View Single Post
Old 11-27-2012, 09:16 PM   #381
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
Bless FSU!
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $18690
Quote:
Originally Posted by listopencil View Post
Off the top of my head, voting was limited to men who owned land or had wealth.
That's no different than the national level in the early days. Nor could women vote.
I have to say at this point in time, keeping some property ties may have prevented some of the crimes against property that we have today by govt from the Progressive era and Marxism creeping in. It's one of the few natural rights that never seems to be protected by the incorporation doctrine.

Quote:
As in our law, the foundation of our society, isn't Christian in nature. Sure, any group of like minded people can affect local law.
Sorry, I'm gonna have to disagree with this part.The foundations of our society were Christian in nature because that's who originally populated the New World, due to many of coming here for religious freedom. The Puritans persecuted the Quakers because they thought they were heretics...in fact anyone who wasn't Anglican but that eventually ended. Six of the American colonies were founded for religious reasons. Eventually the colonies were a patchwork of diverse religious communities. These colonies are the early foundations of our states and society including at the time of the ratification and early Republic. Your claim took root in the modern era and I say it's stems from the influence of the cultural Marxists.

Quote:
If that law becomes bothersome to the minority there are actions that the minority can take. That law can even be brought all the way to the Supreme Court and rendered invalid if it is deemed unconstitutional.
No it wasn't always that way. Before then it had to be natural right...not just something that was or is bothersome to some minority. No law pleases everyone. The Framers and even courts have always held that areas of crime and morality were to be left to the states per other Amendments.

Another reason I say it wasn't always this way is because the 14th Amendment was not adopted until 80 years after the ratification of the Constitution. Even then that was narrowly construed at first ( it was written for black people not for privacy) but slowly was usurped in the modern era, expanding it under liberal construction... then using the incorporation doctrine with the BoRs. I'd argue at this point it's been abused because it's destroying federalism. Yet, it's more accepted but it's bogus.

It seems you have bought into the left's idea of a living constitution where anything bothersome is some natural right and/or that the incorporation doctrine is bonafide. Many original constructionists argue this is bogus, per the notes from the original convention, and the expressed fear that the states would not being left alone. It's part of the centralization of power that the Framers warned against and the Federalists assured would not happen—but has.

There are libertarian centralizers though. Like Roger Pilon and Randy Barnett. Constitutionalists, who are also libertarians, like Woods and Paul disagree with them.

Quote:
See, that's the thing. It has nothing to do with secular humanism or atheism either. It simply means that religious beliefs aren't going to dictate law.
I disagree because there's no such thing as perfect neutrality. There's no such thing as saying beliefs can't dictate, no matter their origin, won't ever dictate law. They always do to some degree. You can't separate it as if it's two-valued logic. There are always going to be overlaps.

Quote:
"Because God said so" isn't a good enough reason. Neither is "Because I think that's what God really meant" or "Because I hate Christmas." If your religious beliefs cause you to want to vote in a certain way you already have a voice. Your religious beliefs are irrelevant to the law itself, the legislators just need your input regardless of why you feel the way you do.
Which can come from religious beliefs or anti-religious sentiments. Religious people are capable of using reason to defend some of those positions instead of just saying "God said so." It's not black and white there either. What is good or bad; right or wrong are opinions though.

I think it has to be excessive entanglement with religion like a theological denominational point. Like Prostestant Dispensationalists wanting armageddon in the ME so they can convert and perfect Jews. That to me is excessive entanglement.

Not "In God We Trust", chaplains, the frieze in the Supreme Court building, Thanksgiving originally being a national day of prayer and thanks, Christmas being a national holiday or religious creches on local town property.
__________________
“The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.” ~ James Madison, Father of the Constitution

“We do not believe in aggressive or preventive war. Such war is the weapon of dictators, not of free democratic countries like the United States.”~ Truman, Sept 1, 1950
Posts: 59,113
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote