"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?