The Delaration's Last Paragraph

[JohnStOnge]

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[Gil Dobie]

Today's government is making dab gum sure that they get our fortune's.

[JohnStOnge]

You know the philosophical foundation of the United States is expressed by the Declaration of Independence; not the Constitution. The Constitution is an Operations Manual.

And it's interesting to look at the Declaration of Independence in toto or even just that last paragraph while contemplating how far we have deviated from being consistent with the philosophy reflected. For one thing you see the concept of sovereign individual States. There the Constitution kind of carries that over as it refers to the States as "Sovereign." I don't think anybody would argue that the States are sovereign today. The Federal Government is completely dominant.

Another thing is the presumption of the existence of something greater. What many call "God" but what is referenced in the Declaration by terms like "Creator" and "Supreme Judge of the world." Its existence is key to the premise that there are unalienable rights. In the final paragraph they justify their position by invoking the "Supreme Judge." Today our official stance is hostile to that outlook.

[Ibanez]

Youknow, after 236 years America is fat and nothing like she used to be. I love this country, for all of her good deeds and in spite of her faults. We seriously have to change it.

[dbackjon]

They tried have a collection of sovereign states - it failed, and was quickly replaced by the current federal system.

There is nothing in there that we are not doing today. The Constitution specifically forbids any forced feality to one version of a Supreme Judge, whomever you hold that to be.

Happy Independence Day.

[Ivytalk]

They tried have a collection of sovereign states - it failed, and was quickly replaced by the current federal system.

There is nothing in there that we are not doing today. The Constitution specifically forbids any forced feality to one version of a Supreme Judge, whomever you hold that to be.

Happy Independence Day.

The Supreme Judge is John Glover Roberts, Jr.

[JohnStOnge]

They tried have a collection of sovereign states - it failed, and was quickly replaced by the current federal system.

There is nothing in there that we are not doing today. The Constitution specifically forbids any forced feality to one version of a Supreme Judge, whomever you hold that to be.

It was not replaced by the current system. The current system evolved over time. And though the Constitution did make the Federal role more prominent than the Articles of Confederation it still included the concept of Sovereign States. We had a Civil War and some people say the Civil War settled the question of States Rights and as a practical matter it did. But only because might effectively makes right.

All the Constitution says on Religion is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That's all. Unless someone wants to argue that a community having a tradition of prayer in school is a law passed by Congress it does not prohibit that. Just doesn't. Nor was it intended to do that sort of thing. And even if one buys the thing about the 14th Amendment extending the prohibition to the State there is still the matter of a legislature or elected body making a law. A principle deciding to read a prayer over an intercom before class every day is not a legislature or elected body making a law.

Any illusion about the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause being understood as calling for a broad "Separation of Church and State" such as that in place today should be eliminated by the fact that Congress started holding Christian church services in the House chamber shortly after it was ratified. You don't hire a chaplain then have Church in the House chamber if you understand the first Amendment to be a ban on all government association with and/or endorsement of religion.

Having a community tradition of prayer before a high school football game or having the principle read a prayer over the intercom at a school is not forcing anyone to practice religion unless you force them to participate in the prayer.

[Ibanez]

They tried have a collection of sovereign states - it failed, and was quickly replaced by the current federal system.

There is nothing in there that we are not doing today. The Constitution specifically forbids any forced feality to one version of a Supreme Judge, whomever you hold that to be.

Happy Independence Day.

Our super centralized Gov't is nothing like the founders thought of in 1776. AS JSO said, this gov't evolved.

[youngterrier]

Whooooo caressss

[kalm]

They tried have a collection of sovereign states - it failed, and was quickly replaced by the current federal system.

There is nothing in there that we are not doing today. The Constitution specifically forbids any forced feality to one version of a Supreme Judge, whomever you hold that to be.

It was not replaced by the current system. The current system evolved over time. And though the Constitution did make the Federal role more prominent than the Articles of Confederation it still included the concept of Sovereign States. We had a Civil War and some people say the Civil War settled the question of States Rights and as a practical matter it did. But only because might effectively makes right.

All the Constitution says on Religion is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That's all. Unless someone wants to argue that a community having a tradition of prayer in school is a law passed by Congress it does not prohibit that. Just doesn't. Nor was it intended to do that sort of thing. And even if one buys the thing about the 14th Amendment extending the prohibition to the State there is still the matter of a legislature or elected body making a law. A principle deciding to read a prayer over an intercom before class every day is not a legislature or elected body making a law.

Any illusion about the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause being understood as calling for a broad "Separation of Church and State" such as that in place today should be eliminated by the fact that Congress started holding Christian church services in the House chamber shortly after it was ratified. You don't hire a chaplain then have Church in the House chamber if you understand the first Amendment to be a ban on all government association with and/or endorsement of religion.

Having a community tradition of prayer before a high school football game or having the principle read a prayer over the intercom at a school is not forcing anyone to practice religion unless you force them to participate in the prayer.

They should have included..."but state and local governments can". Just for clarification's sake.