No. It isn't.

Here:

United States Constitutions, Statutes and Codes

On this page you will find reference information for the United States Constitution and the United States legal code. You will not find the Declaration of Independence listed anywhere here. Why? Because it is not law, it is not part of the legal code.



Really? If this is the case, how does a statment regarding an individual's financial relationship with their secular government relate to the exent to which a government should remain secular?

One does not pay taxes to God. The original statement was metaphorical, a basic statement of separation of church and state.

Since 1878, the US Code has included in its first section, prior to Title 1, the full text of "the Organic Law of the United States" (being The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, and the Constitution of the United States and Amendments). The Declaration of Independence appears on pages xxix and xxx. Because these documents are available elsewhere and not part of the Code's standard numbering system, they are not always included in online indexes of the code. Allusions to this can be found online at ISIL, a book by Richard H. Cox, and a university library entry. Also, if you go to the official US Code search page and enter 'Declaration of Independence', you will get a link to the text of the Declaration as it appears in the code.

Well, you are certainly entitled to interpret that one line in anyway that you choose. However, my opinion is that you are taking the statement out of context. In the Bible, Jesus was asked by spies disguised as followers whether it was lawful to pay tribute to Caesar. They were trying to get information that would show that Jesus was undermining Caesar's authority with his teachings. His answer was, "render... unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's." There is the authority of God and the authority of Caesar and they are not the same.

You must take into account the entire story and how it starts (it started with scribes asking Jesus by whose authority he did the things he did)... not take the one line out of context. While the meaning of the line from the Bible does deal with the differences between the authority of a secular government and the authority of God, it does not mean that there should be a separation of church and state, nor does it imply that an earthly government should not be religious. It means there is a difference between the authority of an earthly government and the authority of God. One could easily argue that Christ felt that God's authority was greater.

Therefore, in my opinion, the First Amendment does not share the same spirit as the statement by Jesus.

I concur with Erasmussimo. I think this is a violation of the Amendment I, but I think we have more important things to deal with. Incorporation of the Bill of Rights to include the states via Amendment XIV began in the 1920s.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html

Just out of curiosity, how many of the state constitutions were operative before passage of Amendment XIV; before incorporation? Although I would like to see it, (all traces of religion removed from public documents and practice) I don’t think the courts are going to tear up parts of state constitutions unless said statements start being used to in blatant fashion to establish religious practices.

Fortunately, we are not yet, and hopefully never will be, a theocracy legally, but vibes one gets certainly have the feel of theocracy. A return to the 14 Century thinking is in the air.

Fair enough. I interpret it differently, but inasmuch as religious discussions here are strictly forbidden (should I say, heretical?), I won't follow up. Besides, the core issue concerns the intepretation of the First Amendment, and the spirit of the First Amendment at that.

An expansion of the point made by BoF: there remain a great many obsolete and silly laws on the books that we have never bothered to clean up. It simply isn't worth our time to argue over them. I see this problem in much the same light.

About John Calvin, things that will make seculars go hum… Check this out there was a reinvigoration of Calvinism in New England during a period preceding the Declaration of Independence led by a man named Jonathan Edwards leading the orthodox theology during the GREAT AWAKENING. The Great Awakening was a general revival of evangelical religion in the American colonies that reached its peak in the early 1740s and the article indicated darn near every man, woman and child was a bible thumper. You can read the full story on Encarta Encyclopedia 99 by keying in the words “Great Awakening.” It seems these revivals traveled through all the colonies and caused a lot of religious division and infighting but according to the article evangelical fervor drew supporters of the revival together, producing a sense of unity transcending denominational and political boundaries. The article reports the Great Awakening was thus a significant inter-colonial movement, which contributed to a sense of American nationality before the American Revolution.

About your thoughts on the Declaration of Independence being the title and the constitution being the owner’s manual, it seems you are not alone in your thinking, there was a constitutional scholar on CSPAN yesterday in an all day program on religious conservatism saying the same thing. He also pointed out the constitution was signed based on a calendar representing something to the effect an hourglass from the death of “our LORD” verses a calendar based on the first event of recorded history or the fall of France. Tom Delay, the representative from TX was also presented on video in the same show with statements about activist judges I believe being debated on another topic currently.

If you are lucky enough to have a copy of the Encarta Encyclopedia 99 key in the word “Colonies” and select subtopic Dutch colonies and Territories - North America and read about the influence of the Dutch on the Northeast US. If you read about the colonization of the US you will see the English were the last to settle the colonies and of course the Dutch founded NYC as New Amsterdam. I know everyone is familiar with the PA Dutch and their strong religious beliefs but I present this as an observation of current politics in the Northeast region. If you travel in Germany north the further you go north the less churches you see of any stature. I went to northern Holland on a July 4th weekend and I can’t even remember seeing a church on the island in the North Sea where I froze by butt off. I think the PA Dutch pretty much purged Holland of religion based on what I viewed. Likewise, I have an acquaintance from Finland that tells me the North Sea people believe in a fable that life slithered out of the North Sea in the form of a God that seems easily supporting the evolution theory. My friend there also said the folks close to the North Sea don’t like Jews as was apparent in the Russian War in the late 1800’s where ethnic cleansing killed hundreds of thousands of Jews, in fact he told me Hitler got the idea for the death camps from the Fins. With these northern tribes settling in NYC vicinity one can understand secular existing in that area but the constitution was prepared in PA near the center of religion fervor of the Baptist and other protestant religions were most prevalent near to the German and strongly religious English, German and Dutch folks.

Please also take a look at my post today on the US Constitution J-C V. Secular as it clearly refutes much of the ongoing argument.

The Court only interprets the Constitution and laws made under the Constitution. The Declaration is not subject to the Constitution and not subject to Court interpretation-- if you read it, you will see why-- it sets forth principles that are "self-evident" and "unalienable," and speaks of the rights of the people to "alter or abolish" government, even when (especially when) the government would prefer to deny them that right.

The DoI is clearly part of US law, and has figured prominently in many Supreme Court cases involving the Establishment Clause, including Holy Trinity v. US, 1892, which mentioned the constitutionality of references to God in state constitution in the following excerpt:



But even if one chooses to deny its legal status, one cannot deny that the Declaration asserts a law higher than the laws made by government, so it becomes more important whether the DoI is true than whether the DoI is law. If the DoI is true, then there is a self-evident law which guarantees unalienable rights and which supercedes the laws of any government-- if the DoI is false, then America is a lie and every soldier who died defending her has died in vain. I prefer to believe the Declaration is true.

Have we really come so far in this country that one who actually believes what the Declaration of Independence says is assumed to be a religious nutcase? There was a time when someone who believed in the Declaration was called nothing more sinister than a patriotic American. I simply assert that what the Declaration says is true and not just some meaningless attempt at propaganda-- if that belief makes me part of your vast right-wing conspiracy theory, then so was Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, et. al., so I am in good company.

minor grammar, style edits, added HTvUS ref

No, that's not what I'm saying nor was the article I provided. The point is that the Declaration of Independence is a valuable and historic document, but it is not a legal document.

Again from the article:



http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/00/natrnew.html


I used the word "religious right"--meaning some "Christian" people have made this interpretation. You Jack22 made "Christian right" in to "nutcase." "Nutcase" was your characterization--not mine. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Oookay. The Declaration itself claims to voice a law higher than government. If you believe what the Declaration says, you believe it is law. If you do not believe it is law, then you do not believe what it says. Unless you are willing to confess that you don't believe the Declaration of Independence is true, then it makes no sense to continue discussing whether or not you believe it voices law.


The article's opinion is wrong.

Simple question: 47 of 50 State Constitutions explicitly mention God. Do they violate the 1st Amendment?

You seem to have gone in through the backdoor on this question. Are you saying that because the Declaration of Independence uses the words “Laws of Nature and of Nature's God” and “Creator” that mentioning “God” in state constitutions does not violate the 1st Amendment? I’m asking this as a question because 1. I don’t want to put words in your mouth either, 2. I really don’t see what you are talking about.





Now to address your statement. Other than the first two paragraphs the DoI is basically a list of indictments against King George II.

While the DoI uses the words “Laws of Nature and of Nature's God” and “Creator,” there is also a secular theme, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The DoI, like other documents, including the Bible, the Quran or The Constitution of the United States is open to interpretation. While it hints at the etiology of law, one can interpret this source as being divine—“Creator” or secular—“deriving their powers from the consent of the governed.” While the DoI does discuss sources of law, I don’t see where it declares itself law.

While I think the DoI is an excellent piece of political theory, I reject the idea that it is law.


Is the article wrong because it is flawed or simply because Jack22 says it is wrong?

What I am talking about began with this post at the bottom of page two of this thread, and that has been the topic of the bulk of the discussion for the past two pages. In that post, I responded to someone who supported a challenge to most state constitutions on grounds of violating the establishment clause. I asserted something to the effect that the Declaration couldn't stand up under such a broad definition of establishment, and that (as I later excerpted from Holy Trinity v. US, 1892) the Court is not likely to strike down the state constitutions, because their language is similar to that of the Declaration.

Then, we got sidetracked from the main issue by some who did not know that the Declaration was part of the legal code, and BoF's prior post seems to be rehashing some ground we've already covered. If the Declaration is not the law of the land, then perhaps someone in Congress will propose removing it from pages xxix and xxx of Title 1 of the USC, where it has been the first part of the code since 1878. Until then, the relative strength of the Declaration as law is debatable (the Constitution and Articles of Confederation are there, too), but the fact that it is law is not.

The article based its opinion on the incorrect assumption that the Declaration is not law, which is factually wrong, as entered into evidence earlier.

And also because Jack22, supreme dictator of truth, says it is wrong.

Two short observations:

1. The Declaration of Independence is not written in the form of a law. It doesn't say anything along the lines of "Person or Officer X must perform duty Y" or "Person or Officer X must not perform crime Z". It's a grand statement of political ideals, and I agree that those ideals form a goodly part of the foundation for our Republic. However, the Declaration of Independence is rather like a statement in favor of motherhood and apple pie -- it's not something that you can really hang your hat on and so I wouldn't use it to decide a controversy, especially when the arguments adduced rely not on central statements of the document but on peripheral references. If the Declaration of Independence had flat-out declared "And we intend our new nation to be based on Christian beliefs", then you might have something, but the fact that only passing references to Christianity are made robs this document of logical force on the question at hand.

2. This argument about the Declaration of Independence really is peripheral to the main topic. It should be argued in the topic about secular versus Judeo-Christian beliefs in our system.

Completely absurd. So if one believes in the principles of the Declaration of Independence, but do not hold it as law, one does not believe what the Declaration of Independence says? Wow, that's some sound reasoning there. Where exactly in the Declaration of Independence does it mention that it is law? Oh, yeah... nowhere.

And let me correct you on something. Holy Trinity v. U.S was not decided based on the Declaration of Independence. Nor was it an Establishment Clause case. There was never any question as to whether the law violated the Establishment Clause. The Court found that the law in question, according to the evidence, was intended to apply to cheap, unskilled labor:



The Court believed, correctly, that ministers, rectors and pastors did not fit into this category.

The Declaration of Independence is mentioned when describing the character of the nation as being Christian. But nowhere does it use the Declaration of Independence with any force of law. When describing the character of our nation this case also cites as example right before the part you quote:



The case immediately goes on to mention the Declaration of Independence, the various State Constitutions, and ultimately the U.S. Constitution. The intent was to illustrate the religious character of the nation "because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation." The justice in this case is referring to history and a continued declarative tradition regarding divinity and not referring to the nature of these declarations as law when he is mentioning the Declaration of Independence and, in fact, the Establishment Clause. Why are they referred to in this way? To illustrate that the intent of the law in question was not such that it would apply to "ministers, rectors, and pastors."



I challenge you to find any Supreme Court decision recognizing the Declaration of Independence as law. However, there are Supreme Court Decisions that mention the Declaration of Independence as having no force of law.

US Supreme Court Decisions mentioning the nature of the Declaration of Independence:



and more recently:



The point of all this being this: there is no way the Declaration of Independence could ever be found to be unconstitutional. It has no direct legal effect. The Constitution itself exists to protect the principles found in the Declaration of Independence. But, I will state it again, principles are not law. While the Declaration of Independence was indeed a legal document, it is not nor has it ever been held by the Courts to be a set of laws. So, don't worry, the Declaration of Independence is free from Constitutional scrutiny. No matter how broad one interprets the First Amendment, it can never touch the Declaration of Independence.

It is silly to compare the Constitutionality of State Constitutions and the Constitutionality of the Declaration of Independence. There are no means by which one could declare the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional.

And, there is a difference in believing what the Declaration of Independence says -- what it means -- and considering it law that is open to constitutional scrutiny.

Actually, the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" part has to be put in the context of which it was written. That piece, already reeking of deism, merely states that government and religion should likewise follow a similar path like nature in terms of development in society. This is a great passage that shows the founders preoccupation with the enlightenment and enlightenment values. Now I didn't just cook all this up, a wonderful researcher by the name of Susan Jacoby has done a marvelous work of deciphering this "religious speak" in her book "Freethinkers."




This isn't a problem given the above explanation, but I would point out that we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence. If you are caught spying for another country, it isn't from the Declaration of Indepence that you are charged.




The pilgrims and others of their ilk reinforced the value of not having church and state tied together. Once the Pilgrims escaped the yoke of the King, they were just as oppressive to the likes of Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams, and others. Other than a reason to keep church and state separate, the pilgrims are in no way, cited as a reason for "state's rights," "local control" or "decentralization" anywhere in the Constituiton.



Are not atheists and agnostics citizens as well? Must they have documents, coinage, and other symbols of government support a few so contrary to their own beliefs? Is that not "establishing" religion over the non-religious? Isn't that not favoritism? I don't buy that it would create more harm than good. Private citizens more than have the right to worship as they please, they shouldn't have the government show preference to a belief, however vague it is.

Excellent point, however, the first amendment states that there will be no "establishment" of religion. Punishment or no punishment. It's a fairly direct, closed-ended statement.

Oh yeah... everywhere. It amazes me that anyone can look at a document that set forth the self-evident, unalienable principles by which the law of the land was overthrown, claim to believe in those principles, and then say it has no legal implications. Talk about absurd!!

Fourscore and seven years later, abolitionists sought to alter government again to apply the principles of the Declaration to those whom the Constitution kept enslaved-- several southern states, for a variety of other reasons as well, tried to escape that end, and failed. Two generations later, women invoking the Declaration won a voice in government. Three generations thereafter, a man preaching the Declaration led a movement to obtain civil rights. The reason the Declaration is so powerful is not only because its words are eloquent, it is because it prescribes altering or abolishing government as the just and right response to long trains of abuses and usurpations-- asserted with an authority higher than that of any government.

Here's what JFK thought about the Declaration (listen for yourself at the JFK Library) on Independence Day 1962, at Independence Hall...



If any form of government becomes destructive to the self-evident truths and unalienable rights described in the Declaration, the People have the right and duty to alter or abolish it (under the given circumstances). Do you agree? If you do, why do you not think that it is an important and binding legal document? If you do not, then what is it that keeps you from believing that we all remain unjustified traitors to the throne of England with the US Government as an illegal usurper? The document which asserts otherwise is the Declaration.

grammar edits

The first part of the document sets forth rights that must not be violated under a law higher than that of government. The middle part of the document is dedicated to "Person or Officer X performing crime Z". It sets forth laws by which all governments must abide, and then itemizes how those laws were broken. Your assertion otherwise is countered by actually reading the document.


Nope. Only passing reference is made to a God in the state constitutions in question, so it is 100% on-topic.

My own assertions have not mentioned anything about secular v. Judeo-Christian beliefs, only the similarities between the Declaration and the state constitutions influencing their constitutionality, so this is the most appropriate topic for me. If there is a topic for the Declaration as law that is not limited to religious implications, I might find such a topic interesting.

I think that you are using the term "law" in an overly broad sense to mean "any lesson appropriate to political science". Is it really a "law" that 'when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government'? If so, then does this law apply when the evinced design is to reduce them under a partial despotism -- not an absolute despotism? Does this law apply if the lawmaker explicitly denies any design to reduce them under absolute despotism, or declares that the design is to reduce them under only partial despotism? Who decides what constitutes "evincing" -- the Supreme Court? And how exactly would the Supreme Court declare a particular insurrection to be protected under this clause of the Declaration of Independence? If the Supreme Court did find a particular insurrection to be protected under this clause of the Declaration of Independence, would the President be enjoined from offering resistance to the insurrection? Would he be required to surrender? Would it be a crime if he did offer resistance to the insurrection? Can Congress grant emergency powers to the President in time of insurrection that would overrule this clause of the Declaration of Independence? If so, under what authority could they do so? Could the Supreme Court declare their granting of emergency powers unconstitutional? Or would they have to declare them undeclarationofindependencial? If a law were declared undeclarationofindependencial, would that have the same force and effect of declaring it unconstitutional? What if a law is undeclarationofindependencial but simulataneously constitutional? Must a law be both undeclarationofindependencial and unconstitutional to be thrown out, or can it be thrown out if it violates only one of the two documents? Please answer these questions for inquiring minds.


You are saying that the passing references in the Declaration of Independence do not consitute a substantial use of Christian religion in the Declaration of Independence, and neither do the state constitutions, so the similarity if insubstantialness means that the Declaration of Independence justifies the state constitutions. Please observe that the Declaration of Independence does even better in this regard in its references to frogs: it makes no references whatsoever to frogs, a trait that it shares with the state constitutions, thereby proving that the state constitutions' absence of references to frogs is justified by the Declaration of Independence.

I never said it didn't have legal implications. It certainly does. I mean, the Constitution is based quite heavily on the principles set down in the Declaration of Independence. I said it has no legal effect of its own -- meaning it is not law.



Yes, the Declaration has been used as a set of principles on which laws have been based -- I never indicated otherwise. That does not, however, make it law. Something can certainly have legal implications and not be law.



Okay. I aqree with this, but where does JFK indicate that the Declaration is law.



The Declaration is a statement of principles, that does not make it law. It is a list of reasons why we declared independence. Yes, those principles are powerful and important and relevant, and yes those principles are reflected in laws of the United States, but the Declaration of Independence, itself, is not law -- it is a statement of principles and a list of ways that the King of England violated those principles. You are arguing as if I stated somewhere that I didn't believe in the principles of the Declaration of Independence. I never stated this anywhere. I also never stated that the Declaration of Independence was not a legal document. It certainly is a legal document. But there are many legal documents that do not exist as laws. I merely pointed out that the Declaration of Independence was safe from constitutional scrutiny because it is not law, and that, as a result, your argument -- stating that it was somehow possible to declare the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional -- was absurd. The Courts of this country have never used the Declaration of Independence with the force of a law, nor should they.

You think wrong. I cited the US Code and the document's own appeal to law. Straw man infraction 8 for Erasmussimo.

Nope, I'm not saying that. You're saying that. Straw Man infraction number 9 for Erasmussimo.

Another attempt to parody a line of reasoning I never persued. Straw Man infraction number 10 for Erasmussimo.

They have nothing to do with the question in this topic, classic smokescreen defense. That smoke is probably rising from all the burning straw men. It might be time to launch a Straw Man Liberation Front.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. To be clear, I also don't believe it possible to declare the Declaration unconstitutional. I may have asked a rhetorically silly question so that I could answer in the negative, but I never claimed the Declaration was subject to judicial scrutiny-- I made the opposite claim.

However, if the Court declares language in the state constitutions unconstitutional that also appears in the Declaration, then the Court is coming close to violating the Declaration, which prescribes consequences for such violations. Sounds a lot like a law to me, and being that it is part of the legal code and has the effect of law, it seems rather pointless do deny its nearly universally-accepted status as organic law.

JFK was a president-- Congress makes law. The Declaration was drafted and adopted "In Congress" in 1776. The centennial Congress of 1876 proposed the adoption the Declaration as organic law of the land, which passed in 1878 and was inserted at the beginning of Title 1 of the legal code. In addition, the Declaration makes its own assertion of law that exists whether government recognizes it or not. The point of the Declaration's status as law was not under contention, so there was no need for Kennedy to restate what was already well-known.

It is only as closed as our agreement (or lack thereof) on what "establishment" means. Establishmentarianism, disestablishmentarianism, and antidisestablishmentarianism were sociopolitical and philosophical movements in Europe involving the establishment of religion with government authority. These movements were active prior to and during the American revolution. Like all such movements, they had their intricacies. The framers probably took their definition of establishment from these movements. Governments mentioning a god, thanking a god, praying to a god, holding church services in government buildings-- these were not considered establishment-- instead, establishment involved such things as church leaders using the government to punish heretics or to prevent religious communities of dissidents or protestants from practicing their own religion or atheistic philosophy as they saw fit.

added answer to Kennedy question and establishment.

Simple question: 47 of 50 State Constitutions explicitly mention God. Do they violate the 1st Amendment?

A technical case could be made that these constitutions are violating the 1st Amendment.

So far I have not seen anyone bring up the way that states are admitted to the union. I'm not sure about the original 13 states, but I know for sure that Colorado had to get Congressional approval for admittance to the union. Technically, Congress approved the Colorado constitution. Therefore, if there's mention of God in the Colorado constitution, Congress gave its consent to that mention by approving Colorado to become a state from being a territory.

I do believe these are legal matters -- becoming a state from being a territory. Thus, Congress helped establish a deistic, monotheistic interpretation of spirituality, as opposed to say Hindu ideas of multiple god figures, or even Native American.

Personally, I think these ideas are all wet. But my ideas aside, it is a clear establishment of religion for Congress to approve a state constitution that mentions God. What about Krishna? Buddha? The Great Spirit?

But it really isn't all that important, is it? I bet most state residents, in any state, have never read their state constitutions. It's hard enough just understanding the legalese in amendment proposals come Election Day.

However, this does not mean that someday the constitutionality question will not be raised. The more that certain people push to have their ideas become official religion, the more that the question has a chance to be raised. This is, after all, an attempt to yank back our fundamental right to believe whatever we want to believe when it comes to issues that simply can't be demonstrated.

For example, I believe that churches are entirely irrelevant when it comes to figuring out God. Should I push to ban all churches? Naw, but someone might. Others believe their way is the right way, so do they try to ban all other beliefs?

Better not, or someone will bring up the question about state constitutions with a great deal of motivation.

Let's just chalk it up to our tendency to be tolerant up to a point. Past that point, there will be a legal battle. Maybe we are getting past that point, maybe not. It looks to me that it is entirely in the hands of the belief pushers, whether others are pushed to the point of action or not.

Out of curiosity...

The first amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a religion all across the US.....but does this then prohibit individual states from establishing offical state religions if the people of that state so choose?

I mean, lets say that Cuba was going to join the USA after Fidel dies or something and then lets say that between Communism ending and Cuba joining, they decided to make Catholicism the official religion.

Aside from whether this is a likely scenario, what happens in that situation?

Sorry, I'm no student of US law!

Your belittling responses to my arguments are logically incorrect, and, more important, unresponsive and evasive. If they truly are strawman arguments, please describe the difference between my statements and your position.

Ptarmigan, the First Amendment -- and all other constitutional protections -- were extended to the states by the 14th Amendment just after the Civil War.

No, thanks. The way debate works is that you quote me and respond to the quote rather than rewrite me in words you find easier to attack and then respond to your rewrite.

That's true in general, but perhaps not in every detail-- the 14th says and the first says,Part of the first refers to privileges and immunities (free exercise, free expression), and part of it specifically instructs the national government (establishment of religion) on something that is arguably not necessarily individual in nature. The rights of free exercise and free expression must be respected by the states, but arguably not the establishment of religion-- which can be closer in nature to a structural decision like having a bicameral legislative branch (as some states do not).

If a state with a low population held a referendum on recognizing Catholicism as its official religion while simultaneously guaranteeing the free exercise of other religions and atheistic philosophies, and if that referendum passed by overwhelming margins, I don't think that would be a violation of the 14th Amendment (I also don't think it would be establishment). I personally prefer states not to establish religion, but then I use the narrower classical definition of establishment rather than the broader one invented by the Supreme Court in the 1960's.

Under the classical concept of religious liberty, different communities living side-by-side had the liberty to establish different religions, without interference from more centralized governments, who could themselves recognize an official religion (as most of the original states did) in a way that did not prevent local communities from picking a different one. There are plenty of examples of religious communities that were established in America (the Pennsylvania Dutch come to mind), but increasingly these are no longer exempted from the well-established religious objections they have to various court-made laws, such as Roe v. Wade.

In the early 1960s the state of New York permitted a non-sectarian prayer to be read daily in the public schools. The prayer's wording "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country."

In Engle v. Vitale (1962) the United States Supreme Court ruled that the “prayer” was unconstitutional.



http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/111/abstract

If a simple prayer like the one above violates the establishment clause as applied to the states by Amendment XIV, then how would declaring a particular religion a state official religion not escape being declared unconstitutional?

I’m confused by your “low population” state assertion. Are you saying that the establishment clause should be applied differently in places like Utah with sparse population than in heavily populated states like California, New York and Texas?

The “overwhelming margins” thing doesn’t hold water either. The constitution should not be inteprted based on popular mandate.

Very well, I'll be happy to accommodate you:

Let us review your exact words. You wrote that "The first part of the document sets for rights that must not be violated under a law higher than that of government." In fact, the Declaration of Independence states in this regard:

later it adds another right:

Thus, the rights declared in the Declaration of Independence are:
1. life
2. liberty
3. the pursuit of happiness
4. to alter or abolish a bad government and institute a new government.

According to you, this list of rights constitutes a law. The problem is that this law of yours is hopelessly vague. If everybody has a right to life, then capital punishment is obviously undeclarationofindependencial, and therefore illegal. Your claim that the Declaration of Independence has the force of law renders the last 200 years of capital punishment illegal, and would require the criminal prosecution of every governor of every state that has ever executed anybody, and that would include President Bush. Are you accusing President Bush of a crime?

The second right declared in your law is the right to liberty. As with the previous right, no exceptions are given, so there must be no exceptions if this is a law. Therefore, the imprisonment of any person constitutes a violation of the Declaration of Independence, and again, we have hundreds of thousands of governors, wardens, jailers, judges, and other accessories to this crime who are needful of criminal prosecution. Of course, you can't sentence them to imprisonment, so your law requires the complete abandonment of our system of criminal law.

The third right granted by your law is also presented without qualification, and so I am therefore accusing you of depriving me of my declarationofindependencial right to happiness by requiring me to assemble this long-winded argument demonstrating the complete absurdity of your claims. It would appear that your law is biting you in the butt.

The fourth right granted by your law does not specify who determines the conditions under which insurrection is a civil right, and so we have the problems cited in my message of 9:44 PM Sunday night.

On that issue, you wrote that my questions regarding the legal interpretation of insurrection: "They have nothing to do with the question in this topic, classic smokescreen defense." You are therefore claiming that the legal interpretation of clauses in the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with your claim that the Declaration of Independence is law. It is impossible to have a law without the means of interpreting it. You are therefore reduced to the absurd position that the Declaration of Independence is a law but it is uninterpretable.


Your application of the term "classical" has no justification. In classical times, there was no such thing as freedom of religion. What you are citing is the principle of "cuius regio, eius religio" ("whose region is his religion"), first established in a special case in the Roman empire, used in several agreements during the Reformation, and finally enshrined in the Treaty of Westphalia ending the Thirty Years' War in 1648. It was an expedient for dealing with the highly scattered distribution of warring sects during those times. This concept played no part in the framing of the Constitution and the term does not appear in the Federalist Papers. Your application of the principle is therefore incorrect.

If you will reread my paragraph you quoted, you will have my answer: "I use the narrower classical definition of establishment rather than the broader one invented by the Supreme Court in the 1960's".

I was discussing my own preferences as to the advisability/wisdom of establishing a religion, not a litmus test for constitutionality. I believe local governments, like cities should have the liberty to establish a religion. The population of the state of Vermont is roughly the same as the city of Austin, so if I have no problem with the 600,000 good people of Austin choosing to establish a religion, I should have no problem with the 600,000 good people of Vermont choosing to establish religion. However, my own preference would be that religion only be established, if at all, in communities that are in general agreement on the issue-- the larger the population, the less uniformity of agreement there will be on religious issues.

Again, the context was my personal preferences, not constitutionality. With regard to the Constitution, recognizing an official religion while protecting the freedoms of dissidents is not the same as establishing a religion with authority in such a way that religious law can influence civic law. After one gets past the idea of whether recognizing or establishing religion is legal/constitutional for state or local governments, the question becomes whether doing so would be wise.

Now, on to burning a few more straw men--

Hmm. You reduce the Declaration unnecessarily and then attack the reduction (straw man infraction 11), and attribute it to me (straw man infraction 12). Here is the full passage, with my own emphasis:
If that is "hopelessly vague," then why isn't this:


Only if you selectively ignore the phrase "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". Execution of murderers secures the right to life, and as a result does not defy the Declaration. Abortion, on the other hand, fails to secure the right to life for innocent people, and as such, Roe v. Wade "is destructive to these ends." Moreover, Roe v. Wade did not derive its "just powers from the consent of the governed" but from the despotic act of judges striking down the will of the people as voiced in democratically-enacted law.

No, you are. You are attacking claims I did not make and attributing them to me (straw man infraction number 13).

Really? If there can be exceptions to the First Amendment's freedom of speech-- perjury, slander, libel, campaigning with soft money too close to an election, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.-- then why can't there be reasonable exceptions when securing liberty? Also, you incorrectly attribute this law to me (straw man infraction number 14).

Not my law, maybe the one you built from straw, but the Declaration provides that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," under which authority imprisonment of the guilty to protect the liberty of the innocent has been established. You again falsely attribute your imaginary law to me (straw man infraction number 15).

The problem, again, is not with the Declaration, as shown in the previous two straw men, but with your straw law. It is only your straw law that is presented without qualification-- there are plenty of qualifications in the Declaration (straw man infraction number 16). The Declaration is not biting me in the rear-- but these straw men you keep burning must really be starting to burn you.

Wrong again. The Declaration clearly states, "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" and "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." There is also plenty of precedent on how this passage was interpreted. If peaceful means are available, obviously they should be persued-- but even when no peaceful course of action remains available to the People, they can still assert their will, if worse comes to worst.

No, I argued that your questions "have nothing to do with the question in this topic," without making any such broad assertion (straw man infraction number 17).

Nope. That's your own absurd assertion of an absurd position you falsely attribute to me (straw man infraction number 18). The Declaration actually includes examples of its own interpretation and its historical application is well-documented in the history of the Revolutionary War-- how people were selected to attend the meeting where it was signed, how they did not stop persuing its goals when peaceful means had failed, etc.

Coca-Cola wasn't around in what historians call the classical period, yet Coke Classic exists. Classical can mean anything earlier than the modern style, so there is plenty of justification for using it, but no justification for your assumption that it must always be used to refer to a specific time period.

Interesting, but again I did not cite this (straw man infraction number 19). I cited disestablishmentarianism and antidisestablishmentarianism. There's a lengthy history of the political movements posted at WSU, and a more concise summary at KingdomRPG that is currently offline. Here's what I copied from the Google cache of the site:
I generally agree with this assessment up to the last part. There were secularists at the time, and they differed from the disestablishmentarians in that the former did not want any reference to religion in law, while the latter wanted a mere recognition of religion and guarantee of its free exercise in central governments, with the liberty for local communities to establish whatever religion they saw fit. By adopting the language in the First Amendment, America sided with the disestablishmentarians and against both the secularists and the antidisestablishmentarians. That resolved the issue in the US (until recent years) but the disagreement had a strong resurgence in 19th century England, and the debate even rages today over the Act of Settlement 1701 that prevents Roman Catholics or their spouses from ascending the throne of England.

The movements I cited popularized the use of the term "establishment" with "religion" with respect to church-state issues, so everywhere they use "establishment" they are referring to the contemporary fight over the Church's establishment in Britain. My application of the principle is therefore correct.

edited to expound on ((anti(dis))establishmentarianism

Jack22, I now understand your use of the term "straw man". I though that you used it to refer to an argument that attacks a case unrelated to the case in question. But in fact you use it to mean "anything that responds to logical conclusions of my statements rather than the direct quotes themselves." For example, if you declare that you have two dogs and two cats, and I argue that you have four mammals, you leap up shouting "STRAW MAN!!!!" because you didn't actually say that you have four mammals. I am indeed not attacking your statements themselves -- I am attacking conclusions that can logically be drawn from your statements. Inasmuch as you have never bothered to refute those claims, I aver that such claims that you have dismissed as straw man arguments stand unrefuted.


I granted you the courtesy of assuming the most reasonable interpretation of your statements. In this case, I assumed that you did not wish to extend your concept of law to cover such statements as "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;" but since you object to my assumption, I shall have to take you at face value and address such laws as this. So let us consider a law declaring that it is imprudent to change a long-established government for light and transient causes. (I realize that you will object to my re-phrasing of the original text as another straw man, but I am speaking to you only rhetorically, inasmuch as no hope exists for rational discussion between us; my true audience here is the readership.) Your law specifies this crime as imprudent. I do not know what a conviction for imprudence deserves by way of punishment, nor whether it is worthy of prosecution. But the Code Of Jack22 Law includes it, so it must mean something. I'll leave it to you to provide us with the particulars of this remarkable law.



Perhaps it's vague to you but it isn't in the least vague to me. I read it as broad, not vague -- there's a difference.


And how does the addition of this clause restrict the meaning of the right to life? The additional clause asserts only that governments are instituted to secure the right to life, liberty, etc. How comes it that a right (life) is consequentially restricted by the institution of a government to secure that right?


No, execution of murderers denies the right to life of a murderer. Can you show me where in the Declaration of Independence there is an exception made for murderers?


I see. You assert a right to life declared as law in the Declaration of Independence, then deny that right for murderers on your own authority, then turn around and assert it again for fetuses, again on your own authority. Making up laws and re-defining them must be fun.


And I thought that the Constitution and its amendments were democratically ratified. Perhaps the people who voted in support of the Constitution and its amendments don't count now because they're all dead.