"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:00:25 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:28:11 -0400, P Fritz wrote:


There were also offical STATE religions until the middle 1800's

Yeah but, in the continuing dichotomy of state and federal powers,
that
was trumped by the Fourteenth Amendment. Besides, no one hear is
talking
about a state religion, they are talking about a federal religion,
and
that has always been proscribed.

I want a state sponsored religion - let's call it the Church of
Lightning and Thunder.

The mythology will be "don't pay your taxes, zap/kaboom!!!

Yeah, that works. :)


I wonder if the liebrals hear the whooshing sound passing over their
heads.

When did school systems established by state guvmint become
federalized?

The fact that official state religions existed for decades after the
founding of the federal guvmint, without objections from the writers
of
the
constitution, is proof enough that there was no intent of a "wall of
separation" that the liebrals constanting demand.


I and most people are against state religions.

I do not believe that states should have an official religion, but the
U.S.
Constitution does not prohibit it.

The US constitution also
governs what states can do.

Yes, it bars states from limiting rights granted in the US Constitution.

But no where in the constitution is the phase
"separation of church and state".

Correct.

The founders did not want a government
sanctioned religion, ala Church Of England.

They did not want a Federal Government religion.........the states were
allowed to do as they choose.


No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also bound by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of that.
The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was written......thus
no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of
church and state" that exists today

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:37:03 -0400, P Fritz wrote:


Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of
that. The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written......thus no "Federally established religion" not the perverted
"separation of church and state" that exists today

Ah, the old original intent BS. The Constitution was never meant to be a
static document, see Article V. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state
religions. If this makes you unhappy, you are free to once again amend
the Constitution, but fortunately, I doubt you will find the votes.

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...


snipped

No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of
that.
The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written......thus
no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of
church and state" that exists today


The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the
consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its
original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the constitution"
they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I interpret
it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it is a
flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers expected
the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for hundreds
of years.


--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

Peter Aitken wrote:
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...


snipped

No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of
that.
The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written......thus
no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of
church and state" that exists today


The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the
consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its
original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the constitution"
they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I interpret
it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it is a
flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers expected
the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for hundreds
of years.


I must agree with Peter. If the founders thought that there would never
be a need to interpret the Constitution or to resolve differences
between opposing interpretations the Constitution would not provide for
a Supreme Court.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Peter Aitken wrote:
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...


snipped

No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also
bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit
federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a
few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it
has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of
that.
The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written......thus
no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of
church and state" that exists today


The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the
consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its
original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the
constitution"
they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I interpret
it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it
is a
flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers
expected
the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for
hundreds
of years.


I must agree with Peter. If the founders thought that there would never
be a need to interpret the Constitution or to resolve differences
between opposing interpretations the Constitution would not provide for
a Supreme Court.


They needed the 3rd leg of government, the Supreme Court, to make sure the
other 2 branches did not take liberties with the interpretation of the
Constitution.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Peter Aitken wrote:
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...


snipped

No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also
bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit
federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a
few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it
has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of
that.
The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written......thus
no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of
church and state" that exists today


The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the
consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its
original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the
constitution"
they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I interpret
it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it
is a
flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers
expected
the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for
hundreds
of years.


I must agree with Peter. If the founders thought that there would never
be a need to interpret the Constitution or to resolve differences
between opposing interpretations the Constitution would not provide for
a Supreme Court.

Wrong. The primary purpose of the Supreme court is to resolve differences
between the states and to ensure that the President and Congress don't do
anything to crazy.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Peter Aitken wrote:
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...


snipped

No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also
bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit
federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a
few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it
has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of
that.
The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written......thus
no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of
church and state" that exists today


The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the
consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its
original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the
constitution"
they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I
interpret
it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it
is a
flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers
expected
the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for
hundreds
of years.


I must agree with Peter. If the founders thought that there would never
be a need to interpret the Constitution or to resolve differences
between opposing interpretations the Constitution would not provide for
a Supreme Court.

Wrong. The primary purpose of the Supreme court is to resolve differences
between the states and to ensure that the President and Congress don't do
anything to crazy.



You comment is astoundingly ignorant. No offense meant, but if you really
think that then you are in a really bad way.


--
Peter Aitken

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Peter Aitken wrote:
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...


snipped

No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also
bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit
federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a
few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it
has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of
that.
The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written......thus
no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation
of
church and state" that exists today


The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it
was
written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the
consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its
original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the
constitution"
they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I
interpret
it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it
is a
flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers
expected
the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for
hundreds
of years.


I must agree with Peter. If the founders thought that there would never
be a need to interpret the Constitution or to resolve differences
between opposing interpretations the Constitution would not provide for
a Supreme Court.

Wrong. The primary purpose of the Supreme court is to resolve differences
between the states and to ensure that the President and Congress don't do
anything to crazy.



You comment is astoundingly ignorant. No offense meant, but if you really
think that then you are in a really bad way.

There really aint a whole lot in article III, is there?

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...


snipped

No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit
federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a
few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of
that.
The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written......thus
no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of
church and state" that exists today


The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the
consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its
original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the
constitution"
they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I interpret
it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it is
a
flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers
expected
the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for
hundreds
of years.

Horse****.

There is a reason for the Amendment process defined in the Constitution.

It is ignorance to believe that the original authors DID NOT intend the
Constitution to be adhered to as written or amended


http://realclearpolitics.com/Comment..._14_05_TS.html



--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...


snipped

No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also
bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit
federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a
few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it
has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

The fact that several states had official state religions is proof of
that.
The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written......thus
no "Federally established religion" not the perverted "separation of
church and state" that exists today


The idea that "The Constitution was intended to be interpreted as it was
written" is pure nonsense. First of all, everyone interprets the
consitution, even those who believe we should limit ourselves to its
original meaning. When conservatives say "don;t interpret the
constitution"
they really mean "don;t interpret it differently from the way I interpret
it." Secondly, the success of the constitution lies in the fact that it
is
a
flexible document. It is just plain silly to think that the framers
expected
the document to be adhered to in a literal word-for-word basis for
hundreds
of years.

Horse****.

There is a reason for the Amendment process defined in the Constitution.

It is ignorance to believe that the original authors DID NOT intend the
Constitution to be adhered to as written or amended


http://realclearpolitics.com/Comment..._14_05_TS.html



Liberal judges are trying to reshape the Constitution every day.