[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: The Conscience of the Constitution The Conscience of the Constitution
The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty documents a vital, forgotten truth: our Constitution was written not to empower democracy, but to secure liberty. In fact, the word "democracy" does not occur in either the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Yet, to author and constitutional scholar Timothy Sandefur, the overemphasis on democracy by today's legal community--rather than the primacy of liberty, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence--has helped expand the scope of government power at the expense of individual rights. Now, more than ever, the Declaration of Independence should be the framework for interpreting our fundamental law. It is the conscience of the Constitution. "Liberty comes first and order arises from it," states Sandefur. "We have gone astray in our constitutional understanding because we have upended that relationship." The Conscience of the Constitution traces this upheaval back to the timeless conflict between freedom and power that gave rise to the Civil War and that was revived again by the Supreme Court's disastrous ruling in the 1873 Slaughter-House cases. Sandefur then examines the origins of controversial legal theories such as "substantive due process" and "judicial activism" and defends them against a wave of arguments from both left and the right. Although both sides of the political spectrum criticize the courts today for protecting individual rights too effectively, Sandefur shows that in reality judges have often abdicated their duty to rein in government abuses. Today, more and more Americans are witnessing their individual freedoms threatened and destroyed by the continually expanding grasp of government. While Americans will always differ over important political issues, our Constitution was meant to ensure that some things should not be settled by majority vote. In The Conscience of the Constitution, Timothy Sandefur presents a dramatic, richly compelling new challenge to the status quo of constitutional law. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: tpaine, TooConservative, GarySpFc (#0) Now, more than ever, the Declaration of Independence should be the framework for interpreting our fundamental law. It is the conscience of the Constitution. "Liberty comes first and order arises from it," states Sandefur. "We have gone astray in our constitutional understanding because we have upended that relationship." 100% agree! Americans forget what the founders said about our rights. They are not endowed by the governing nor even the governed. DoI says: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- So I agree that "Now, more than ever, the Declaration of Independence should be the framework for interpreting our fundamental law. It is the conscience of the Constitution." "Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus #2. To: tpaine (#0) Information also at: I notice you don't post the "URL Source"....it would be nice if you did. Thanks, in advance.
#3. To: redleghunter, Y'ALL (#1) We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- I agree wholeheartedly with those words, as written. But I did notice, a long time ago, that the phrase still makes perfect sense, -- if it's written this way: --
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- And true enough, we do have a creator, but being an agnostic, I confess I have no clue whether that creator is a god. -- Can we still agree 100% about the Declarations phrase?
#4. To: tpaine, GarySpFc (#3) I agree wholeheartedly with those words, as written. But I did notice, a long time ago, that the phrase still makes perfect sense, -- if it's written this way: -- I have to agree with the founders and their reasoning for NOT omitting "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." Some kids grow up as orphans and don't know who their mother or father are. But they do know they have parents. They can't say "I have no mother or father because they are not here and I can't see them." They would have to conclude some man, a biological father and some woman, a biological mother, conceived them. Same even for any potential founder who was a skeptic. So thus the words are there and the Creator is invoked in "the conscience of the Constitution" as the author of your piece calls the DoI. "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa #5. To: redleghunter, Y'ALL (#4) Over on another unrelated thread, I was surprised to be pinged to this:---
redleghunter (#78) -- You have libertarians like tpaine who would like "Creator" erased from the Declaration of Independence.
That's a flat out lie, and you know it. We were discussing that phrase in the declaration, and I remarked that the it still made perfect sense without mention of a specific god, a Creator, --- while acknowledging that indeed, there must be a creator. What in hell is your purpose, what do you gain, by putting out such a petty lie about me and libertarians? Get a grip on your silly overly religious zeal.
#6. To: tpaine (#5) We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- Is the above your edited version of the founders Declaration of Independence? Would you comment on what's missing Mr. Obama? "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa #7. To: redleghunter (#6) I agree wholeheartedly with those words, as written. But I did notice, a long time ago, that the phrase still makes perfect sense, -- if it's written this way: -- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- And true enough, we do have a creator, but being an agnostic, I confess I have no clue whether that creator is a god. -- Can we still agree 100% about the Declarations phrase? Even though we disagree about religion?
#8. To: redleghunter (#6) Mr. Obama? Your efforts to smear me make you appear stupid.
#9. To: redleghunter (#6) Is the above your edited version of the founders Declaration of Independence? Self worship replaces the Creator.
#10. To: Palmdale (#9) Self worship replaces the Creator. How is it going, Roscoe? You little tyrant!
#11. To: tpaine, TooConservative, BobCeleste, GarySpFc, SOSO, liberator, CZ82 (#5)
"Obama Continues to Omit ‘Creator’ From Declaration of Independence" “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” President Obama http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2010/10/19/obama-continues-to-omit- creator-from-declaration-of-independence/ And so does tpaine: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- tpaine What's the difference from this libertarian version and the one from BHO? Nothing. What's the difference between the above two versions and the original DoI...everything. Both BHO and tpaine choose to omit words from the soul of our founding. "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa #12. To: Palmdale (#9) Indeed. "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa #13. To: tpaine (#8) See a couple of ticks above. I substantiate the gauntlet. "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa #14. To: redleghunter (#12) Obama Continues to Omit ‘Creator’ From Declaration of Independence Zing!
#15. To: tpaine (#7) Can we still agree 100% about the Declarations phrase? Even though we disagree about religion? No. Your version and Obolas omit "Creator." Without "Creator" the entire soul of the document is trashed. Taking out Creator, creates a dangling participle. "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa #16. To: Palmdale (#9) Roscoe - what happened to you along the way towards your own aims? I am curious because you consistently don't reveal yourself in any way, shape or form for thought, word or deed other than condemnation of others and never an original thoght unless it is collorborated with a bitter remarck. Trust your ol' pal. You shouldn't be playing here. Your entertwined compassion about St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate set you free, even the 21th century.
#17. To: redleghunter (#15) I agree wholeheartedly with those words, as written. But I did notice, a long time ago, that the phrase still makes perfect sense, -- if it's written this way: -- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- And true enough, we do have a creator, but being an agnostic, I confess I have no clue whether that creator is a god. -- Can we still agree 100% about the Declarations phrase, as originally written? --- Even though we disagree about religion?
No, ----- Without "Creator" the entire soul of the document is trashed. ---- Taking out Creator, creates a dangling participle. That doesn't make any sense. - Get some rest, and try to make a valid point instead of continuing with your 'dangling participles' idiocy.
#18. To: tpaine (#17) That doesn't make any sense. - Get some rest, and try to make a valid point instead of continuing with your 'dangling participles' idiocy. Who or what is doing the 'endowing' if Creator is taken out? BHO was asked the same question when he quoted the DoI the same exact way as you did. "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa #19. To: redleghunter (#18) Who or what is doing the 'endowing' if Creator is taken out? To repeat ---, we do have a creator, but being an agnostic, I confess I have no clue whether that creator is a god. -- Can we still agree 100% about the Declarations phrase, as originally written? --- Even though we disagree about religion? --- Apparently not, seeing that you're an overzealous religious nut.
#20. To: tpaine (#19) as originally written? --- Even though we disagree about religion? Yes as originally written. "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|