One answer - Page 2




 
--
Boots
 
November 5th, 2004  
Duty Honor Country
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doody
I would sit down with the creators of the Constitution, and I would ask them what they intended each article to stand for. Then I would show them how the Constitution is being twisted around today and see how they would react.
The Supreme Court judges whether the laws of the land are inline with the US Constitution. They look at the Constitution in several different ways. The intent of the framers (creators) is one way the Supreme Court is suppose to interperate the Constitution. This is the focus of my answer


Freedom of Religion
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

How we have gotten this wrong. The framers of the Constitution would flip when they learn about how this amendment has been twisted to remove the term God from everything. The framers never intended that the government deny the existence of God. On December 11, 1776, the Continental Congress was instructed to take a day off to "implore the Almighty God to assist them in the war Britain." You won't find that in the history books. Try telling those guys that saying "under God" is unconstituitional. Many of the men in congress also helped to create the Constitution. Freedom of religion comes from the policies of Britain. In Britain, your religion was that of the king's. You were persecuted for practicing a different religion. That's why people came to America. I firmly believe that the mentioning of God by our government does not establish a government sponsored religion or prohibits the free exercise of any religion. The framers would agree with me on this issue.


The right to bear arms
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The framers believed in Americans keeping their guns. I do not know if the framers would support US citizens owning assault weapons. At the time, the muzzle loaders were a way of life. Many Americans needed a rifle to put food on the table. Most Americans today do not need a weapon to survive. Only the framers can answer that question.

Illegal search and seizures
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Sorry Patriot Act supporters. The framers of the constitution would die before allowing that bill to pass. Ben Franklin said it best, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I bet the framers would have something to say about the government seizing property to build a development or mall.


Right to a fair trial
" In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

I wounder what the framers would think about the relationship to money and being found innocent in court.


Income tax
" The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

One only has to read a piece from Sam Adams to understand the framers point of view. "For if our trade can be taxed, why not out lands? Why not the produce of our lands and, in short, everything we possess or make use of?" The framers would have never passed that amendment.

Gay Marriage

This point cannot be argued. Massachusetts has the oldest working constitution in the world. It was written by John Adams. A marriage is defined as a union between 2 people. John Adams did not intend a union to be between Adam and Steve. I think the Mass. Supreme Court needs to read up on John Adams before imposing their liberal views on the State.


Those are what I think the framers would say. Since I am an aspiring historian, I am probably wrong on a few things. Please let me know if I am in the wrong.

enjoy

SGT Doody

Franklin quote from the internet
other quotes from Patriots: the men who started the Revolution by AJ Langguth
November 9th, 2004  
Schwul
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doody

Gay Marriage

This point cannot be argued. Massachusetts has the oldest working constitution in the world. It was written by John Adams. A marriage is defined as a union between 2 people. John Adams did not intend a union to be between Adam and Steve. I think the Mass. Supreme Court needs to read up on John Adams before imposing their liberal views on the State.
So wait, you don't think gay people should be able to be married? I really hope that isn't true, because I'd like to be able if I wanted. I noticed you wrote "A marriage is defined as a union between 2 people" not "A marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman" so maybe I'm misunderstanding...
November 9th, 2004  
Schwul
 
Me: Hitler, do you honestly believe that'll work...
Hilter-Ja.
Me- ah.... okay.
--
Boots
November 9th, 2004  
Marksman
 
 
to troyan leader:Are u really that stupid to belive in that horse shit ?
him:yes
me:..........typical
November 9th, 2004  
Duty Honor Country
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwul
So wait, you don't think gay people should be able to be married? I really hope that isn't true, because I'd like to be able if I wanted. I noticed you wrote "A marriage is defined as a union between 2 people" not "A marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman" so maybe I'm misunderstanding...
I did not use my views on gay marriage when I wrote that piece. It was an exact quote from the Massachusetts State Constitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doody
The intent of the framers (creators) is one way the Supreme Court is suppose to interperate the Constitution. This is the focus of my answer
I looked at the constitution through the eyes of John Adams. There is no way that man supported Gay marriage since he, like most of the framers, was an extremely religious man. The Supreme Court is suppose to take the intent of the framer in making their decision. The Massachusetts Supreme Court used their on views, not the views of Adams, in making their decision.
November 9th, 2004  
Schwul
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doody
I did not use my views on gay marriage when I wrote that piece. It was an exact quote from the Massachusetts State Constitution.
So it does say "between two people" not "between a man and a woman." I'm in no way attacking you, I just see a loop hole. *laughs*
November 10th, 2004  
Duty Honor Country
 
 
there is no loop hole if you are looking at what John Adams intended it to mean...Not what liberal judges in Massachusetts think
November 11th, 2004  
silent driller
 
 
I might ask whoever passed the law banning automatic assault weapons back in the day just what the hell they were thinking. I should be able to blow your sorry ass out of my house with the weapon of my choosing.
November 11th, 2004  
Schwul
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doody
there is no loop hole if you are looking at what John Adams intended it to mean...Not what liberal judges in Massachusetts think
I just don't think it's fair to regulate who gets married. It's a right all Americans should have. I doesn't hurt anyone so it shouldn't be a problem. =/