages at law are deliberately written NOT to limit themselves to the immediate circumstances for which the law is intended, precisely because their framers anticipate future differing circumstances.

Moving on:

Also section 4, in which the Constitution says that the U.S. government won't pay the Confederacy's war debt, or compensate former slave owners for loss of property. Clearly a post-Civil War deal, although the part about debts incurred in service to rebellion would still apply today. And also the part about slaves, insofar as anyone is illegally holding slaves, which does occasionally happen; if you do, you can't sue the government for compensation under the Fifth Amendment when it takes your slaves away.

Now to Section 2. Here we have the federal government punishing a state (in effect) for denying the vote to people, by reducing its voice in Congress and in the Electoral College. The clear and unstated intent was to say, "You can't deny the vote to freed slaves and get away with it." (The 15th Amendment later outlawed denying the vote on account of race or previous condition of servitude, but of course that hadn't been passed yet.)

So -- clearly we have a twofold intent in the 14th Amendment. One was to deny the forces of secession a voice in the government (and refuse to take public responsibility for their debts). The other was to assure the rights, especially the right to vote, of the freed slaves, and promote racial equality.

Setting aside the first intent, the second one is clearly an imposition of a standard of equal rights on the states by the federal government. Narrowly interpreted, it applies only to the rights of black people who were former slaves, but since it doesn't actually SAY that, they cannot be denied to people of other races, either.

And there you have the clear intent of the framers of the amendment at the time it was ratified: to guarantee the rights of U.S. citizens (especially black ones who were previously enslaved) against any actions that might be taken by state governments (especially those that had been in secession). So the incorporation doctrine is entirely in keeping with the spirit and intent of the amendment, and the only basis for objecting to it is not that, but rather a quibble of language.

Oh, now you're really reaching. Do you have any support for the idea that the intent of wording it that way was negative rather than positive? Is it not clear that the First Amendment is entirely about the relations between the federal government and the people, and not at all about those between the federal government and the states?

"Respecting" does not expand or contract the term "establishment," no, but "respecting an establishment of religion" does not mean the same thing as "establishing a religion," although of course it includes that latter meaning.

I admitted nothing of the sort. Please peruse this post for my explanation of why certain actions were not at the time construed as "respecting an establishment of religion" which are so construed today. It is not that the meaning of the amendment has changed, but that American society has changed and so actions which did not move that way once, today do.

Dude, you said the "plain meaning" rule was,

...the meaning of a statute must, in the first instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed, and if that is plain... the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms.

Your "plain meaning rule" says nothing whatsoever about words being generally understood in their usual and most known signification or their general and popular use. In fact, it says nothing whatsoever about how to distinguish "plain language" from "decorated language", which is why your "plain meaning rule" is useless.

__________________
I find it appalling that Justice Antonin Scala, in his dissenting opinion in McCreary County v. ACLU, constructed his model of "the relationship between church and state" in America without even considering the actual text of the Constitution. How do incompetents like him get on the U. S. Supreme Court?

What rule did you use to ascertain the meaning of the word "religion" in the establishment clause. I used what I refer to as Blackstone's first three rules of construction and find the word "religion" defined in the "subject matter" to mean "the duty we owe to our Creator....."

Here are what I refer to as "Blackstone's first three rules of construction."

1. Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.. terms of art, or technical terms, must be taken according to the acceptation of the learned in each art, trade, and science...where words are clearly repugnant in two laws, the later law takes place of the elder.

2. IF words happen to be still dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context; with which it may be of singular use to compare a word, or a sentence, whenever they are ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate. Thus the proeme, or preamble, is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament. Of the fame nature and use is the comparison of a law with other laws, that are made by the fame legislator, that have some affinity with the subject, or that expressly relate to the fame point.

3. AS to the subject matter, words are always to be understood as having a regard thereto; for that is always supposed to be in the eye of the legislator, and all his expressions directed to that end.

__________________
I find it appalling that Justice Antonin Scala, in his dissenting opinion in McCreary County v. ACLU, constructed his model of "the relationship between church and state" in America without even considering the actual text of the Constitution. How do incompetents like him get on the U. S. Supreme Court?

Since you have such a difficult time following things, let me remind you I also said (the very first time I made mention of the Plain Meaning rule in our discussions:

Plain Meaning
When writing statutes, the legislature intends to use ordinary English words in their ordinary senses.

You then in tribute to your inability to understand basic English posted the exact same thing I just did a as though it contradicted what I was saying:

So, tell me oh great and wise expositor of legal history, how does that differ in meaning from what I posted originally as the meaning of the Plain Meaning Rule:

Quote:

Plain Meaning When writing statutes, the legislature intends to use ordinary English words in their ordinary senses.

Mick Jagger
Your "plain meaning rule" says nothing whatsoever about words being generally understood in their usual and most known signification or their general and popular use. In fact, it says nothing whatsoever about how to distinguish "plain language" from "decorated language", which is why your "plain meaning rule" is useless.[/quote]

How utterly dishonest and pathetically desperate, you are proven to be WRONG, completely and utterly WRONG and you resort to playing fatuous word games, even going so far as to put the term "decorated language" in quotations marks, as though your own desperate resort to that term to is a citation of some use of this term in the context of legal history and interpretation.

You further demonstrate your ignorance by referring to it as "your" (meaning mine) Plain English rule, showing that you are unaware that this is not some term I have made up, but is an existing legal term (unlike "decorated language") which are you utterly ignorant of the meaning of.

I realize why you think it is so difficult to distinguish between "plain language" and "decorated language", because the rule is rooted in basic common sense (which you are clearly lacking in).

Here is an example.

If there is a traffic sign (which by law you are required to obey) which says "left lane must turn left", the plain meaning rule means that the word left in that context means a direction, and not--for example--that you must change your political leanings to the "left". If you think such common sense application of the plain meaning rule is difficult, well then, it is a wonder your brain generates enough power to move your fingers!

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Marcus:

Let me bottom line it for you. The Constitution should be interpreted according to the law of legal instrument interpretation prevailing at the time the Constitution was made, and I'm not going to waste my time considering interpretations you just pull out of your ass.

__________________
I find it appalling that Justice Antonin Scala, in his dissenting opinion in McCreary County v. ACLU, constructed his model of "the relationship between church and state" in America without even considering the actual text of the Constitution. How do incompetents like him get on the U. S. Supreme Court?

No offense but this is utter bunk. The word Creator refers to God. The Declaration of Independence references four of the names of God (nature's god, creator, Supreme Judge of the world, divine providence). Just because it doesn't scream at the top of it's lungs, "Yes! We are talking about God!" does not mean that it isn't referencing him. Your logic is as faulty as stating that saying "Commander in Chief" is not referencing the President.

But if you still don't believe me, consider this quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"

__________________
Serious Quotes:


Funny But True Quotes
Those who argue for complete secularism are funny. They see what government does and then argue that we don't need it to start with prayer.

How does that change the Constitution to give the government authority over religion?

__________________
I find it appalling that Justice Antonin Scala, in his dissenting opinion in McCreary County v. ACLU, constructed his model of "the relationship between church and state" in America without even considering the actual text of the Constitution. How do incompetents like him get on the U. S. Supreme Court?

I'm not really sure what you are referring to. My post above was responding to previous posts claiming that the Declaration of Independence was not referencing God. Could you explain what you mean a little more?

By the by, the wording you use in your question is misleading. The Constitution does not give government authority over religion, no, but that does not mean that a general respect, support and reverence to religion is prohibited. I believe that the Founders proved that by all the things they did in office that could be considered religious in nature. (For example, having a local clergy member offer a prayer prior to their meetings)

__________________
Serious Quotes:


Funny But True Quotes
Those who argue for complete secularism are funny. They see what government does and then argue that we don't need it to start with prayer.

I understood that the DOI was being used to ascertain the meaning of the Constitution as regards the relationship of religion to civil authority. I was pointing out that the DOI, at least in my most humble of views, is irrelevant when it comes to ascertaining the meaning of the Constitution, unless allowed under the rules of construction, as they existed in the late 1780's.

__________________
I find it appalling that Justice Antonin Scala, in his dissenting opinion in McCreary County v. ACLU, constructed his model of "the relationship between church and state" in America without even considering the actual text of the Constitution. How do incompetents like him get on the U. S. Supreme Court?

I agree.

I agree, as long as the respect proffered by the civil authority doesn't involve even the slightest color of civil authority over religion.

The best way for civil government to respect religion is to exclude it from it's cognizance and allow each person to obey his religious conscience, provided it does not require him to violate the law, do injury to his neighbor or violate his social duties.

__________________
I find it appalling that Justice Antonin Scala, in his dissenting opinion in McCreary County v. ACLU, constructed his model of "the relationship between church and state" in America without even considering the actual text of the Constitution. How do incompetents like him get on the U. S. Supreme Court?