JMU DJ wrote:For a guy who berates others for 'twisting' the facts/story, I'm surprised at your thread title Joe. Where does it say the atheists was responsible? Time will tell?
Time will tell the church murdered scientist too.
This was the part of the link I thought might help you grasp this:dbackjon wrote:The link clearly indicates that the "public lands" ARE the property of the Federal Government.JoltinJoe wrote:
The link does not prove your point. Now you are using the term "public lands" interchangeably with "federal property" ? Each of those words has some constitutional significance.
Again, how could the Federal Government give away the lands if it did not belong to them?
When Is a Cross a Cross?
By STANLEY FISH
Also, when is a menorah a menorah, and when is a crèche a crèche, and when are the Ten Commandments directives given to the Jews by God on Mt. Sinai? These questions, which might seem peculiar in the real world, are perfectly ordinary in the wild and wacky world of Establishment Clause jurisprudence, where in one case (Lynch v. Donnelly, 1984) the Supreme Court declared, with a straight judicial face, that a display featuring the baby Jesus, Mary, Joseph and the wise men conveyed a secular, not a religious message.
In the latest chapter of this odd project of saving religion by emptying it of its content, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a plurality in Salazar v. Buono, ordered a district court to reconsider a ruling that Congress had impermissibly promoted religion by devising a plan designed to prevent the removal of a cross standing in the Mojave National Preserve. The cross had originally been erected in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars to commemorate American soldiers who had died in World War I. In 2002, Frank Buono, a retired Park Service employee, filed suit alleging a violation of the Establishment Clause and “sought an injunction requiring the government to remove the cross.”
In litigation unfolding in at least four stages, the District Court and the Appellate Court of the Ninth Circuit determined that “a reasonable observer would perceive a cross on federal land as governmental endorsement of religion.” In response, Congress took several actions, including designating the cross and the adjoining land a national memorial and transferring ownership of the land in question to the V.F.W. in exchange for land located elsewhere in the preserve. Turning again to the courts, Buono asked for an injunction against the transfer; the District Court granted it, concluding that “the transfer was an attempt by the Government to keep the cross atop Sunrise Rock and so was invalid.”
The issue was Congress’s motive. The effect of what it had done was obvious: the cross now stood on private land, which meant, at least theoretically, that there was no longer an Establishment Clause violation because a private party, not the government, was speaking. But the question remained: did the transfer “cure” the violation or did it, as Justice John Paul Stevens contended in dissent, extend and re-perform it?
In a paroxysm of patriotism, Justice Anthony Kennedy has taken the Christianity out of the cross and turned it into an all-purpose means of marking secular achievements.
Now the fun and crazy stuff begins. Kennedy denies that the “emplacement” of the cross was accompanied by any intention “to promote a Christian message.” It was “intended simply to honor our Nation’s fallen soldiers.” (At oral argument Peter Eliasberg, an ACLU lawyer, observed, “There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew.”) Therefore, Kennedy reasoned, Congress had no “illicit” intention either; it merely sought a way to “accommodate” (a term of art in Establishment Clause jurisprudence) a “symbol often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this Nation and its people.”
Notice what this paroxysm of patriotism had done: it has taken the Christianity out of the cross and turned it into an all-purpose means of marking secular achievements. (According to this reasoning the cross should mark the winning of championships in professional sports.) It is one of the ironies of the sequence of cases dealing with religious symbols on public land that those who argue for their lawful presence must first deny them the significance that provokes the desire to put them there in the first place.
It has become a formula: if you want to secure a role for religious symbols in the public sphere, you must de-religionize them, either by claiming for them a non-religious meaning as Kennedy does here, or, in the case of multiple symbols in a park or in front of a courthouse, by declaring that the fact of many of them means that no one of them is to be taken seriously; they don’t stand for anything sectarian; they stand for diversity. So you save the symbols by leeching the life out of them. The operation is successful, but the patient is dead.
The game being played here by Kennedy (and many justices before him) is “let’s pretend.” Let’s pretend that a cross that, as Kennedy acknowledges, “has been a gathering place for Easter services since it was first put in place,” does not breathe Christianity. Let’s pretend that Congress, which in addition to engineering a land-swap for the purpose of keeping the cross in place attached a reversionary clause requiring that the “memorial” (no cross is mentioned) be kept as it is, did not have in mind the preservation of a religious symbol. Let’s pretend that after all these machinations a “reasonable observer” who knew all the facts would not see the government’s hand, but would only see the hands of private parties. (This is what I call the “look, ma, no hands” argument.) Let’s pretend that there will be many who, if the cross were removed, would think that the government had conveyed “disrespect for those the cross was seen as honoring.” (Stevens points out that Kennedy just made that one up without the support of “any legislative history or findings.”)
The trouble with pretending is that it involves a strain; keeping the pretense going is hard, and the truth being occluded often peeks through, as it does when Kennedy protests that the Establishment Clause “does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm” and adds that “the Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion’s role in society.”
But I thought that the cross was not, at least in this instance, a religious symbol and that the issue was not government acknowledging religion, but government honoring its dead. At moments like this, the mask slips and the plurality’s real concern — “to foster the display of the cross” (Stevens ) — is revealed for all (who had no doubt already spied it beneath the subterfuge) to see. The Christian and conservative Web sites that welcomed the decision as a blow for Christianity and against liberalism knew what they were looking at.
My distaste for Kennedy’s opinion has nothing to do with its result. In general, and for the record, I have no problem with the state accommodating religious symbols and I am not bothered by the thought of a cross standing in a remote part of the Mojave desert even if the land it stands on is owned by the government. I do have a problem with reasoning that is patently dishonest and protests too much about its own motives and the motives of those it defends. But that is what the religion clause drives you to when in one of its clauses — the free exercise clause — it singles out religion for special positive treatment, and in the other clause — the Establishment Clause — it places a warning label (watch out for this stuff; it’s trouble) on religion. It’s no wonder that the justices who try to deal with this schizophrenia tie themselves in knots and produce opinions that are as unedifying as they are disingenuous.
I'm sure you've read the decision and therefore know competent commentary about it when you see it.D1B wrote:Interesting and accurate take on this latest establishment clause circus. **** religion.
New York Times
When Is a Cross a Cross?
By STANLEY FISH
Also, when is a menorah a menorah, and when is a crèche a crèche, and when are the Ten Commandments directives given to the Jews by God on Mt. Sinai? These questions, which might seem peculiar in the real world, are perfectly ordinary in the wild and wacky world of Establishment Clause jurisprudence, where in one case (Lynch v. Donnelly, 1984) the Supreme Court declared, with a straight judicial face, that a display featuring the baby Jesus, Mary, Joseph and the wise men conveyed a secular, not a religious message.
In the latest chapter of this odd project of saving religion by emptying it of its content, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a plurality in Salazar v. Buono, ordered a district court to reconsider a ruling that Congress had impermissibly promoted religion by devising a plan designed to prevent the removal of a cross standing in the Mojave National Preserve. The cross had originally been erected in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars to commemorate American soldiers who had died in World War I. In 2002, Frank Buono, a retired Park Service employee, filed suit alleging a violation of the Establishment Clause and “sought an injunction requiring the government to remove the cross.”
In litigation unfolding in at least four stages, the District Court and the Appellate Court of the Ninth Circuit determined that “a reasonable observer would perceive a cross on federal land as governmental endorsement of religion.” In response, Congress took several actions, including designating the cross and the adjoining land a national memorial and transferring ownership of the land in question to the V.F.W. in exchange for land located elsewhere in the preserve. Turning again to the courts, Buono asked for an injunction against the transfer; the District Court granted it, concluding that “the transfer was an attempt by the Government to keep the cross atop Sunrise Rock and so was invalid.”
The issue was Congress’s motive. The effect of what it had done was obvious: the cross now stood on private land, which meant, at least theoretically, that there was no longer an Establishment Clause violation because a private party, not the government, was speaking. But the question remained: did the transfer “cure” the violation or did it, as Justice John Paul Stevens contended in dissent, extend and re-perform it?
In a paroxysm of patriotism, Justice Anthony Kennedy has taken the Christianity out of the cross and turned it into an all-purpose means of marking secular achievements.
Now the fun and crazy stuff begins. Kennedy denies that the “emplacement” of the cross was accompanied by any intention “to promote a Christian message.” It was “intended simply to honor our Nation’s fallen soldiers.” (At oral argument Peter Eliasberg, an ACLU lawyer, observed, “There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew.”) Therefore, Kennedy reasoned, Congress had no “illicit” intention either; it merely sought a way to “accommodate” (a term of art in Establishment Clause jurisprudence) a “symbol often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this Nation and its people.”
Notice what this paroxysm of patriotism had done: it has taken the Christianity out of the cross and turned it into an all-purpose means of marking secular achievements. (According to this reasoning the cross should mark the winning of championships in professional sports.) It is one of the ironies of the sequence of cases dealing with religious symbols on public land that those who argue for their lawful presence must first deny them the significance that provokes the desire to put them there in the first place.
It has become a formula: if you want to secure a role for religious symbols in the public sphere, you must de-religionize them, either by claiming for them a non-religious meaning as Kennedy does here, or, in the case of multiple symbols in a park or in front of a courthouse, by declaring that the fact of many of them means that no one of them is to be taken seriously; they don’t stand for anything sectarian; they stand for diversity. So you save the symbols by leeching the life out of them. The operation is successful, but the patient is dead.
The game being played here by Kennedy (and many justices before him) is “let’s pretend.” Let’s pretend that a cross that, as Kennedy acknowledges, “has been a gathering place for Easter services since it was first put in place,” does not breathe Christianity. Let’s pretend that Congress, which in addition to engineering a land-swap for the purpose of keeping the cross in place attached a reversionary clause requiring that the “memorial” (no cross is mentioned) be kept as it is, did not have in mind the preservation of a religious symbol. Let’s pretend that after all these machinations a “reasonable observer” who knew all the facts would not see the government’s hand, but would only see the hands of private parties. (This is what I call the “look, ma, no hands” argument.) Let’s pretend that there will be many who, if the cross were removed, would think that the government had conveyed “disrespect for those the cross was seen as honoring.” (Stevens points out that Kennedy just made that one up without the support of “any legislative history or findings.”)
The trouble with pretending is that it involves a strain; keeping the pretense going is hard, and the truth being occluded often peeks through, as it does when Kennedy protests that the Establishment Clause “does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm” and adds that “the Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion’s role in society.”
But I thought that the cross was not, at least in this instance, a religious symbol and that the issue was not government acknowledging religion, but government honoring its dead. At moments like this, the mask slips and the plurality’s real concern — “to foster the display of the cross” (Stevens ) — is revealed for all (who had no doubt already spied it beneath the subterfuge) to see. The Christian and conservative Web sites that welcomed the decision as a blow for Christianity and against liberalism knew what they were looking at.
My distaste for Kennedy’s opinion has nothing to do with its result. In general, and for the record, I have no problem with the state accommodating religious symbols and I am not bothered by the thought of a cross standing in a remote part of the Mojave desert even if the land it stands on is owned by the government. I do have a problem with reasoning that is patently dishonest and protests too much about its own motives and the motives of those it defends. But that is what the religion clause drives you to when in one of its clauses — the free exercise clause — it singles out religion for special positive treatment, and in the other clause — the Establishment Clause — it places a warning label (watch out for this stuff; it’s trouble) on religion. It’s no wonder that the justices who try to deal with this schizophrenia tie themselves in knots and produce opinions that are as unedifying as they are disingenuous.
Isn't the government and the public one and the same? Perhaps trying to make a distinction between the two is a big part of our problem.JoltinJoe wrote:dbackjon wrote:
Your link proves my point - thanks Joe!
Question - if the Federal Government did not own the public lands, how could they give it away to the railroads, homesteaders or miners?
The link does not prove your point. Now you are using the term "public lands" interchangeably with "federal property" ? Each of those words has some constitutional significance, at least in the 1800s. Public lands were lands acquired to be turned over to private use; federal property was propert used or to be used for federal government purposes.
That is an opinion held by some. It is a long way from being known as established fact. I don't know how I'd find out but my bet is that if one were to poll historians the majority would say they think Jesus of Nazareth existed in some form or fashion.Again, Jesus never existed.
The difference between the "public" and the federal government is, in fact, essential to our federalism. That you perceive no difference between the two really represents the erosion of federalism over the past several decades (which has been a very bad thing for the public). We, the people, created a federal government with certain defined, limited purposes.kalm wrote:Isn't the government and the public one and the same? Perhaps trying to make a distinction between the two is a big part of our problem.JoltinJoe wrote:
The link does not prove your point. Now you are using the term "public lands" interchangeably with "federal property" ? Each of those words has some constitutional significance, at least in the 1800s. Public lands were lands acquired to be turned over to private use; federal property was propert used or to be used for federal government purposes.
I greatly admire your thoughts Joe, but on this one dback is right. Public - in the sense of federal lands - existed before the blm. It seems like you're arguing semantics.
JoltinJoe wrote:The difference between the "public" and the federal government is, in fact, essential to our federalism. That you perceive no difference between the two really represents the erosion of federalism over the past several decades (which has been a very bad thing for the public). We, the people, created a federal government with certain defined, limited purposes.kalm wrote:
Isn't the government and the public one and the same? Perhaps trying to make a distinction between the two is a big part of our problem.
I greatly admire your thoughts Joe, but on this one dback is right. Public - in the sense of federal lands - existed before the blm. It seems like you're arguing semantics.
Jefferson certainly perceived a difference between the federal government and the public. With regard the the Louisiana Purchase, he created the concept of public lands expressly to avoid calling it federal property and to circumvent Federalist Party objections to the acquisition of land by the federal government. As the linked I provided made clear, different concepts of law applied to lands which were deemed public domain lands. Jon is trying to call the Mojave Desert "federal property" dating back to 1848. Most certainly, in 1848, it was deemed public domain land. I questioned him for his authority for calling it federal land in 1848, and his response is that because the government owned it.
The government may have owned public domain lands, but it made no federal claim to retain or use it, unless and until that land was withdrawn from the public domain by its official act. Publc domain lands could be claimed by individuals for their use.
To suggest that the anlysis of what uses and activities were permissible on public domain lands were subject to the same constitutional scruntiny as land actually claimed for federal use is simply wrong.
http://www.archives.gov/publications/pr ... apers.html
The public domain (public land) is land owned by the federal government that is subject to sale or transfer of ownership under laws passed by Congress. It includes western lands that the original states ceded to the United States as well as acquisitions from foreign governments. Congress was therefore initially responsible for many matters relating to the settlement of land in the public domain. The eight volumes of the Public Lands Class record thousands of diverse land claims and transactions regarding public domain, including military bounty lands, preemption rights, claims by refugees, agreements with Indian Nations, and the settlement of private land claims on public domain that the United States acquired from foreign governments.
* * *
To successfully claim land located within the public domain, one had to prove right to the land as recognized under public land laws. This meant that the claimant often had to produce evidence or at least explain the basis for the claim. One type of land claim, private land claims on public domain that the United States acquired from foreign governments, often offers researchers a unique opportunity to gain detailed information on the claimants and their families. The British, French, and Spanish governments granted a great deal of land within their American holdings to the inhabitants prior to the acquisition of the territories by the United States. After taking control of the land, the U.S. Government had to validate the titles originally granted by foreign authorities before the claimant could have legal possession of the land.
Why don't you shut up and learn, rather than pretend to an expert on things you know nothing about?D1B wrote:JoltinJoe wrote:
The difference between the "public" and the federal government is, in fact, essential to our federalism. That you perceive no difference between the two really represents the erosion of federalism over the past several decades (which has been a very bad thing for the public). We, the people, created a federal government with certain defined, limited purposes.
Jefferson certainly perceived a difference between the federal government and the public. With regard the the Louisiana Purchase, he created the concept of public lands expressly to avoid calling it federal property and to circumvent Federalist Party objections to the acquisition of land by the federal government. As the linked I provided made clear, different concepts of law applied to lands which were deemed public domain lands. Jon is trying to call the Mojave Desert "federal property" dating back to 1848. Most certainly, in 1848, it was deemed public domain land. I questioned him for his authority for calling it federal land in 1848, and his response is that because the government owned it.
The government may have owned public domain lands, but it made no federal claim to retain or use it, unless and until that land was withdrawn from the public domain by its official act. Publc domain lands could be claimed by individuals for their use.
To suggest that the anlysis of what uses and activities were permissible on public domain lands were subject to the same constitutional scruntiny as land actually claimed for federal use is simply wrong.
http://www.archives.gov/publications/pr ... apers.html
The public domain (public land) is land owned by the federal government that is subject to sale or transfer of ownership under laws passed by Congress. It includes western lands that the original states ceded to the United States as well as acquisitions from foreign governments. Congress was therefore initially responsible for many matters relating to the settlement of land in the public domain. The eight volumes of the Public Lands Class record thousands of diverse land claims and transactions regarding public domain, including military bounty lands, preemption rights, claims by refugees, agreements with Indian Nations, and the settlement of private land claims on public domain that the United States acquired from foreign governments.
* * *
To successfully claim land located within the public domain, one had to prove right to the land as recognized under public land laws. This meant that the claimant often had to produce evidence or at least explain the basis for the claim. One type of land claim, private land claims on public domain that the United States acquired from foreign governments, often offers researchers a unique opportunity to gain detailed information on the claimants and their families. The British, French, and Spanish governments granted a great deal of land within their American holdings to the inhabitants prior to the acquisition of the territories by the United States. After taking control of the land, the U.S. Government had to validate the titles originally granted by foreign authorities before the claimant could have legal possession of the land.
Joe, no one is paying attention to you. You lost this debate eons ago. Also, no one respect you anymore.
The **** cross should have never been there.
Joe, first, the cross is gone.JoltinJoe wrote:Why don't you shut up and learn, rather than pretend to an expert on things you know nothing about?D1B wrote:
Joe, no one is paying attention to you. You lost this debate eons ago. Also, no one respect you anymore.
The **** cross should have never been there.
I lost. The court siad the cross stays. I guess winning with the Supreme Court isn't important. d1B says I lost the debate on cs.comm. Get over yourself.
Why don't you continue to stalk me on these boards, trying to make my experience here miserable, just becasue I have routinely kicked your sorry, stupid ass in every debate we've ever had.
Second, the courts will eventually rule to take it down. It aint over. Atheists typically win these cases cuz we don't have to lie or resort to deception, as in the article I posted. Funny, a smart guy like you KNOWS a stunt like this is most likely the handiwork of christian whackjobs. They do shit like this all the time to give the impression that christians are oppressed - the media love it, it sells and more importantly, it influences judges to accomodate religion, as in the article I posted. 
JoltinJoe wrote:Why don't you shut up and learn, rather than pretend to an expert on things you know nothing about?D1B wrote:
Joe, no one is paying attention to you. You lost this debate eons ago. Also, no one respect you anymore.
The **** cross should have never been there.
I lost. The court said the cross stays. I guess winning with the Supreme Court isn't important. d1B says I lost the debate on cs.com. Get over yourself.
Why don't you continue to stalk me on these boards, trying to make my experience here miserable, just becasue I have routinely kicked your sorry, stupid ass in every debate we've ever had.
Spoken like a true christian whackjob.JohnStOnge wrote:Whatever happened, at the root is the problem created by the role our Court system has assumed. Thus we have a minority of malcontents imposing their will on the nation at large. The Constitution itself does not say a cross can't be placed on Federal property. Any intellectually honest assessment of the literal meaning of the language and/or the context in which it was generated leads to the conclusion that such a circumstance is not unconstitutional in the sense of violating either the text or the original understanding of the document.
It is "unconstitutional" only because we have accepted a evolution into a system whereby we are ruled by Judicial fiat and distortion. It is a system where the Constitution is controlled by the Court instead of one in which the Court is controlled by the Constitution.
I have absolutely no doubt that the overhwelming majority of United States citizens would, in having the situation described to them, say they favored having the cross where it was. I also have no doubt that there has never been a point at which the majority of the population, if understanding that the original understanding of the Constitution does not support prohibiting such things as the cross on public land, would have favored changing the Constitution so that it would.
What we have no is not born of the Constitution nor is it born of a wish on the part of the American People to change the Constitution. It is born of a small, vocal, intolerant minority who have found an ally in a Court system that has absolutely no real respect for the Constitution and declares it to mean anything it wants it to mean. It is not government by the People. It is government by an oligarchy favorably predisposed to the wishes of a small minority. It is totally contrary to the principles upon which this nation was founded. Yes, this nation was founded so as to protect minorities. But there was no intent to have minorities imposing their will on the majority.
See, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You are now advocating not a seperation of church and state, but a seperation of people and state. I'm sorry, but I totally disagree. Democracy relies upon the involvement of the people.JoltinJoe wrote:
The difference between the "public" and the federal government is, in fact, essential to our federalism. That you perceive no difference between the two really represents the erosion of federalism over the past several decades (which has been a very bad thing for the public). We, the people, created a federal government with certain defined, limited purposes.
The government is the people. Thus, the government's land is the people's land, protected by the constitutionJoltinJoe wrote:That's in fact the point of the Constitution. "We the people" formed the federal government.
The Constitution is contract between the people and the federal government in which the government acknowledges the existence of our natural rights, and that it may only govern with the consent of the governed. And there are always two parties to a contract.
No, absolutely wrong, comrade.kalm wrote:The government is the people.JoltinJoe wrote:That's in fact the point of the Constitution. "We the people" formed the federal government.
The Constitution is contract between the people and the federal government in which the government acknowledges the existence of our natural rights, and that it may only govern with the consent of the governed. And there are always two parties to a contract.
Why do you hate democracy?JoltinJoe wrote:No, absolutely wrong, comrade.kalm wrote:
The government is the people.
I don't hate democracy. You just don't understand it.kalm wrote:Why do you hate democracy?JoltinJoe wrote:
No, absolutely wrong, comrade.
How many times does the word "contract" appear in the constitution?JoltinJoe wrote:I don't hate democracy. You just don't understand it.kalm wrote:
Why do you hate democracy?
Read the Bill of Rights. If the federal government and "the people" are the same, why do we have an enumeration of the "people's rights" which the government may not invade? This is pretty basic constitutional law. The constitution is a contract between the federal government and the governed.
Opinions like mine screwing things up? You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. I've taught Constitutional Law at an accredited law schol. I know what I am talking about. You don't.
kalm wrote:How many times does the word "contract" appear in the constitution?JoltinJoe wrote:
I don't hate democracy. You just don't understand it.
Read the Bill of Rights. If the federal government and "the people" are the same, why do we have an enumeration of the "people's rights" which the government may not invade? This is pretty basic constitutional law. The constitution is a contract between the federal government and the governed.
Opinions like mine screwing things up? You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. I've taught Constitutional Law at an accredited law schol. I know what I am talking about. You don't.
I understand the neccessity to limit the government's power, but aren't elected officials representatives of the people? Our Democratic government does not exist without the people.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt with the knuckle dragging commie remark being a mildy funny attempt at sarcasm, but now I'm beginning to seriously wonder about your level of understanding - despite your work experience.
But since we're not in con law class, all we have to go on is my cliff notes version of the constitution. So why doesn't the preamble say "We the people...embodied in representative form by our states.. in order to form a more perfect contract...because government is a different entity from ourselves..."?JoltinJoe wrote:kalm wrote:
How many times does the word "contract" appear in the constitution?
I understand the neccessity to limit the government's power, but aren't elected officials representatives of the people? Our Democratic government does not exist without the people.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt with the knuckle dragging commie remark being a mildy funny attempt at sarcasm, but now I'm beginning to seriously wonder about your level of understanding - despite your work experience.
Try to understand this. The framers of the Constitution understood that representatives of "the people" were the states. You have no idea what you are talking about. You are 100%, absolutely wrong. In a con law class, if you said thes things on an exam, you would fail.
I'm not sure how the Ninth amendment proves your point.JoltinJoe wrote:kalm wrote:
How many times does the word "contract" appear in the constitution?
I understand the neccessity to limit the government's power, but aren't elected officials representatives of the people? Our Democratic government does not exist without the people.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt with the knuckle dragging commie remark being a mildy funny attempt at sarcasm, but now I'm beginning to seriously wonder about your level of understanding - despite your work experience.
Try to understand this. The framers of the Constitution understood that representatives of "the people" were the states. You have no idea what you are talking about. You are 100%, absolutely wrong. In a con law class, if you said these things on an exam, you would fail.
Let's see if we can make some progress here. Let's go back to the question about the Ninth Amendment. If the federal government and "the people" are one and the same, why does this provision of the Bill of Rights reserve for the people certain rights, even though not enumerated in the prior Eight Amendments? Please answer this question. All other responses will be ignored. Thank you.
