The most damaging wrong interpretation of the Constitution.

Posted by jsw225 6 years, 7 months ago to Government
29 comments | Share | Flag

Hi guys!

Another blog post from me. This time I discuss what I believe to be the one misinterpretation that has caused the most damage.

-Dannes.
SOURCE URL: http://dannesrepossessions.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/the-most-evil-mal-interpretation-of-the-constitution-yet/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 7 months ago
    First Amendment:

    The article states “For example, the Hugo Black interpretation of the First Amendment to suddenly include a “Separation of Church and State” into the amendment that didn’t exist in any precedent, or federalist papers. In one stroke, he completely changed the Constitution. What was once “Freedom *OF* Religion” became “Freedom *FROM* Religion.”

    Here is what the 1st amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

    First of all the establishment part of the first amendment clearly means separation of Church and State. There is no other possible interpretation. Second of all, the Bill of Rights has to be read in the context of Natural Rights and yes you have a Natural Right to be free from religion. Christians like to make this distinction because they want prayers at public events, god in the pledge of allegiance (which by the way this was not added until the 50s and the pledge was created by a socialist and is clearly collectivist), publicly paid for nativity scenes. How will they like it when god is changed to Allah in pledge or we have religious scenes from the Koran?

    I do have some sympathy with the Christians in that the government has taken over so much of our life that we almost have no private life, which for Christians would seem to be forcing them out of their religion.


    The reality is freedom from religion was clearly established in the states before the 1st amendment, for instance see the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_St..., which states
    “That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;”

    This is the establishment clause spelled out and means no Nativity scenes paid for with public money, no public prayers, no ‘in god we trust’.

    Here is another quote from the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. “That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,”

    This show the 1st amendment was meant to keep religion out of public discourse, that the US was not founded on Judeo Christian values. The US was founded on reason and Natural Rights.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years, 7 months ago
      It doesn't clearly mean a "Separation of Church and State" because it literally doesn't say that. If you get to interpret the Constitution to your whims, then you won't like it when I interpret it to my whims.

      It literally means "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

      It does NOT say "Separation of church and state." If it meant that, it would have said that. It does NOT mean that the courthouse can't have a 10 Commandments plaque. It does NOT mean that children must not pray in schools.


      Do you know the real genesis of this mal-interpretation became codified as precedent? Hugo Black was named to the Supreme Court by FDR. He was also a Grand Dragon of the Klu Klux Klan. While he was in the Supreme Court, too. Mr. Grand Dragon hated Catholics. Despised them. The entire "idea" of Separation of Church and State which was not the intent, nor found anywhere else in federal law, was pulled out of his butt in order to screw over the Catholics.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 7 months ago
        That history may be true, but the reality is that it the christian argument of freedom OF religion is nonsense and is a clear attempt by christians to force christianity into the public forum. The interpretation is without any foundation, is contrary to Natural Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and history. And it will be the argument that Muslims and other religions will use to force religion such as Sharia law into our courts.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 6 years, 7 months ago
          No interpretation needed when it means exactly what it says.

          And considering that I have no religion, you're going to have to come up with a better reason to back Mr. Black.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 7 months ago
            Which means freedom from religion in the public sphere.

            And yes everything has to be interpreted in context - the context is the Declaration of Independence and Natural Rights.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 6 years, 7 months ago
              But it's not a natural right! Not in the slightest!

              No real human right is a claim on others. And this fabricated fairy tail of "Freedom From Religion" is exactly that.

              "Freedom From Religion" is a claim on others just in the same way that Universal Healthcare is.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Hiraghm 6 years, 7 months ago
      "First of all the establishment part of the first amendment clearly means separation of Church and State. There is no other possible interpretation."

      WRONG.

      The first amendment says clearly, if you understand simple English words, that there shall be no ESTABLISHMENT of religion, not SEPARATION.

      This means no equivalent of the Anglican church. If you knew history, you'd know this. As you probably do know history... it gives an indication of your veracity and your agenda. Check your premises.

      It was not the practice of religion alone, or the exposure to same, which worried the Founding Fathers, but the creation of a national church. Period.

      The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom is NOT the Constitution.


      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Hiraghm 6 years, 7 months ago
      "This show the 1st amendment was meant to keep religion out of public discourse, that the US was not founded on Judeo Christian values. The US was founded on reason and Natural Rights. "

      What nonsense.

      It was CULTURALLY Judeo-Christians who founded it. To suggest it wasn't founded on Judeo-Christian values is willful ignorance.

      There is no such thing as "natural rights". You have the natural right to be eaten alive by a pack of wolves. There's your "natural rights".

      The country was founded upon "God-given rights", just as the Founding Fathers said in the Declaration of Independence.

      The reason for this, and the reason it's important, is because any right from any source other than the Creator-of-all-things can be abrogated.

      ""The results should have been predictable, since a human being hasno natural rights of any nature."
      Mr. Dubois had paused. Somebody took the bait. "Sir? How about ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of
      happiness’?"
      "Ah, yes, the ‘unalienable rights.’ Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What ‘right’
      to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What ‘right’ to
      life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so
      as a matter of ‘right’? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which
      man’s right is ‘unalienable’? And is it ‘right’? As to liberty, the heroes who signed that great document
      pledged themselves tobuy liberty with their lives. Liberty isnever unalienable; it must be redeemed
      regularly with the blood of patriots or italways vanishes. Of all the so-called ‘natural human rights’ that
      have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and isnever free of cost.
      "The third ‘right’? — the ‘pursuit of happiness’? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a
      universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me
      at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can ‘pursue happiness’ as long as my brain lives — but neither
      gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."
      Mr. Dubois then turned to me. "I told you that ‘juvenile delinquent’ is a contradiction in terms.
      ‘Delinquent’ means ‘failing in duty.’ Butduty is anadult virtue — indeed a juvenile becomes an adult"

      - Robert A. Heinlein "Starship Troopers"

      Henry Melton explained the same issue with "natural rights" in "We Hold These Rights"...

      I found it in "There Will Be War Volume VII: Call to Battle!"

      "No! I'm not the same as you!" he screamed at me. I stepped back instinctively; Willis never screamed. But he suddenly blazed: "I *can't* believe the lies you live by!"
      His voice abrupty dropped to a fatigued whisper. "Oh, how I wish I could." He straightened and looked back at me with demon eyes. "Listen to me, Clement Ster. I'll say this only once. I said *before* that you had no right to fight the Terrans. You condemned me for it. I say it *again*! You have no right."

      "But the beacon - the Terran ship?"

      He grabbed my shoulder tight in his huge hand and shook me. "Listen, Ster! I had no *right* to destroy them. Neither do the Terrans have the *right* to take over the Belt. *Rights* don't exist! There is only *power* and *action*. Your imaginary rights are only good for keeping people like you and Gren happy and righteous while slaughtering your enemies, if you can call *that* good."

      I opened my mouth to reply but he shook me silent like a misbehaving child. "Understand me, Ster. I murdered the crew of that Terran ship, and I destroyed someone else's beacon worth more than I could make all of my life. I did it because I had the power, and a fair chance of getting away with it. I did it purely for the *selfish* reason that I don't want the Terrans controlling the Belt and running my life! Just the same as you would have - if you had been the one with the power.
      "Don't tell me about defending our sacred rights, and wars against the oppressor. As long as there are people, there will be men killing each other for property, for power, whatever. The winner will always have been just defending his rights. The losers are the criminals. It's all *fiction*, Ster! If you have to kill somebody, then kill him. But don't talk nonsense about rights!"

      He stopped and I twisted out of his iron grip. He didn't look as if he noticed, away in some place inside his head. I didn't know what to do or say. I wish Quail were with me. I glanced back toward the control room, but there was no sign of him. I was alone.

      "Clement," Willis said, in an easy conversational tone, so unlike him, "those men in that ship. They lived all their lives under a government that promised them the right to life. And that government lied, 'cause I just killed them! I wonder how big a slice of their souls the government charged for that politicians' promise. *Rights*! Moral excuses and politicians' lies." He shook his head in amusement, then abruptly looked me directly in the eyes, pinning me in place. "Clement Star, if you have to lie, steal, destroy, and murder, then *do* it! But then have the strength to take responsibility for what you did. Do you understand?"

      I couldn't move, I couldn't talk. He was like an elemental force. His words flared out at me. His eyes searched my face.

      Then it was as if he clouded over. I was released. He seemed to be talking to himself, as if I were no longer there. "No. I can see that you don't." He reached fro the hatch and started back down to his solitary room. "You will never understand. You will always believe in your rights - your wars - your holy causes. I wish I could."
      His voice was pained as he whispered, "Oh, how I wish I could!"


      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 7 months ago
    Second Amendment: While I agree the militia argument is nonsense another body above the Supreme Court, would just be the new Supreme Court with the same problems. No amount of procedural safeguards can absolutely guarantee that governments will not infringe on its citizens rights.

    Commerce Clause: This clause has clearly been perverted and was meant to stop tariff and regulatory barriers to commerce between the states.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 6 years, 7 months ago
    We all read ourselves into the past and future. You think that you understand the Constitution; and I think that you do not. States collected taxes for churches and tortured people for confessions. They controlled and licensed the ownership of firearms.

    The Founders did indeed intend that freedom _of_ religion be freedom _from_ religion. Jefferson wrote about it much later.

    However, they did not frame the FEDERAL Constitution to apply to the states. Thus, states could and did have powers that the Federal government did not. Massachusetts collected taxes for the Congressional Church until 1838.

    A hundred years later, Mississippi still tortured people for confessions. (See here: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/...) It was allowed by the FEDERAL Constitution which did not apply to the States. With "judicial activism" (so-called) in the English common law tradition the Supreme Court incorporated Federal recognition of rights to the States.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years, 7 months ago
      While it's true that the Constitution didn't apply to the states, you are ignoring something else.

      When the Bill of Rights was being created, there were two factions. One faction was for the Bill of Rights. And the next was against it. Not because they didn't believe in it, but because they believed that the enumeration of Inalienable Human Rights would give the government a vehicle or an avenue to encroach on them.

      And the second faction was right. Take a look at the misinterpretations since that time. Putting words on paper allowed the lawyers to twist the words. Look at how Freedom of Religion became From Religion. How shall not be infringed became unless you're black.

      I'm currently considering writing a proposal to make a real Bill of Rights that would be entirely separate from the Constitution, and because they are inalienable, they would be unencroachable.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 7 months ago
        The freedom from religion argument is nonsense,

        First Amendment:

        The article states “For example, the Hugo Black interpretation of the First Amendment to suddenly include a “Separation of Church and State” into the amendment that didn’t exist in any precedent, or federalist papers. In one stroke, he completely changed the Constitution. What was once “Freedom *OF* Religion” became “Freedom *FROM* Religion.”

        Here is what the 1st amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

        First of all the establishment part of the first amendment clearly means separation of Church and State. There is no other possible interpretation. Second of all, the Bill of Rights has to be read in the context of Natural Rights and yes you have a Natural Right to be free from religion. Christians like to make this distinction because they want prayers at public events, god in the pledge of allegiance (which by the way this was not added until the 50s and the pledge was created by a socialist and is clearly collectivist), publicly paid for nativity scenes. How will they like it when god is changed to Allah in pledge or we have religious scenes from the Koran?

        I do have some sympathy with the Christians in that the government has taken over so much of our life that we almost have no private life, which for Christians would seem to be forcing them out of their religion.


        The reality is freedom from religion was clearly established in the states before the 1st amendment, for instance see the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_St..., which states
        “That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;”

        This is the establishment clause spelled out and means no Nativity scenes paid for with public money, no public prayers, no ‘in god we trust’.

        Here is another quote from the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. “That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,”

        This show the 1st amendment was meant to keep religion out of public discourse, that the US was not founded on Judeo Christian values. The US was founded on reason and Natural Rights.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Hiraghm 6 years, 7 months ago
      "States collected taxes for churches and tortured people for confessions."
      Which States did that? Virginia? Massachusetts?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 7 months ago
    Nice article. You are certainly correct that the commerce clause has been twisted worse than a pretzel.<br abp="583"><br abp="584">One statement that I'll take exception to, is that the Articles of Confederation were an abysmal failure. Only from a certain perspective (that of large, centralized government). The more that I learn about the AofC, the more I like them. The politicians of the day didn't like it as it left a very weak central gov't. I think that is a very good thing as compared to what is happening today.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years, 7 months ago
      In theory, the Articles of Confederation are a good idea. But they failed much quicker than Federalism failed. Why? Because it's the difference between 1 tyrant in Washington and 13 Tyrants each in their state capital. In my mind it proves that it's not the system that is broken, but the politicians. Anyone who seeks to become an elected government official is inherently not to be trusted with the power.

      And since they gave ultimate power to each state, instead of just to the country, it is only natural that inherently corrupt politicians would go to war with each other (figuratively).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 7 months ago
        I have a theory that ultimately, freedom must fail. My reasoning is (like you point out) that those who believe in freedom have little desire to impose such belief on others, letting them decide for themselves. Hence, they do not seek out elective office. While those who believe in ruling their fellow man actively seek out positions of political power so as to impart their will on their fellow man. In order to make the populace more amenable to this control, they enact policies to placate and mollify them. This makes the task of the liberty lover even more challenging.

        I believe that this is what has happened in the US and may be beyond a point of no return. I hope not, but am afraid that we passed the tipping point and are on the way down - we just haven't realized it, yet. There does seem to be some hope, 'though. Canada was at least as far along as we are, and they were able to turn around. The question is whether it is permanent or not. Collectivists do not give up so easily.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jbrenner 6 years, 7 months ago
          Canada was as far along the path to socialism, but very importantly, not ever in the serious debt associated with it. That is why they could recover. In fact, America was not in serious debt until this millenium. People forget that the budget had a couple of surpluses during the Gingrich/Clinton era. Now you just can't cut enough to get this into fiscal sanity.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo