e-1st Congress Shit
I’m going to do this in small chunks. We can follow along with the amending of the amendments process as if we were in the 1st Congress, seeing Madison’s drafts for the first time. How sexy is that?
Remember, in my response to Mikey (and what might be called the mainstream liberal understanding of the 1st Amendment’s meaning re: religion and this erect wall of separation) my contention is: We should consider the thought of the people who actually wanted something like the 1st A. It goes too far to suggest, as Justice Black does that we can simply turn to Madison and Jefferson as the authorities on the meaning of the 1st A (for all the reasons I put forth earlier). While I agree with Mikey and those who say the Framers weren’t as religious as the War on Christmas Crowd would have us believe, it is precisely for this reason that others wanted something like the 1st A. The losers. The people who lost when it came to the ratification of the unamended Constitution…the anti-Federalists – and to understand the 1st A, we ought to ask what did they want?
It would be misleading for me to paint the anti-Feds with a broad brush and say all of them wanted X. The anti-Fed positions and their objections to the Constitution are too nuanced for that. But there was a determined group among them (so determined that they got their asses and their influence in the 1st Congress and in the committee for drafting the BofR) and among these folks their complaint was that the unamended Constitution was manifestly nonreligious (see my earlier discussion about Article VI Par. 3, the only mention of religion in the unamnCon) – and their coordinate fear was that the new government it created might be hostile to religion. Again, Mikey and whoever else can say to voters of the blue tie crowd when they opine that the Founders were God fearing men, you can remind them: No, many of the anti-Federalists understood that the Con was produced in a convention guided by (at worst) the kind of skepticism that informed the Enlightenment and at best indifference to traditional theistic claims associated with revealed religion. That’s why their Constitution was something of a novel instrument of government among these early Americans. Consider the language of the Articles of Confederation, hold on, let me dig it out of my garbage can – the Art of Con openly acknowledges the importance of the “Great Governor of the Universe” and man’s dependence on him, individually and in the fate of the nation.
Great Governor of the Universe is not to be confused with Arnold – who is a governor – and who was once Mr. Universe.
See, jokes like that may be why I deserve to fail as a teacher.
Several of the state Constitutions had language similar to that of the Articles. The proposed Constitution had nothing like that. Some of the anti-Feds recognized this as novelty and wanted to do something about it – hence the drive for something like the 1st A.
Madison was a practical man of politics. Although initially (and probably secretly throughout the process) MadDog didn’t want the 1st A or the BoR in general. But after consulting the polls (just kidding) he understood that some acquiescence to the complaints of the anti-Feds was going to be necessary in the 1st Congress. Also because he was a political man, Madison wanted to try to beat the anti-Feds to the punch. He came prepared to the first Congress. NERD! Short Nerd! He had drafts of two religious amendments. Consider:
1.) “No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience.”
2.) “The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext abridged.”
See, Madison is Mikey’s guy. He’s Justice Black’s guy to be sure. And if these amendments were adopted they would certainly contain all the principles these thoughtful Americans would find to be sound and true. Madison called #1 the most important of all the proposed Bill o Rights. Needless to say, #1 got totally shitcanned by the 1st Congress. See, here is where we see those of the founding generation that weren’t as “enlightened” as Madison, Jefferson or any of the Enlightenment crowd. #2 sounds like what became the 1st Amendment. Let me remind us of the language of the 1st Amendment that we’ve all grown to know and love:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Significant differences here between #2 and the religion CLAUSES of the 1st A as we have it now. More on the drafting and these differences later. I have some distracting shit to do this morning.
I will not get to half of my proposed list of stuff to do (this week) for my summer projects.
But I am home every night by 5:30pm, having a great time with the wife and kid – and I get to talk about this shit with y’all.
Life ain’t half bad.
Remember, in my response to Mikey (and what might be called the mainstream liberal understanding of the 1st Amendment’s meaning re: religion and this erect wall of separation) my contention is: We should consider the thought of the people who actually wanted something like the 1st A. It goes too far to suggest, as Justice Black does that we can simply turn to Madison and Jefferson as the authorities on the meaning of the 1st A (for all the reasons I put forth earlier). While I agree with Mikey and those who say the Framers weren’t as religious as the War on Christmas Crowd would have us believe, it is precisely for this reason that others wanted something like the 1st A. The losers. The people who lost when it came to the ratification of the unamended Constitution…the anti-Federalists – and to understand the 1st A, we ought to ask what did they want?
It would be misleading for me to paint the anti-Feds with a broad brush and say all of them wanted X. The anti-Fed positions and their objections to the Constitution are too nuanced for that. But there was a determined group among them (so determined that they got their asses and their influence in the 1st Congress and in the committee for drafting the BofR) and among these folks their complaint was that the unamended Constitution was manifestly nonreligious (see my earlier discussion about Article VI Par. 3, the only mention of religion in the unamnCon) – and their coordinate fear was that the new government it created might be hostile to religion. Again, Mikey and whoever else can say to voters of the blue tie crowd when they opine that the Founders were God fearing men, you can remind them: No, many of the anti-Federalists understood that the Con was produced in a convention guided by (at worst) the kind of skepticism that informed the Enlightenment and at best indifference to traditional theistic claims associated with revealed religion. That’s why their Constitution was something of a novel instrument of government among these early Americans. Consider the language of the Articles of Confederation, hold on, let me dig it out of my garbage can – the Art of Con openly acknowledges the importance of the “Great Governor of the Universe” and man’s dependence on him, individually and in the fate of the nation.
Great Governor of the Universe is not to be confused with Arnold – who is a governor – and who was once Mr. Universe.
See, jokes like that may be why I deserve to fail as a teacher.
Several of the state Constitutions had language similar to that of the Articles. The proposed Constitution had nothing like that. Some of the anti-Feds recognized this as novelty and wanted to do something about it – hence the drive for something like the 1st A.
Madison was a practical man of politics. Although initially (and probably secretly throughout the process) MadDog didn’t want the 1st A or the BoR in general. But after consulting the polls (just kidding) he understood that some acquiescence to the complaints of the anti-Feds was going to be necessary in the 1st Congress. Also because he was a political man, Madison wanted to try to beat the anti-Feds to the punch. He came prepared to the first Congress. NERD! Short Nerd! He had drafts of two religious amendments. Consider:
1.) “No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience.”
2.) “The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext abridged.”
See, Madison is Mikey’s guy. He’s Justice Black’s guy to be sure. And if these amendments were adopted they would certainly contain all the principles these thoughtful Americans would find to be sound and true. Madison called #1 the most important of all the proposed Bill o Rights. Needless to say, #1 got totally shitcanned by the 1st Congress. See, here is where we see those of the founding generation that weren’t as “enlightened” as Madison, Jefferson or any of the Enlightenment crowd. #2 sounds like what became the 1st Amendment. Let me remind us of the language of the 1st Amendment that we’ve all grown to know and love:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Significant differences here between #2 and the religion CLAUSES of the 1st A as we have it now. More on the drafting and these differences later. I have some distracting shit to do this morning.
I will not get to half of my proposed list of stuff to do (this week) for my summer projects.
But I am home every night by 5:30pm, having a great time with the wife and kid – and I get to talk about this shit with y’all.
Life ain’t half bad.
posted by edP | 7:11 AM
12 Comments:
"While I agree with Mikey and those who say the Framers weren’t as religious as the War on Christmas Crowd would have us believe,"
I actually believe that the framers were deeply religious men but also thoughtful and mindful of the dangers of a religious state. The fact that they chose to keep the notion of a creator out of the Con, even with intense pressure to do otherwise, is evidence enough to indicate an implied separation of church and state.
Lots of people who have been deeply religious over the years have been careful about where to put their mentions of God. God and politics don't mix so well and that's why you shouldn't (but always do) talk about it when drunk. Even the the original text of the pledge of allegiance didn't mention God and the guy who wrote it was a Baptist minister (and a socialist BTW). "Under God" wasn't added until the ultra-conservative days of 1954 after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus.
These guys were all too familiar with which hunts, religious battles between Catholics and Protestants, and other attrocities carried out in the name of God. It was recent history to them. When the radical right starts begging for a religious state I don't think they know what they are asking for. That's why when Fallwell and his cronies start banging on doors up on Capitol Hill, I am glad the 1st ammendment is in place.
You can believe the framers were "deeply religious men" but what about the anti-Feds (some of whom were actually religious men) who looked at the unamended COnstitution with horror. Yes, I agree that that the unamendemnded Constitution suggests the principles you claim - but that does NOT explain how or why the Supreme Court turns to a GROSS MISREPRESENTATION of the entire history of the 1st Amendment to protect our relgious liberties?
If you want to argue that sure the Court used a creative interpretation - but they ultimately did so for good ends (that may in fact be true to the ends of the unamended constitution) - I say fine. But what happens when the Court takes up creative interpretations that deny rights, that roll back these unsecured protections?
In the words of Axl Rose:
Where do we go?
Where do we go now?
Awwww where do we go?
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Ed, did you get A-train signed up for T-ball? He's already missed one practice, do you realize how much you're damaging his future prospects? How the hell is he going to learn to sit on the curve and drive it to right field. Gheesh.
You got a point there. I need to take a little break. All this talk of congress is making me horny.
Dude, the park district said sign up ended in March and there was a waiting list.
It was tough breaking it to the boy.
We're gonna buy a tee and play dad and son and he'll be ready to go next year.
Ed, screw the park district. You get that list and start your own team. I always thought deadlines for signing up were stupid but for tee-ball it's especially dumb. It's not competitive. Everybody gets on base. If you are worried about the size of the team and kids having to warm the bench, let three kids play short center. Why not? They'll figure out in little league the reality of the game. Let 'em play for cryin' out loud. Waiting list, sheesh!
I was a catcher in tee-ball. How pathetic is that?
Hey, you had to call all the pitches olekobe. The tees trusted you.
Nice to see Garland get back on track tonight.
I missed most of the game tho'. First trip to the golf course for 9 holes this year. 2 double bogies and one par. The par wasn't legit...it was my second t-shot.
Who cares.
When Dennis picked up the roster sheets they told him 253 kids signed up with almost as many parents wanting to coach. Tough year, I guess. I didn't have Cole play last year either, figuring that we'd have more meaningful practice time in the back yard, which we did. We do a lot of role playing--he picks teams and players (his sister Lainie is always Coco Crisp). The best is when we re-enact a close play by doing it in slow motion. I still take him deep once in a while to keep him honest. He knows to bean me with the next pitch.
The kids love doing stuff in slow motion.
Unfortunately, at my advanced age all I can do is slow motion.
best regards, nice info Dog supplements xxx adult video The lowest price for adipex Refinance georgia Josh groban ringtones Life insurance policy records Oregon marine fishing regulations Liberty subaru guardianship law office san diego Accutane expert witnesses Old cadillac car pics cleveland propulsid lawyers mass attorney maryland lawyer
Post a Comment
<< Home