|
An Associate dean!!!!!!!!!
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i1historical.htm
[Excerpt]
April 15-30, 2003
The History of the 1st Amendment
By Professor R.E. Vision, Jr.
Associate Dean, School of Social Sciences at Bob Jones University
While many debates regarding the first amendment question just how much
freedom of speech is supposed to be guaranteed by it, there is a more
central point that is usually ignored - and which renders the whole
discussion irrelevant.
Most of us have been taught that freedom of speech was something thought up
by our founding fathers and put in the Constitution as the 1
st Amendment.
The reality is that the first ten amendments, which people love to quote
when asserting their right to do this or that, were not put in the
constitution by our forefathers, and never have, in anyway, been applied in
law to mean people are free to do what they want to do.
The Bill of Rights, as these Constitutional fleas are often dubbed, are not
and have never been an actual part of the Constitution. Our forefathers
created the great document that governs our nation explicitly without any
guarantee of free this or that.
However, one pesky little colonial, who happened to be in France at the
time
the Constitution was made up, said he refused to accept the constitution
unless these ten little boils were attached to its buttocks. This man, who
was a reputed atheist, derided such fine institutions as tithing by
churches, wore his hair long like a hippie, snorted snuff, smoked hemp, and
in general, acted in ways that were divisive and detrimental to a stable,
prosperous society.
For these reasons, shortly after the Constitution was passed (having
allowed
these 10 moles to exist on the Constitution's otherwise flawlessly white
skin for the sake of political expediency), laws were passed to undo the
ridiculous damage these 10 amendments, the 1
st of these in particular,
would create.
During just the second presidency of this country, Alexander Hamilton was
smart enough to pass the Alien and Sedition acts, in effect, eliminating
any
semblance of free speech. In particular, these two laws took away the right
of the long-haired atheist who came up with this "Bill of Rights" to say
the
sorts of things he was known to say.
|
| |
| |
An Associate dean!!!!!!!!!
Bwahahaaa... at Bob Jones university = a class A asshole!
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i1historical.htm
[Excerpt]
April 15-30, 2003
The History of the 1st Amendment
By Professor R.E. Vision, Jr.
Associate Dean, School of Social Sciences at Bob Jones University
While many debates regarding the first amendment question just how much
freedom of speech is supposed to be guaranteed by it, there is a more
central point that is usually ignored - and which renders the whole
discussion irrelevant.
Most of us have been taught that freedom of speech was something thought
up
by our founding fathers and put in the Constitution as the 1
st Amendment.
The reality is that the first ten amendments, which people love to quote
when asserting their right to do this or that, were not put in the
constitution by our forefathers, and never have, in anyway, been applied
in
law to mean people are free to do what they want to do.
???????????????
It wasn't Rupert Murdoch, asshole!
The Constitution, as a single entity, defines the government adn its powers.
The Bill Of Rights, which RATIONAL people consider JUST as - if not MORE -
important than the description of the powers of the government - describves
the RIGHTS of the people (a limit, if you will, in the powers of the
government).
Remember ... these men CAME from nations where the power of the government
over the rights of the people were often, historically, and constantly
abused!
The Bill of Rights, as these Constitutional fleas are often dubbed, are
not
and have never been an actual part of the Constitution. Our forefathers
created the great document that governs our nation explicitly without any
guarantee of free this or that.
Yes. The Constitution - the document that created the government IS an
independant document.
So what?
That does NOT mean the guarantees of human rights and freedoms are minimal
... and CERTAINLY not "fleas".
It is, by those "fleas" that morons like you get to write, post, practice
your religion, and bellow even blatant ignorancvec like this.
However, one pesky little colonial, who happened to be in France at the
time
the Constitution was made up, said he refused to accept the constitution
unless these ten little boils were attached to its buttocks.
Bwahahhaaa... only a certified loon, or Nazi fanatic, would call the Bill of
Rights a boil.
This man, who
was a reputed atheist,
He was a deist......which is WELL know by honestly educated people.
derided such fine institutions as tithing by
churches,
asking the poor to donate to a multi-million dollar organization is
christian?
wore his hair long like a hippie, snorted snuff, smoked hemp,
Which were all common to the time ... which any honestly educated person
would know.
and
in general, acted in ways that were divisive and detrimental to a stable,
prosperous society.
OH MY GOD ... a person, in the midst of a REVOLUTION that created a new
nation from the dust of a war ... is divisive.
What next? George Washington was a terrorist?
For these reasons, shortly after the Constitution was passed (having
allowed
these 10 moles to exist on the Constitution's otherwise flawlessly white
skin for the sake of political expediency), laws were passed to undo the
ridiculous damage these 10 amendments, the 1
st of these in particular,
would create.
The ignorance here is no less corrupt that al the other babble.
There were MANY admendments, edited down to ten, after months (years?) of
haggling.
There have been no laws passed that contradict these first ten.
During just the second presidency of this country, Alexander Hamilton was
smart enough to pass the Alien and Sedition acts, in effect, eliminating
any
semblance of free speech. In particular, these two laws took away the
right
of the long-haired atheist who came up with this "Bill of Rights" to say
the
sorts of things he was known to say.
and the third president brought back the democracy by not only gutting that
act - but freeing the POLITCAL PRISONERS Hamilton had jailed JUST BECASUE
THEY SPOKE OUT AGAINST HIM.
***************
Obviously this fanatic would rather have a Nazi Germany than a democracy.
Not surprising from a conservative (aka, insanely fanatical) maniac who
dares call himslef christian.
|
| |
| |
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
An Associate dean!!!!!!!!!
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i1historical.htm
He is an idiot, and totally ignorant of the Constitution and its history.
Oh, he's with Bob Jones University. Well THAT explains it!
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in
the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary,
self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition
of tyranny." - James Madison, _The Federalist_, #47
|
| |
| |
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
He is an idiot, and totally ignorant of the Constitution and its history.
Oh, he's with Bob Jones University. Well THAT explains it!
Maybe you guys should check out the other "news stories" on the site before
getting angry.
My favorites are the Poll: Thoughts about the War and "Schwarzenegger: I'll
make Bush seem like Mother Teresa".
|
| |
| |
An Associate dean!!!!!!!!!
.. . . of social sciences at Bob Jones University.
If he is typical of the level of instruction students receive there, then
they are very poorly served as his assertions are simply wrong (and rather
ignorant, as well).
For example:
While many debates regarding the first amendment question just how much
freedom of speech is supposed to be guaranteed by it,
This statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of
federal power in the U.S. Per the Constitution, the federal government is a
government of limited powers, meaning that it has only as much power as was
expressly and specifically ceded to it by the sovereign states and their
citizens when this country was formed. Accordingly, the 1st Amendment, as
well as the rest of the Bill of Rights, does not act as a "guarantee" of
freedom of speech, but as a limitation on the federal government's ability
to impinge on a fundamental right that was NOT ceded.
<snip>
The reality is that the first ten amendments, which people love to quote
when asserting their right to do this or that, were not put in the
constitution by our forefathers,
The Constitution itself specifies how it may be amended. To suggest that
the Bill of Rights is somehow separate from and antithetical to the
Constitution again betrays a fundamental misapprehension of the nature and
purpose of the document.
and never have, in anyway, been applied in
law to mean people are free to do what they want to do.
This is, of course, a simple strawman argument. No one has ever suggested
that people are free to do whatever they want to do.
The Bill of Rights, as these Constitutional fleas are often dubbed, are
not
and have never been an actual part of the Constitution.
Apparently the author has never actually READ the Constitution since, as I
indicated, the document itself provides the mechanism by which it may be
modified or added to -- that is the Amendment process, which requires
ratification by 2/3rds of the states. The reason for this is, as I've said,
the federal government is a government of limited powers. If it is to have
greater powers it can acquire them only if they are ceded by the states and
their citizens.
Our forefathers
created the great document that governs our nation explicitly without any
guarantee of free this or that.
And, of course, "guarantee" has no meaning or application to anything under
discussion. The Bill of Rights is not a "guarantee" of anything -- it is an
express limitation on federal power.
However, one pesky little colonial, who happened to be in France at the
time
the Constitution was made up, said he refused to accept the constitution
unless these ten little boils were attached to its buttocks. This man, who
was a reputed atheist, derided such fine institutions as tithing by
churches, wore his hair long like a hippie, snorted snuff, smoked hemp,
and
in general, acted in ways that were divisive and detrimental to a stable,
prosperous society.
What spectacularly stupid statements. Tithing by churches has nothing to do
with the Constitution, there were no hippies in the 18th century, and
eveyone wore their hair long, smoking hemp and snorting snuff was legal and
not considered immoral. Ben Franklin did NOT act in ways that were devisive
and detrimental to a stable prosperous society -- he was, among other
things, ambassador to France.
For these reasons, shortly after the Constitution was passed (having
allowed
these 10 moles to exist on the Constitution's otherwise flawlessly white
skin for the sake of political expediency), laws were passed to undo the
ridiculous damage these 10 amendments, the 1
st of these in particular,
would create.
As, evidently, the author had no intention of writing an academic essay, but
is simply writing hyperbolic opinion, there is no need to go any further
with this. Anyone who actually paid attention in high school civics knows
(1) the nature of the Constitution, i.e. a positivist law document
establishing a political framework for a republic, and (2) the reason the
Bill of Rights was added as amendments (which had nothing to do with Ben
Franklin being a hippie).
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 11:04:28 -0800, "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote:
"snip"
Apparently the author has never actually READ the Constitution since, as I
indicated, the document itself provides the mechanism by which it may be
modified or added to -- that is the Amendment process, which requires
ratification by 2/3rds of the states.
While I agree with much of your commentary, I believe you meant to say
"ratification by" 3/4ths "of the states". You were I suspect, referring to that
regarding proposals for Amendments when referring to 2/3rds for both houses of
Congress or 2/3rds of the states calling for a Convention of the same.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 11:04:28 -0800, "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote:
"snip"
While I agree with much of your commentary, I believe you meant to say
"ratification by" 3/4ths "of the states". You were I suspect, referring to
that
regarding proposals for Amendments when referring to 2/3rds for both
houses of
Congress or 2/3rds of the states calling for a Convention of the same.
You are right -- thank you for the correction.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 11:36:50 -0800, "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote:
that
houses of
You are right -- thank you for the correction.
I'm thankful I correctly understood you're meaning...and your welcome :-)
Who said dialog in Usenet is always negative? :->>>>>>>
|
| |
| |
|
