Lawsuit Over Prayer At Graduation Ceremonies In Texas Is Settled, Says Americans United


Friday, March 7, 2008

Agreement Ensures Prayer At School Graduation Ceremonies Won't Be Up To 'Majority Rules' Elections, Says AU's Lynn

Americans United for Separation of Church and State and a Texas public school district have settled a lawsuit involving a policy that allowed students to vote on prayer at graduation ceremonies.

The settlement follows a ruling by U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks that found the Constitution prohibits public schools from holding student votes on whether to have prayers during commencement.

Judge Sparks approved today a settlement between Americans United and the Round Rock Independent School District that provides, in part, that the school district may not hold or conduct any student elections on including prayer or other religious communications at graduation ceremonies.

Read rest of story at http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=9709

Chock up one for seperation of church and state.
Let's hope religious influence and interference in public schools and events will recede and go away.
Students who want prayers at graduations should go to catholic or other private religious schools.

Chock up one for seperation of church and state.

You mean, "chock one up for constitutional distortion, obfuscation and bastardization"?

Let's hope religious influence and interference in public schools and events will recede and go away.

Interference? How? religion has had an influence in the schools of this nation for most of it's history.

Students who want prayers at graduations should go to catholic or other private religious schools.

Yes, because we can't expect the minority to tolerate the majority, when it comes to religion. Tolerance is only to be expected in certian circumstances determined by the DNC, the media and the PC culture.

I went to Catholic school in Canada and the day always started with a prayer.
When I went to a public high school religion was never brought up or mentioned nor were there any icons or crusifixes in the building.
Protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority is a well received concept in law especially when it comes to something as nebulous as religion.
Islam is intolerant and we hardly want to emulate them(or do we-you?)
If muslims were the majority they would want to pray 5 times a day and coerse everybody to go along under threat of violence.

Now it's starting to make more sense to me:
Maybe this should be added to the religious curiculum along with the peyote tribes and the Rastafarians.

Moses was 'on acid'
A top academic says Moses was high on hallucinogenic drugs when he received the Ten Commandments from God.
Prof Benny Shannon believes Old Testament tales are records of visions brought on by plants similar to an acid trip, reports The Sun.
The psychology don at Jerusalem's Hebrew University says the Bible's stories suggest "ancient Israelites regarded psycho-active plants in high esteem".
Prof Shannon claims Moses got high on a drink called Ayahuasca, made out of potent plants that grow in southern Israel.
He said: "They constitute the key ingredients of one of the most powerful psychedelic substances in existence."
The professor came up with his theory after trying the drink, still used in religious rituals by the Amazon people, and having similar visions.
He claims five events in Moses' life were inspired by the drug, including the Ten Commandments and the Burning Bush miracle.

Now it's starting to make more sense to me:
Maybe this should be added to the religious curiculum along with the peyote tribes and the Rastafarians.

Moses was 'on acid'
A top academic says Moses was high on hallucinogenic drugs when he received the Ten Commandments from God.
Prof Benny Shannon believes Old Testament tales are records of visions brought on by plants similar to an acid trip, reports The Sun.
The psychology don at Jerusalem's Hebrew University says the Bible's stories suggest "ancient Israelites regarded psycho-active plants in high esteem".
Prof Shannon claims Moses got high on a drink called Ayahuasca, made out of potent plants that grow in southern Israel.
He said: "They constitute the key ingredients of one of the most powerful psychedelic substances in existence."
The professor came up with his theory after trying the drink, still used in religious rituals by the Amazon people, and having similar visions.
He claims five events in Moses' life were inspired by the drug, including the Ten Commandments and the Burning Bush miracle.

That is PURE :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag:

Actually I watched a 2 hour program on discovery channel that said moses could have been tripping when he saw the burning bush. They said that plant has that kind of effect on people. I'm not here to start any religious battles, had enough of those in the military. We spent many hours in the tank discusing points in the bible and history timelines. But we all laughed at the mormons who say jesus rode a horse and talked to indians.

Yes it could be just provocative speculation but naturally occuring pcychedelic and hallucinogenic drugs have a long history of being used as religious sacraments in many cultures throughout history.
Even in the American experience people have spoken of being one with nature and understanding God while under the influence of powerful mind expanding substances.
There is also some evidence that the salem witch trials were caused by people injesting moldy rye bread and suffering convulsions and hallucinations.
Rye mold is the natural base for producing LSD.

religious controversy again. alright. let's try this link.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
goes a little beyond just religious. but raises some interesting things. this is the newer version. the old one is still on google.

An anecdotal example of religious stupidity in the face of science and common sense:

Female Muslim medical students at several hospitals in Britain are objecting to a campaign that demands more rigorous hand-washing (to stop the spread of dangerous bacteria), complaining that being forced to bare their forearms above the wrist is immodesty prohibited by their religion. Doctors cited in a February Daily Telegraph story said washing up to the elbow is crucial for safety. Some women at Birmingham University said they would change careers rather than comply. [Daily Telegraph (London), 2-4-08]

It is important to keep religion in it's proper place and not let it into public institutions where it can be a threat to public safety, common sense and the advance of knowledge.
To the women above spreading disease is much less important than following a stupid custom based on a religious belief.

You mean, "chock one up for constitutional distortion, obfuscation and bastardization"?

The Constitution strips the civil authorities of any sort of authority over religion.

Interference? How? religion has had an influence in the schools of this nation for most of it's history.

The Constitution wasn't adopted with the understanding it would be interpreted according to history, dude.

Yes, because we can't expect the minority to tolerate the majority, when it comes to religion. Tolerance is only to be expected in certian circumstances determined by the DNC, the media and the PC culture.

If you say so.

Yes, because we can't expect the minority to tolerate the majority, when it comes to religion. Tolerance is only to be expected in certian circumstances determined by the DNC, the media and the PC culture.

I think Shagdrum is being sarcastic and frustrated here because of the success the intellectuals have had in thwarting and rolling back the conservative social agenda; Bush and Co being president notwithstanding.

I think Shagdrum is being sarcastic and frustrated here because of the success the intellectuals have had in thwarting and rolling back the conservative social agenda; Bush and Co being president notwithstanding.

No, I am frustrated because of the success that certian "intellectuals" have had in distorting the constitution and changing it to mean something it never did.

The Constitution wasn't adopted with the understanding it would be interpreted according to history, dude.

So..the constitution can mean whatever we want it to mean? What is has ment since it was written is irrelevant?

Protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority is a well received concept in law especially when it comes to something as nebulous as religion.


"having to tolerate" doesn't equal "tyranny". That is a huge stretch, and you know it. You can't tell me that this ruling is at all consistant with the 1st amendment. How is this not a restriction of free exercise of religion?

Islam is intolerant and we hardly want to emulate them(or do we-you?)...If muslims were the majority they would want to pray 5 times a day and coerse everybody to go along under threat of violence.

Muslims aren't the majority, and no one is being forced to do anything here. You are not required to pray in this case, simply be tolerant and respectful while others join in a pray. Don't try to exagurate and obfuscate the issue here to be something it isn't.

If we were gonna run with the muslim analogy, the more accurate example is that a school of mostly muslims agree to pray at a graduation (not forcing anyone to pray who doesn't want to) and the state coming in and saying no.

We aren't a muslim country and we couldn't be a muslim country because this country was founded by Christians for a religious people with certian Christian principles underlying the foundation of this country. Christianity is part of our national tradition.

I really am not interested in debating the pro's and cons of religion in general, or Christianity specifically (as those type of discussions always turn into an illogical bashing of Christianity). I am only interested in the constitutional distortion going on here.

The Constitution strips the civil authorities of any sort of authority over religion.

Not so much. Religion is given a privilaged place in the Constitution, but it is hardly immune from the law.

Again, read the Supreme Court opinion in the case of Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (1990)

No, I am frustrated because of the success that certian "intellectuals" have had in distorting the constitution and changing it to mean something it never did.

It's no distortion to say the Constitution totally excludes religion from the cognizance, jurisdiction and authority of the government.

So..the constitution can mean whatever we want it to mean?

Not if you follow the common law rules of construction the lawmakers assumed would be used to ascertain the meaning of the Constitution.

What is has ment since it was written is irrelevant?

The rules of construction should be used to ascertain the will of the lawmakers at the time the Constitution was made.

The prohibition of drug use for religious or recreational purposes was something that was added to the laws after the constitution was written so by shagdrum's view these laws could be construed as unconstitutional in the strict sense he wants things to be interpreted as.

Not so much. Religion is given a privilaged place in the Constitution, but it is hardly immune from the law.

Religion, the duty we owe our Creator, was exempted, by the Original Constitution, from federal authority.

Again, read the Supreme Court opinion in the case of Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (1990)

Did the Court use the common law rules of construction to ascertain the original intent of the lawmakers?

Not if you follow the common law rules of construction the lawmakers assumed would be used to ascertain the meaning of the Constitution.

Those were used as a background, they don't override the Constitution, or add laws to it. They were used as a for a procedural framework; taking a lot of theories and concepts as well as procedure from them to form a new legal system in the US. Common law from Britan doesn't establish or create law in this country.


The rules of construction should be used to ascertain the will of the lawmakers at the time the Constitution was made.

Only in issues of procedure or in clarifying a definition of a term used by the framers. the Framers own writing and the writings of the time are the primary sources for interpreting the constitution. the common law stuff is only for procedure, or clarification of what a certian term or phrase was ment to be. It doesn't establish laws.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of document by the framers and people of the time debating, breaking down and otherwise clarifying the understanding of the constituiton by the Framers and the general population at that time. From another message board I post on:

The terms used in the constitution were deliberated on at great length and are not ambiguous and undefined, the Framers knew what words they were using and why; they knew the definitons of the terms and language used, and had agreed on the final draft of the constitution with full knowledge of what it ment.

The states had to ratify the constitution and public support was needed, which was the mission of the Federalist papers. The Federal Farmers pamphlets were the opposite of the Federalist papers; a series of writings ment to stop the ratification of the constitution. The constitution was also examined and debated at great length in the public at large. What the constitution meant to the framers and the general population at that time is very easy to clarify, when the actual wording on the constitution isn't specific enough. There are literally hundereds if not thousands of document from this time debating the the constitution. These documents don't really debate the meaning of the constitution, but convied what the Framers ment in the constitution and it's provisions and then break down certian concepts and show the justification for, and application of the various parts of the constitution.

In addition to that, most of the delegates at the constitutional convention had personal diaries from the time discussing the different thoughts and debates in the process of drafting the constitution, as well as notes and written proposals from the delegates and major thinkers there. There were extensive notes of the convention as well.

As you can see there is an extensive paper trail to figure out what the constitution means. THAT is the primary source used for constitutional interpretation. Common law is only to clarify procedure or what a certian concept referred to in a primary source means.

Here is an interesting quote from Blackstone that helps clarify the idea of Natural Law that the Framers referred to and based this nation on. It also shows how religion is tied into our laws...

The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures…Upon these two foundations, the law off nature and law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human law should be suffered to contradict these

Again, read the opinion I cited. It was written by Scalia, who is much more of an expert in originalist and textualist constitutional interpretation then you or I could ever hope to be.

Religion, the duty we owe our Creator, was exempted, by the Original Constitution, from federal authority.

Where are you basing that on? I have never come across that definiton of "religion". Give me the textual basis. Also, how do the free exercise and establishment clause give religion a broad pass from the law? Where are you getting that? Are priests not subject to the law if they are molesting little kids?

Did the Court use the common law rules of construction to ascertain the original intent of the lawmakers?


Just read it. The relevant question, in regards to interpretation isn't weather they cite common law, but weather they cite the framers and other relevant writings of the time. Common law doesn't dictate what the original intent was. It logically can't. the original intent is dictate by what the Framers created, not what was established precedent in Britian. Common law was an influence (in certian ways), but the Framers are the ones who created the governing documents of this nation. What you are arguing is like saying that because a certian philosopher was influential on the Framers in drafting the constitution, whatever that philosopher said is law in America.

A top academic says Moses was high on hallucinogenic drugs when he received the Ten Commandments from God.
Prof Benny Shannon believes Old Testament tales are records of visions brought on by plants similar to an acid trip, reports The Sun.

Wow...he believes. That is worthless. Does he have a basis, outside of a clever arguement? In other words, does he have some historical evidence to back that up?


The psychology don at Jerusalem's Hebrew University says the Bible's stories suggest "ancient Israelites regarded psycho-active plants in high esteem".

So a professor distorts the bible. That doesn't constitute historical evidence.

Prof Shannon claims Moses got high on a drink called Ayahuasca, made out of potent plants that grow in southern Israel.
He said: "They constitute the key ingredients of one of the most powerful psychedelic substances in existence."
The professor came up with his theory after trying the drink, still used in religious rituals by the Amazon people, and having similar visions.
He claims five events in Moses' life were inspired by the drug, including the Ten Commandments and the Burning Bush miracle.

I can make up stories too. It really isn't that hard.

The prohibition of drug use for religious or recreational purposes was something that was added to the laws after the constitution was written so by shagdrum's view these laws could be construed as unconstitutional in the strict sense he wants things to be interpreted as.

No, you are mischaracterizing my argument (unintentionally, I am sure). Read the opinion, not just the ruling. You need to read the justification in it, not just the result of the case.

Well, if the stories you make up are good and clever enough, you can be a Professor Too!

Here's more on the Moses high on hallucinogens thesis.
I don't find this unbelievable based on the influence of these substances in other religions.
On the other hand it is impossible to describe the effects these substances can have and discuss them without having tried them.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Ayahuasca+and+moses&btnG=Google+Search

Well, if the stories you make up are good and clever enough, you can be a Professor Too!

...if that is what passes for an "academic" now...

Here's more on the Moses high on hallucinogens thesis.
I don't find this unbelievable based on the influence of these substances in other religions.


The problem is, the burden of proof is logically on those proposing this idea, and their "proof" is nothing more then their own beliefs and spin. No hard evidence cited. There "evidence" is totally dependant on their interpretation, and as such is very weak. All that needs to be done to disprove it is cite an different interpretation from the given evidence.

Well there is no hard proof that Moses injested this substance.
The only hard proof is that these substances exhisted and still exhist and some of their effects are vivid hallucinations
that have been incorporated into mostly ancient religious ceremonies as a glimpse of the Allmighty.

Well there is no hard proof that Moses injested this substance.

Exactly!

The only hard proof is that these substances exhisted and still exhist and some of their effects are vivid hallucinations
that have been incorporated into mostly ancient religious ceremonies as a glimpse of the Allmighty.

Yes, those are really the only two facts. They don't even imply a connection. That connection needs to be there for this to be taken seriously. Otherwise, it is just unfounded speculation.

Might make for some interesting graduation prayers! LOL!
Oh just kidding.....

And now ahem, I think I'll go meditate and listen to
The Dark Side of the Moon and contemplate that Great Gig in the Sky.....
All that you touch, all that you see, all you create, and all you destroy, all that's to come, and everything under the sun is in tune....

Now it's starting to make more sense to me:
Maybe this should be added to the religious curiculum along with the peyote tribes and the Rastafarians.

Moses was 'on acid'
A top academic says Moses was high on hallucinogenic drugs when he received the Ten Commandments from God.
Prof Benny Shannon believes Old Testament tales are records of visions brought on by plants similar to an acid trip, reports The Sun.
The psychology don at Jerusalem's Hebrew University says the Bible's stories suggest "ancient Israelites regarded psycho-active plants in high esteem".
Prof Shannon claims Moses got high on a drink called Ayahuasca, made out of potent plants that grow in southern Israel.
He said: "They constitute the key ingredients of one of the most powerful psychedelic substances in existence."
The professor came up with his theory after trying the drink, still used in religious rituals by the Amazon people, and having similar visions.
He claims five events in Moses' life were inspired by the drug, including the Ten Commandments and the Burning Bush miracle.

This is nothing but red meat for the atheist community. It's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. "Prof" Benny Shannon knows less about the Bible than I do. Interesting that he came up with the theory after drinking the drug. Only somebody high on drugs would come up with such an idiotic theory.

fossten,
you lack imagination and curiosity about the mystery
of life beyond what's in the Bible. You should lighten up a bit.

Some of the greatest discoveries of mankind:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dna+discovered+on+lsd&btnG=Google+Search

Crick Was High on LSD When he Discovered DNA Double Helix


http://v.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2007/01--january/1.24dna.jpg
Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner and a pioneer of modern genetics, was under the influence of LSD when he deduced the double-helix structure of DNA.

Crick, who died in 2004, told a fellow scientist that he often used small doses of LSD, then an experimental drug used in psychotherapy, to boost his powers of thought. He said it was LSD that helped him to unravel the structure of DNA.

Crick was a devotee of novelist Aldous Huxley, whose accounts of his experiments with LSD and mescaline became cult texts for the underground drug culture of the 1960s. Crick was a founding member of Soma, a group dedicated to the legalization of marijuana named after a drug that appears in Huxley's novel "Brave New World.

or how about Kary Mullis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis

Kary Banks Mullis, Ph.D. (born December 28 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_28), 1944 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944)) is an American biochemist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochemistry) and Nobel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize) laureate.
Dr Mullis was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Chemistry) in 1993 for his development of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_Chain_Reaction) (PCR), a central technique in biochemistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochemistry) and molecular biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_biology) which allows the amplification of specified DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA) sequences. Dr Mullis subsequently was awarded the Japan Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Prize) that same year.

In a Q&A interview published in the September 1994 issue of California Monthly, Mullis said, "Back in the 1960s and early '70s I took plenty of LSD. A lot of people were doing that in Berkeley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley%2C_California) back then. And I found it to be a mind-opening experience. It was certainly much more important than any courses I ever took."[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] During a symposium held for centenarian Albert Hofmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Hofmann), Hofmann revealed that he was told by Nobel-prize-winning chemist Kary Mullis that LSD had helped him develop the polymerase chain reaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction) that helps amplify specific DNA sequences.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)

Awards and honors

1990 - William Allan Memorial Award of the American Society of Human Genetics | Preis Biochemische Analytik of the German Society of Clinical Chemistry and Boehringer Mannheim
1991 - National Biotechnology Award | Gairdner Award | R&D Scientist of the Year
1992 - California Scientist of the Year Award
1993 - Nobel Prize in Chemistry | Japan Prize | Thomas A. Edison Award
1994 - Honorary degree of Doctor of Science from the University of South Carolina
1998 - Inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame [14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis#_note-10) |
2004 - Honorary degree in Pharmaceutical Biotechnology from the University of Bologna, ItalyRonald H. Brown American Innovator Award[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis#_note-11)
Mullis has also received the John Scott Award, given by the City Trusts of Philadelphia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia) to other Nobelists, as well as Thomas Edison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison) and the Wright Brothers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Brothers).[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis#_note-12)

Then of course there was Carl Sagan
look him up.

To me it's not hard to imagine other great thinkers and scientific luminaries throughout history to have experimented with pscychedelics and been smitten by revelations and insight like the above examples.

http://www.johncoulthart.com/feuilleton/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/itunes_jelly.jpg

From LSD to OSX

A few servings of iTunes jelly.
I’ve spent the past week or so enjoying the delights of Leopard (http://www.apple.com/macosx/), the 10.5 iteration of Apple’s OS X operating system, but have only just noticed the new Visualizer patterns in the latest version of iTunes (http://www.apple.com/itunes/overview/). I don’t use the Visualizer much, especially since the introduction of Front Row (http://www.apple.com/imac/software/frontrow.html), Apple’s home media management system, but it’s always nice to know it’s there. The original Visualizer isn’t so far removed from the graphic tricks I used to laboriously program into my old Spectrum (http://www.worldofspectrum.org/) computer in the 1980s, simple repeated shapes with coloured lines, albeit a lot faster and with far more detail and animation than a 48k Spectrum could ever manage. The latest Visualizer has been significantly supercharged, however, and the new “Jelly” setting creates some really beautiful (and it should be noted, trippy) patterns, reminiscent of Steven Spielberg’s Close Encounters UFOs or James Cameron’s Abyss inhabitants.
I can’t help but see a direct line of continuity here from Apple’s origin in the head culture of Sixties and Seventies’ California to the present. Writer John Markoff examined some of the connections between psychedelic culture and the nascent computer scene in What the Dormouse Said: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0143036769?ie=UTF8&tag=ateliercoulth-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=6738&creativeASIN=0143036769) where we find Apple CEO Steve Jobs saying that “TAKING LSD WAS ONE OF THE TWO OR THREE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS HE HAD DONE IN HIS LIFE.” Given this, the glowing, pulsating mandalas in the new iTunes can be seen as a vestigial remnant of that era, and it seems fitting that those patterns are integrated into a music player; it was upon the Sixties’ music scene, after all, that LSD originally had its greatest cultural impact

PLAYBOY: When you were at Harvard, did you frequent the Combat Zone, home of hookers, drugs and adult films?
GATES: That's true. [Laughs] But just because I went there doesn't mean I engaged in everything that was going on. But I did go there. It's easy, you just take the subway. And it's pretty inexpensive. I ate pizza, read books and watched what was going on. I went to the diners.
PLAYBOY: Ever take LSD?
GATES: My errant youth ended a long time ago.
PLAYBOY: What does that mean?
GATES: That means there were things I did under the age of 25 that I ended up not doing subsequently.
PLAYBOY: One LSD story involved you staring at a table and thinking the corner was going to plunge into your eye.
GATES: [Smiles]
PLAYBOY: Ah, a glimmer of recognition.
GATES: That was on the other side of that boundary. The young mind can deal with certain kinds of gooping around that I don't think at this age I could. I don't think you're as capable of handling lack of sleep or whatever challenges you throw at your body as you get older. However, I never missed a day of work.
_______________________________________________

Amazing what these "idiots" have come up with.

but your arguements imply moses existed. take a look at my link to zeitgeist. in it they explain a commonality between many religions. after all, scripture is just writing. anybody could come up with stories.

religious controversy again. alright. let's try this link.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
goes a little beyond just religious. but raises some interesting things. this is the newer version. the old one is still on google.

This movie is a lot do digest and comes off as the conspiracy of all conspiracies stretching as it does over so many generations to the goal of an all menacing ruthless world government.
Although seemingly well presented it stretches credulity to the point of being too fantastic an achievement to be thought possible.

PLAYBOY: When you were at Harvard, did you frequent the Combat Zone, home of hookers, drugs and adult films?
GATES: That's true. [Laughs] But just because I went there doesn't mean I engaged in everything that was going on. But I did go there. It's easy, you just take the subway. And it's pretty inexpensive. I ate pizza, read books and watched what was going on. I went to the diners.
PLAYBOY: Ever take LSD?
GATES: My errant youth ended a long time ago.
PLAYBOY: What does that mean?
GATES: That means there were things I did under the age of 25 that I ended up not doing subsequently.
PLAYBOY: One LSD story involved you staring at a table and thinking the corner was going to plunge into your eye.
GATES: [Smiles]
PLAYBOY: Ah, a glimmer of recognition.
GATES: That was on the other side of that boundary. The young mind can deal with certain kinds of gooping around that I don't think at this age I could. I don't think you're as capable of handling lack of sleep or whatever challenges you throw at your body as you get older. However, I never missed a day of work.
_______________________________________________

Amazing what these "idiots" have come up with.

So...we've gone from Court cases about school prayer....to constitutional interperetation...to religious "conspiricies"?...to...LSD and it's use by brilliant people in their youth (and beyond?)?

This thread is all over the place! :)

This movie is a lot do digest and comes off as the conspiracy of all conspiracies stretching as it does over so many generations to the goal of an all menacing ruthless world government.
Although seemingly well presented it stretches credulity to the point of being too fantastic an achievement to be thought possible.

the conspiracy of the second half is stretching, but the beginning half does present a credible case of religions and belief. similarities of many are beyond coincidence. understanding the stucture for control of masses by imparting a common ideal is what created many religions. egypt was ruled in this way and many sprang stories and their own doctrine from these ideals. the only thing i haven't looked into very well is whether societies sprang from religious ideals or religious ideals came from societies becoming larger and needing a central control. i've only looked into history and roots, not causes.

Those were used as a background, they don't override the Constitution, or add laws to it.

You apparently have no idea what the common law rules of construction were when the Constitution was being made.


They were used as a for a procedural framework; taking a lot of theories and concepts as well as procedure from them to form a new legal system in the US. Common law from Britan doesn't establish or create law in this country.


No. The rules of construction were used to ascertain the will of the lawmaker at the time the law was made.

Only in issues of procedure

The rules have little to do with issues of procedure. They have to do with the will of the lawmaker when the law was made.

or in clarifying a definition of a term used by the framers.

The framers didn't define the terms they used in the Constitution.

the Framers own writing and the writings of the time are the primary sources for interpreting the constitution. the common law stuff is only for procedure, or clarification of what a certian term or phrase was ment to be. It doesn't establish laws.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the framers understood, believed, assumed or intended for the meaning of the Constitution to be ascertained from their own writing and the writings of the time, unless those writings were admissible under the rules of construction.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of document by the framers and people of the time debating, breaking down and otherwise clarifying the understanding of the constituiton by the Framers and the general population at that time.

What do those documents say about whether the rules of construction should be used to interpret the Constitution?

From another message board I post on:

The terms used in the constitution were deliberated on at great length and are not ambiguous and undefined...

There's a lot of ambiguous language in the Constitution, dude.

Where are you basing that on?

The word religion in the Constitution and the first three rules of construction.

I have never come across that definiton of "religion".

It was defined that way in the "subject matter."

Give me the textual basis.

The first clause of the First Amendment and the no religious test clause.

Also, how do the free exercise and establishment clause give religion a broad pass from the law?

Beats me, dude.

Where are you getting that? Are priests not subject to the law if they are molesting little kids?

How is that religion?

So...we've gone from Court cases about school prayer....to constitutional interperetation...to religious "conspiricies"?...to...LSD and it's use by brilliant people in their youth (and beyond?)?

This thread is all over the place! :)

Just thought I'd add some color to the prayer debate.
I think religions and pscychedelic substances have crossed paths in the past.
Since I was dismissively put down about the Moses theory which cannot be proven or disproven I decided to list current luminaries in the sciences who's self admitted use of these substances led to great leaps in knowledge and advancement for mankind.

Oh and welcome "Mick Jagger" to the board.

Your posts are certainly of a high caliber however your responses to questions seem too brief to fully explain your positions.
A little more detail would be helpful.

Just thought I'd add some color to the prayer debate.
I think religions and pscychedelic substances have crossed paths in the past.
Since I was dismissively put down about the Moses theory which cannot be proven or disproven I decided to list current luminaries in the sciences who's self admitted use of these substances led to great leaps in knowledge and advancement for mankind.

Oh and welcome "Mick Jagger" to the board.

Thank you, sir.

Your posts are certainly of a high caliber however your responses to questions seem too brief to fully explain your positions.
A little more detail would be helpful.

Ask and you shall receive. What would you like me to explain?

Thank you, sir.



Ask and you shall receive. What would you like me to explain?

I was refering to shagdrum's questions.
Your answers seem as brief as possible and not very elaborative.
I can't speak for shagdrum and personally am not as keenly
interested in the constitution and it's framing el al.
Perhaps he's getting the answers he wants.

For instance:

Quote:
Give me the textual basis.
The first clause of the First Amendment and the no religious test clause.

Not everyone here is going to be looking up the constitution so if you quoted the first clause and the no religious test clause in your answer it would be more enlightening to the casual reader here.

Just thought I'd add some color to the prayer debate.
I think religions and pscychedelic substances have crossed paths in the past.
Since I was dismissively put down about the Moses theory which cannot be proven or disproven I decided to list current luminaries in the sciences who's self admitted use of these substances led to great leaps in knowledge and advancement for mankind.


And what of the Egyptian nation during the plagues as recorded in the Bible? Did Moses spike their drinking water with a hallucinogen and they all had the same bad trip?

I realize that events in the Bible are widely regarded by those of other faiths (I include atheism in this term) as "fairy tales". But pseudo-scientific attempts to disprove Biblical accounts are quite prolific on so-called science channels. The most recent that comes to mind is the show about the gospel of Judas. Never mind that this "gospel" was written some 200+ years after Christ. Attempts to "revise" history have been around for centuries, even millenia.

I could go on and on, but who has the time and what's the point? Any discussion about Jesus and the Bible boils down to faith in every instance. Some will place their faith in pseudo-science and marginal theories. I place my faith in Jesus.

Also, I submit that these great minds that used hallucinogenic drugs may have been depressing their intellectual abilities by using these drugs. They may have been able to accomplish much more had they refrained from these drugs by simply applying themselves as 99.99% (of course I don't know the exact number, but I'm quite confident that this percentage errs on the low side) of all other great minds did, and still do. Sounds like a good theory to me.

You apparently have no idea what the common law rules of construction were when the Constitution was being made.

I know what common law is and it's influence in our nations founding. As to the rules of constrution, I have never heard of that before, and unless you can provide a better explanation (and maybe a few links to info on it), I have to assume you have no idea what those are.


No. The rules of construction were used to ascertain the will of the lawmaker at the time the law was made.

Again, need more then just your unsubstantiated assertion. When determining the meaning of the constitution the Framers original intent is what is looked at, through the paper trail I showed.

The rules have little to do with issues of procedure. They have to do with the will of the lawmaker when the law was made.

Again, you are spinnin your wheels and not makin any progress here, unless you can expand on this (again, with some sort of link, or source, please).

The framers didn't define the terms they used in the Constitution.

No, they didn't need to. They had an understanding of what those terms ment. Common law can be used to figure out what some terms ment to them (when the terms are vauge or understood differently by todays standards.


There is no evidence whatsoever that the framers understood, believed, assumed or intended for the meaning of the Constitution to be ascertained from their own writing and the writings of the time, unless those writings were admissible under the rules of construction.


That is just common sense. If you wanna understand what someone said or wrote (and why they did so), you look at their explanation for it.

What do those documents say about whether the rules of construction should be used to interpret the Constitution?

I have yet to find anything about "rules of interpretation". I am beginning to wonder if you made that up.

There's a lot of ambiguous language in the Constitution, dude.

DUDE!...that is why you go back and look at the explanations and clarification they wrote down and/or published.

Also, I submit that these great minds that used hallucinogenic drugs may have been depressing their intellectual abilities by using these drugs. They may have been able to accomplish much more had they refrained from these drugs by simply applying themselves as 99.99% (of course I don't know the exact number, but I'm quite confident that this percentage errs on the low side) of all other great minds did, and still do. Sounds like a good theory to me.

These people all said hallucinogenic drugs enhanced their intellectual abilities
so I'll take them at their word. They also used them moderately and sparingly and not chronically like say Syd Barrett of Pink Floyd who's daily and heavy use fried his brain. The Air Force and Navy give their pilots small doses of Dexedrine (an amphetamine) to sharpen up their performance so one cannot just blithely say all drugs are bad and don't have a good use.
Soldiers on both sides in WWII also took amphetamines to keep going and win.
I'm sure Hitler's blitzkrieg was fuelled by these stimulants that the Germans had synthisized in 1927.
When you send out bomber crews and 40% of them aren't coming back conventional morality takes a back seat to winning at all costs when the stakes are so high.

Christianity has been around for 2000 years so I'm sure it will withstand any onslaught. The essence of faith is believing in the unprovable.

The first part of your post seems to argue against the Moses on drugs theory but your last sentence says:
"Sounds like a good theory to me"
So which is it?

It was defined that way in the "subject matter."

What "subject matter"?




You need to expand on your claims. You are not providing explanations, just answers when the question isn't all that clear. All you are doing, effectively is confusing the issue right now. It seems you may have a lot to offer, but you are just making quick statements without explanation.

I DID finally find the context of that definiton of religion at this link:
http://www.plymrock.org/leadership.html

George Mason submitted the first draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights to the committee assigned to present such a declaration to Virginia's first state constitutional convention in 1776. That committee's amended Article 18 reads:

That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrates, unless under color of religion any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or safety of society.



Basically this is talking about free exercise of religion within certian limits. But even further down on the page, it talks about those limits, and how that was changed:

James Madison was a member of the Declaration of Rights committee, And, as reported in the documentary record, his thought was that "toleration was a grant, freedom a right." 1 In proposing amendments to the original language of the committee's draft, the documentary record says that Madison started with the phrase "that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion", He drew two lines through "should" and above it wrote, "are equally entitled to," He then deleted the four words "the fullest toleration of" and before the noun "exercise" inserted the adjective "free."

The record refers to the phrase "unless, under color of religion any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or safety of society" as a "gaping loophole clause" because it obviously would given any civil magistrate the right to render his personal opinion with respect to someone's free exercise of religion. In the committee, the "entire loophole clause, beginning with 'unpunished and unrestrained' ... was excised -- any delegate could agree that a clear and present danger [in the original toileting language] justified forceful response."


This is consistent with the ruling in Employment Division v. Smith (1990).


If you are saying that religion, as an idea can't be tried in court directly, and as such is above the law, then yes that is accurate and I would agree with you. If you are trying to imply that religion can be used as an excuse to break the law (or a justification for that), then that would be inaccurate and wrong.

Please, clarify and explain what you are getting at here.

Since I was dismissively put down about the Moses theory which cannot be proven or disproven

Didn't mean to be dismissive, sorry 'bout that. But I felt it needed to be pointed out that if you are gonna try to intellectually challenge religion, you can't base the argument on the fact that your claim can't be disproven, that isn't logical.

I know that leads to the claim that religion is based on the argument that it can't be disproven, and that is the logic given by some, which is again, a logical fallacy. However, religion has never been ment to be based in reason, it is about faith, which is inherently unreasonable, so logic isn't applicable. If you are gonna intellectually attack religion, then logic is applicable to your argument, but not to religion.

I know it is a double standard, but it is justified, as what is being compared (an intellectual challenge v. religion) is comparing apples to oranges, on a number of levels.

Syd Barrett of Pink Floyd who's daily and heavy use fried his brain.

I didn't know that. Maybe that is why some of their music seems to just ramble on (instrumentally) and not neccessarily go anywhere, sometimes.

Syd was out of it by 1967 way before Pink Floyd's greatest albums.
He's the crazy diamond in Shine on you Crazy Diamond.
Their early stuff is unrefined IMO.
Dark side of the Moon 1973 which I saw performed live in 1975 is regarded by some as the greatest album of all time having spent 14 years on the Billboard Chart.
I also really enjoy most of the 1972 album Meddle, tracks Echoes and One of these Days. This album really set the tone for all subsequent Floyd albums.

Didn't mean to be dismissive, sorry 'bout that. But I felt it needed to be pointed out that if you are gonna try to intellectually challenge religion, you can't base the argument on the fact that your claim can't be disproven, that isn't logical.

Interesting that he came up with the theory after drinking the drug. Only somebody high on drugs would come up with such an idiotic theory.

Actually I just wanted to comment on fossten's statement and show that some people high on certain drugs have come up with brilliant theories and discoveries contrary to the usual stereotype.

Didn't mean to be dismissive, sorry 'bout that. But I felt it needed to be pointed out that if you are gonna try to intellectually challenge religion, you can't base the argument on the fact that your claim can't be disproven, that isn't logical.



Actually I just wanted to comment on fossten's statement and show that some people high on certain drugs have come up with brilliant theories and discoveries contrary to the usual stereotype.

So what? You're submitting this as PROOF? Jeez, where do I begin with the logical flaws? Shall I start with non sequitur and end with generalizations?

So what? You're submitting this as PROOF? Jeez, where do I begin with the logical flaws? Shall I start with non sequitur and end with generalizations?

I'm not submitting any proof here,
just commenting on your opinion:

"Only somebody high on drugs would come up with such an idiotic theory."

this is an emotional generalization which my examples show not to be true.

These people all said hallucinogenic drugs enhanced their intellectual abilities
so I'll take them at their word.
Okay, you go ahead and do that.
The Air Force and Navy give their pilots small doses of Dexedrine (an amphetamine) to sharpen up their performance so one cannot just blithely say all drugs are bad and don't have a good use.
Soldiers on both sides in WWII also took amphetamines to keep going and win.
I'm sure Hitler's blitzkrieg was fuelled by these stimulants that the Germans had synthisized in 1927.
When you send out bomber crews and 40% of them aren't coming back conventional morality takes a back seat to winning at all costs when the stakes are so high.
I thought we were talking about hallucinogenic drugs? A far cry from a mild stimulant that most people get with a few cups of coffee (which wouldn't be practical on a several hour flight).

Christianity has been around for 2000 years so I'm sure it will withstand any onslaught.
On that we agree. :Beer
The first part of your post seems to argue against the Moses on drugs theory but your last sentence says:
"Sounds like a good theory to me"
So which is it?
I try to adhere to normal rules of grammar. That last line had to do with my last paragraph, not my first.

I thought we were talking about hallucinogenic drugs? A far cry from a mild stimulant that most people get with a few cups of coffee (which wouldn't be practical on a several hour flight).

FYI
Coffee contains caffiene and not dexedrine (dextroamphetamine)
It is a much stronger stimulant and chemically related to chrystal meth (methamphetamine)which is a very dangerous substance.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dexedrine&btnG=Google+Search

Caffiene in coffee is mild enough even children can consume it and they do if they drink Coke or Pepsi.

Mick Jagger
You apparently have no idea what the common law rules of construction were when the Constitution was being made.

The other dude
I know what common law is and it's influence in our nations founding. As to the rules of construction, I have never heard of that before, and unless you can provide a better explanation (and maybe a few links to info on it), I have to assume you have no idea what those are.

The common law rules of construction were established by the English Courts in judicial decisions dating back to the 1500's. They were used to ascertain the will of the lawmakers at the time the law or constitution was made. They were universally accepted at the time the Constitution was made.

Mick
No. The rules of construction were used to ascertain the will of the lawmaker at the time the law was made.

Other dude
Again, need more then just your unsubstantiated assertion.

I thought you said you were well informed regarding the common law?

When determining the meaning of the constitution the Framers original intent is what is looked at

If you mean that the object of Constitutional Interpretation is to ascertain the will of the lawmakers at the time they made the Constitution, then I agree.

through the paper trail I showed.


Show me some evidence that the lawmakers meant for us to use "the paper trail" to ascertain the meaning of the words they used in the Constitution to express their will.

Mick
The rules have little to do with issues of procedure. They have to do with the will of the lawmaker when the law was made.

Other dude
Again, you are spinnin your wheels and not makin any progress here, unless you can expand on this (again, with some sort of link, or source, please).

If, during the making of the Constitution, the lawmakers had wanted to know what the English Common Law was regarding a particular matter, what book would they have consulted?

FYI
Coffee contains caffiene and not dexedrine (dextroamphetamine)
It is a much stronger stimulant and chemically related to chrystal meth (methamphetamine)which is a very dangerous substance.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dexedrine&btnG=Google+Search

Caffiene in coffee is mild enough even children can consume it and they do if they drink Coke or Pepsi.
Noted. I will change the 2nd sentence you referred to as follows:

"A far cry from a small dosage of a stimulant that most people would get the equivalent effect of with a few cups of strong coffee."

You may argue the specifics of the effects of dextroamphetamine vs. caffeine, but I stand by my point.

The framers didn't define the terms they used in the Constitution.
No, they didn't need to. They had an understanding of what those terms meant.

How are we supposed to figure out what that understanding was?

Common law can be used to figure out what some terms ment to them (when the terms are vauge or understood differently by todays standards.

I thought you said there was no vague language in the Constitution. What sort of rules and principles should we use to ascertain the meaning of vague language. What about other "dubious" language?

Mick
There is no evidence whatsoever that the framers understood, believed, assumed or intended for the meaning of the Constitution to be ascertained from their own writing and the writings of the time, unless those writings were admissible under the rules of construction.

Other dude
That is just common sense. If you wanna understand what someone said or wrote (and why they did so), you look at their explanation for it.

Were did the lawmakers ever explain what the Constitution meant as regards religion and its relationship to the government?

Mick
What do those documents say about whether the rules of construction should be used to interpret the Constitution?

Other dude
I have yet to find anything about "rules of interpretation". I am beginning to wonder if you made that up.

Have you ever heard of Joseph Story?

Mick
There's a lot of ambiguous language in the Constitution, dude.

Other dude
DUDE!...that is why you go back and look at the explanations and clarification they wrote down and/or published.

Where did they explain or clarify the provisions respecting religion?

Mick,
can you post some links to where you get your arguements from?
You are quoting your own statements and shagdrum's who you refer to as "Other Dude" then adding terse single sentence questions for the most part that only add to the confusion here and make most readers tune you out as it seems like you're talking to yourself.
Not meaning any disrespect but I for one am completely lost on what you want to say here with these multiple postings.

Syd was out of it by 1967 way before Pink Floyd's greatest albums.
He's the crazy diamond in Shine on you Crazy Diamond.
Their early stuff is unrefined IMO.
Dark side of the Moon 1973 which I saw performed live in 1975 is regarded by some as the greatest album of all time having spent 14 years on the Billboard Chart.
I also really enjoy most of the 1972 album Meddle, tracks Echoes and One of these Days. This album really set the tone for all subsequent Floyd albums.


Yeah, the best example of rambling music is probably some of ELP's stuff. I like pink floyd, but am much more of a Rush person myself. Being a drummer, I love the technical stuff.

Mick Jagger
It was defined that way in the "subject matter."

Other dude
What "subject matter"?

One of the rules of construction covers "subject matter." In my view, it's basically anything written on the same subject as the subject of the provision being interpreted, that could have been in the eye of the lawmakers as they made the Constitution. That automatically eliminates anything written or said regarding "religion" after the Constitution was adopted.

Previous laws made by the lawmakers would qualify as "subject matter." However, the legislative bodies that made the Original Constitution had never made any previous laws regarding religion.

State laws regarding religion would be subject matter. Also, petitions, essays, proposals, and other works regarding religion might be considered "subject matter."

You need to expand on your claims. You are not providing explanations, just answers when the question isn't all that clear. All you are doing, effectively is confusing the issue right now. It seems you may have a lot to offer, but you are just making quick statements without explanation.

I will be happy to explain.

I DID finally find the context of that definiton of religion at this link:
http://www.plymrock.org/leadership.html

George Mason submitted the first draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights to the committee assigned to present such a declaration to Virginia's first state constitutional convention in 1776. That committee's amended Article 18 reads:

That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrates, unless under color of religion any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or safety of society.



Basically this is talking about free exercise of religion within certian limits. But even further down on the page, it talks about those limits, and how that was changed:

James Madison was a member of the Declaration of Rights committee, And, as reported in the documentary record, his thought was that "toleration was a grant, freedom a right." 1 In proposing amendments to the original language of the committee's draft, the documentary record says that Madison started with the phrase "that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion", He drew two lines through "should" and above it wrote, "are equally entitled to," He then deleted the four words "the fullest toleration of" and before the noun "exercise" inserted the adjective "free."

The record refers to the phrase "unless, under color of religion any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or safety of society" as a "gaping loophole clause" because it obviously would given any civil magistrate the right to render his personal opinion with respect to someone's free exercise of religion. In the committee, the "entire loophole clause, beginning with 'unpunished and unrestrained' ... was excised -- any delegate could agree that a clear and present danger [in the original toileting language] justified forceful response."


This is consistent with the ruling in Employment Division v. Smith (1990).


If you are saying that religion, as an idea can't be tried in court directly, and as such is above the law, then yes that is accurate and I would agree with you. If you are trying to imply that religion can be used as an excuse to break the law (or a justification for that), then that would be inaccurate and wrong.

Please, clarify and explain what you are getting at here.

"Subject matter" matter can only be considered when there is dubious language and the first two rules of construction (the first covers the "most usual" meaning of the words and the second covers the "context" of the words) don't resolve the ambiguity.

Where did they explain or clarify the provisions respecting religion?

I don't remember the exact ones, but a few of the federalist papers do, for one. In fact, Madison said in Federalist 51:
If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

John Adams said;
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.

Jefferson in his Danbury Baptist letter:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Jefferson in his Second Inaugural Address, March 1805:
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by constitution independent of the powers of the general [i.e., federal] government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.


These are just a few quotes I pulled from a paper I wrote on the subject a few years back. The paper was focused on the influence of religion (specifically Christianity) on the founding of this nation, it's role in this nation, and where the framers viewed religion in regards to government. I don't have a whole lot of time to look up more quotes for ya. the Federalist papers and the Federal Farmer pamphlets are good places to start. The personal diaries (if you can find them) of the delegate at the constitutional convention, and (I think) Jefferson took extensive notes at the constitutional convention. That should be a good starting point.

Have you ever heard of Joseph Story?

Yep! A few quotes from him...

The real object the First Amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infeidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.


And from his Commentary on the Constitution of the United States:

Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion was left exclusively to State governments, to be acted on according to their own sense of justice and the State constitutions

Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the First Amendment, the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State, so far as such encouragement was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation


Still doesn't help me here. I need a better explanation. I wikipedia'ed Story and found nothing abut "rules of construction".

Mick,
can you post some links to where you get your arguements from?
You are quoting your own statements and shagdrum's who you refer to as "Other Dude" then adding terse single sentence questions for the most part that only add to the confusion here and make most readers tune you out as it seems like you're talking to yourself.
Not meaning any disrespect but I for one am completely lost on what you want to say here with these multiple postings.

x2

Please, elaborate here.

I've just looked at this forum for the first time---and I found something of interest!! Just a couple of comments:

1. It is well settled (That's lawyer talk!) that those who wrote/brought into being any law understood the meanings of every word therein.

2. There is a Law Dictionary in existence that's the 'official' source for meanings of words--(they do change from time to time). At the present time Black's latest edition is accepted. However, there was another source in use in 1776. It's long out of print, but it's words are the law definitions that apply to any law made at that time. I have, somewhere, a link for those that've made photocopies to aid in decyphering our original laws, such as The Constitution. I'll try to dig it out and post it.
KenS from Ben's Place

I don't remember the exact ones, but a few of the federalist papers do, for one. In fact, Madison said in Federalist 51:
If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

What language in the Constitution, pertaining to religion, was Madison explaining when he wrote that?

John Adams said;
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.

John Adams wasn't even one of the lawmakers who made the Constitution.

Jefferson in his Danbury Baptist letter:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Jefferson in his Second Inaugural Address, March 1805:
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by constitution independent of the powers of the general [i.e., federal] government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.


Jefferson wasn't one of the lawmakers, dude.

These are just a few quotes I pulled from a paper I wrote on the subject a few years back. The paper was focused on the influence of religion (specifically Christianity) on the founding of this nation, it's role in this nation, and where the framers viewed religion in regards to government.

Where did you get the silly idea that the Constitution should be construed according to the influence of religion?

I don't have a whole lot of time to look up more quotes for ya. the Federalist papers and the Federal Farmer pamphlets are good places to start.

Why don't you point out where they explain the no religious test clause and the non delegation of authority over religion?

The personal diaries (if you can find them) of the delegate at the constitutional convention

Why don't you point out the explanations pertaining to the no religious test clause and the non delegation of authority over religion?

and (I think) Jefferson took extensive notes at the constitutional convention. That should be a good starting point.

Jefferson wasn't even there, dude.

Yep! A few quotes from him...

The real object the First Amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infeidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.


And from his Commentary on the Constitution of the United States:

Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion was left exclusively to State governments, to be acted on according to their own sense of justice and the State constitutions

Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the First Amendment, the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State, so far as such encouragement was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation


Still doesn't help me here. I need a better explanation. I wikipedia'ed Story and found nothing abut "rules of construction".

Joseph Story wrote an entire chapter on the "Rules of Interpretation of the Constitution" in this famous "Commentaries." It's a good place to start if you want to learn about the common law rules of construction.

Jefferson wasn't even there, dude.

Yeah, wasn't sure on that. Someone took extensive notes there, I wasn't sure it was Jefferson, but that name kept popin' into my head. It might've been one of the three who wrote the Federalist papers, as I think that was one of the source materials for them.

What language in the Constitution, pertaining to religion, was Madison explaining when he wrote that?
It is more an example of his understanding of human nature which is based in christianity. That men are inherently "sinful" and selfish.

John Adams wasn't even one of the lawmakers who made the Constitution.

No, but he was a contemporary of them; working with a number of them, and active in it's ratification. In fact, he was president when it was ratified, and in large part, the author of the original constitution of this nation; the Articles of Confederation. He had a very informed understanding of what went into the creation of the constitution, as well as what the constitution ment.


Jefferson wasn't one of the lawmakers, dude.

But he did write the Declaration, and again was a contemporary of them at the time; with the same intellectual influences and understandings.

Where did you get the silly idea that the Constitution should be construed according to the influence of religion?

That is hardly a silly idea, as Christianity was very influencial to the Framers. It's teaching played a large part in the founding of this nation.

A group of contemporary political scientists engaged in a ten-year study to find out what sources the Framers tapped. The study examined over fifteen thousand political writings of the Founding Era (1760-1805). The study revealed that the most frequently cited authorities of the 180 names examined (listed in order of declining fequency, with the corresponding percentages representing the frequency of citations from that author in relation to the total number of citations examined) were: Montesquieu 8.3%, Blackstone 7.9%, Locke 2.9%, Hume 2.7%, Plutarch 1.5%, Becaria 1.5%, Cato 1.4%, De Lolme 1.4%, and Puffendorf 1.3%#. Obviously, these writers greatly influenced the thinking of the founding fathers, but the researchers concluded that the founders cited the Bible vastly more often then any other source. Scripture was cited four times more then Blackstone or Montesquieu and twelve times more then Locke. Thirty-four percent of the direct source quotations were from the Bible. Except for Hume, all the men mentioned have strong Christian credentials.

Why don't you point out where they explain the no religious test clause and the non delegation of authority over religion?

I will admit, the main focus of my study ( in regards to religion and politics) has been on the 1st Amendment. As such, it would take some time for me to research that and get back to you, time which I don't have, currently. Maybe next week. The "non-delegation" thing...are you talking about the federalism in the Bill of Rights? Non-delegation has to do with delegation of authority; an example being the EPA as a delegation of legislative authority to the executive branch in that agency. There are constitutional issues there, but I really don't see how they connect to religion.

If you are talking federalism, that I understand. The Bill of Rights, as originally written and intended, was only a restriction on the federal government. As such, the Feds were the only ones restricted by the Free exercise and Establishment Clauses. The states were free to do as they wish, in regards to religion.

I've just looked at this forum for the first time---and I found something of interest!! Just a couple of comments:

1. It is well settled (That's lawyer talk!) that those who wrote/brought into being any law understood the meanings of every word therein.

2. There is a Law Dictionary in existence that's the 'official' source for meanings of words--(they do change from time to time). At the present time Black's latest edition is accepted. However, there was another source in use in 1776. It's long out of print, but it's words are the law definitions that apply to any law made at that time. I have, somewhere, a link for those that've made photocopies to aid in decyphering our original laws, such as The Constitution. I'll try to dig it out and post it.
KenS from Ben's Place

I would be interested in that link, if you ever find it.

Joseph Story wrote an entire chapter on the "Rules of Interpretation of the Constitution" in this famous "Commentaries." It's a good place to start if you want to learn about the common law rules of construction.

THANKS!! That is what I wanted! I don't really have time to look at that now, but I will later. BTW, which one was it?

Commentaries on the Law of Bailments (1832)
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (3 vols., 1833)
Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws (1834)
Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence (2 vols., 1835-1836)

I am assuming it is the Commentaries on the Constitution.

Also, how is this the binding method for constitutional interpretation, and not just his own jurisprudence, and the justification for it?

Either way, how is that in conflict with originalism or textualism as both would seem to seek to clarify what the original intent was, as opposed to the opposite end of the spectrum, where the argument is that the constitution is vauge and/or outdated and the original intent of the Framers is effectively thrown out the window ("living" or "evolving" constitution)?

Mick Jagger
What language in the Constitution, pertaining to religion, was Madison explaining when he wrote that?

Shagdrum
It is more an example of his understanding of human nature which is based in christianity. That men are inherently "sinful" and selfish.

Do you really believe the lawmakers intended for us to gather the meaning of the Constituion from their understanding of human nature?


Mick J.
John Adams wasn't even one of the lawmakers who made the Constitution.

Shagdrum
No, but he was a contemporary of them; working with a number of them, and active in it's ratification. In fact, he was president when it was ratified, and in large part, the author of the original constitution of this nation; the Articles of Confederation. He had a very informed understanding of what went into the creation of the constitution, as well as what the constitution meant.

Show me where the lawmakers ever suggested that the Constitution was to be construed according to what John Adams said it meant.

Mick
Jefferson wasn't one of the lawmakers, dude.

Shagdrum
But he did write the Declaration, and again was a contemporary of them at the time; with the same intellectual influences and understandings.

Show me where the lawmakers ever suggested that the Constitution was to be construed according to what the Declaration of Independence said or what their intellectual influences and understandings were?

Mick
Where did you get the silly idea that the Constitution should be construed according to the influence of religion?

Shagdrum
That is hardly a silly idea, as Christianity was very influencial to the Framers. It's teaching played a large part in the founding of this nation.

Where did you get the silly idea that the Constitution should be construed according to the influence of Christianity?

A group of contemporary political scientists engaged in a ten-year study to find out what sources the Framers tapped. The study examined over fifteen thousand political writings of the Founding Era (1760-1805). The study revealed that the most frequently cited authorities of the 180 names examined (listed in order of declining fequency, with the corresponding percentages representing the frequency of citations from that author in relation to the total number of citations examined) were: Montesquieu 8.3%, Blackstone 7.9%, Locke 2.9%, Hume 2.7%, Plutarch 1.5%, Becaria 1.5%, Cato 1.4%, De Lolme 1.4%, and Puffendorf 1.3%#. Obviously, these writers greatly influenced the thinking of the founding fathers, but the researchers concluded that the founders cited the Bible vastly more often then any other source. Scripture was cited four times more then Blackstone or Montesquieu and twelve times more then Locke. Thirty-four percent of the direct source quotations were from the Bible. Except for Hume, all the men mentioned have strong Christian credentials.

How many times was the Bible cited as legal authority, during the making of the Constitution, in support of, or against, a provision of the proposed Constitution?

Do you really believe the lawmakers intended for us to gather the meaning of the Constituion from their understanding of human nature?

As I said earlier, that was simply and example of how religion influenced the Framers. The constitution wasn't written in a vaccum. Certian ideas and theories influenced the founding of this nation. The understanding of human nature is a HUGE one. I would hope you could see how human nature plays a large part in political philosophy and how the philosophy the framers ascribed to influenced the laws written and puts those laws in a historical context.

Show me where the lawmakers ever suggested that the Constitution was to be construed according to what John Adams said it meant.

Explain to me why it shouldn't be considered. He had a very close connection to that document and the people who created it. His understanding of the constitution, because of his place in history, is going to be extremely accurate, as compared to anyone today.


Show me where the lawmakers ever suggested that the Constitution was to be construed according to what the Declaration of Independence said or what their intellectual influences and understandings were?

Again, it puts it in historical context. What ideas were popular and used to justify the new ideas that went into the constitution are very important.


Where did you get the silly idea that the Constitution should be construed according to the influence of Christianity?

Because it IS influenced by Christianity.

How many times was the Bible cited as legal authority, during the making of the Constitution, in support of, or against, a provision of the proposed Constitution?

How is that relevant? The bible isn't cited as legal authority because it was not created as a legal document, it influenced the people who DID create the founding legal documents in this country. If you wanna throw out Christianity, then you have to throw out all those thinkers mentioned.

You have now shown a double standard, it seems. You say we should look at common law, which influenced certain aspects of the law, but did not create law, yet you wanna ignore other influences. Sorry, but you can't logically do that. The constitution wasn't created in a vaccum and needs to be view in its historical context.

shag hasn't checked out the wording of the treaty of tripoli. act 11.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
or the history of founding fathers
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

shag hasn't checked out the wording of the treaty of tripoli. act 11.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
or the history of founding fathers
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

Your second link is baloney. Mostly it demonstrates that the founding fathers were not Calvinists. So what? I'm not a Calvinist either. But I'm a Christian. The author of this article is ignorant of the differences between sects of Christianity. You would do well to educate yourself about Christianity before trying to comment on the subject. Clearly you know how to use Google, but that doesn't make you a scholar. :rolleyes:

Who is more foolish, the fool, or the one who follows him?

-- Obi-Wan Kenobi

Mick
Why don't you point out where they explain the no religious test clause and the non delegation of authority over religion?

Shagdrum
I will admit, the main focus of my study ( in regards to religion and politics) has been on the 1st Amendment. As such, it would take some time for me to research that and get back to you, time which I don't have, currently. Maybe next week.

That would be fine.

The "non-delegation" thing...are you talking about the federalism in the Bill of Rights?

Nope. I meant the Constitution created a limited government with only certain powers and didn't include any sort of power over religion. James Madison explained to the Virginia Ratifying Convention that it meant the federal government had "not a shadow of a right" to jurisdiction over religion.

President Thomas Jefferson was wrong when he said the First Amendment built a wall of separation. That wall was constructed by the framers granting the government no power over religion in the original Constitution. Jefferson did a better job in a letter he wrote seven years later. But he still screwed up by not properly characterizing the Tenth Amendment.

I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S.

He left out the part about the people.

Cammerfe
I've just looked at this forum for the first time---and I found something of interest!! Just a couple of comments:

1. It is well settled (That's lawyer talk!) that those who wrote/brought into being any law understood the meanings of every word therein.

At the time the U. S. Constitution was made, it was well settled and universally understood that the Constitution would be construed according to the common law rules of construction.

THANKS!! That is what I wanted! I don't really have time to look at that now, but I will later. BTW, which one was it?

Commentaries on the Law of Bailments (1832)
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (3 vols., 1833)
Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws (1834)
Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence (2 vols., 1835-1836)

I am assuming it is the Commentaries on the Constitution.

You would be correct. Volume I, Book Three, Chapter Five. http://www.constitution.org/js/js_005.htm

Also, how is this the binding method for constitutional interpretation, and not just his own jurisprudence, and the justification for it?


The issue is what the understanding and assumption of the lawmakers was with respect to what methodology would be used to interpret the Constitution. I just mentioned Story because he was generally an advocate of the same basic rules of construction the lawmakers assumed would be used to interpret the Constitution.

Either way, how is that in conflict with originalism

That all depends on which particular formulation of Originalism you're talking about. There's more than one.

Mick Jagger
Do you really believe the lawmakers intended for us to gather the meaning of the Constituion from their understanding of human nature?
Shagdrum
As I said earlier, that was simply and example of how religion influenced the Framers.

What methodology are we supposed to use to determine what the collective influence of religion was on the more than five hundred lawmakers who participated in the making the Constitution as delegates to the Constitutional Convention or the State Ratifying Conventions?

Shagdrum
The constitution wasn't written in a vaccum.


I know. I also know the Constitution was written to be interpreted according to the common law rules of construction.

Certian ideas and theories influenced the founding of this nation. The understanding of human nature is a HUGE one.

What rules and principles should we use to interpret the Constitution according to these influential ideas and theories?

I would hope you could see how human nature plays a large part in political philosophy and how the philosophy the framers ascribed to influenced the laws written and puts those laws in a historical context.

What are the rules for ascertaining the will of the lawmakers according to the historical context of the words they used in the Constitution?

Mick
Show me where the lawmakers ever suggested that the Constitution was to be construed according to what John Adams said it meant.

Shagdrum
Explain to me why it shouldn't be considered.

Because there is no evidence whatsoever that the lawmakers intended for it to be considered.

Mick
Show me where the lawmakers ever suggested that the Constitution was to be construed according to what the Declaration of Independence said or what their intellectual influences and understandings were?

Shagdrum
Again, it puts it in historical context. What ideas were popular and used to justify the new ideas that went into the constitution are very important.

What are the rules and principles of the "historical context" theory of interpretation?

Mick
Where did you get the silly idea that the Constitution should be construed according to the influence of Christianity?

Shagdrum
Because it IS influenced by Christianity.

What are the rules and principles of the methodology of interpretation that says the meaning of the Constitution should be gathered from Christianity?

Shagdrum
How is that relevant?

You're the one who implied that meaning of the Constitution should be gathered from the "sources the Framers tapped." How many time was the Bible tapped as a source during the making of the Constitution?

shag hasn't checked out the wording of the treaty of tripoli. act 11.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

Actually I have read the treaty of tripoli and it is consistant with everything I said.

Nope. I meant the Constitution created a limited government with only certain powers and didn't include any sort of power over religion. James Madison explained to the Virginia Ratifying Convention that it meant the federal government had "not a shadow of a right" to jurisdiction over religion.

President Thomas Jefferson was wrong when he said the First Amendment built a wall of separation. That wall was constructed by the framers granting the government no power over religion in the original Constitution. Jefferson did a better job in a letter he wrote seven years later. But he still screwed up by not properly characterizing the Tenth Amendment.

I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S.

He left out the part about the people.

Ok, so Jefferson didn't communicate it well (at least in today's context). I understand that his original "wall of separation" basically would have the Federal government on one side, and the state and local government on the other. But a separation of powers between federal and state government; how is that not federalism?

FWI, it was Madison who took the notes of the convention.

The issue is what the understanding and assumption of the lawmakers was with respect to what methodology would be used to interpret the Constitution. I just mentioned Story because he was generally an advocate of the same basic rules of construction the lawmakers assumed would be used to interpret the Constitution.

Yeah, I was gonna ask about the Story thing, as he just turned 8 at the end of the Convention. Basically, you are saying, he codified this method of interpretation that the Framers subscribed to.

Still, an assertion that this is what the Framers subscribed to is nice, but could you give me more? Maybe a link? Some sort of textual basis, preferably from a few of the Framers and/or citing a few of the Framers?



That all depends on which particular formulation of Originalism you're talking about. There's more than one.

Yeah, meaning vs. Intent. I would say I subscribe to the meaning area, or a textualism informed by original meaning. Most discussions I have on this subject are not at a level where that distinction is relevant. Usually it is more living constitution type views vs. originalism

You're the one who implied that meaning of the Constitution should be gathered from the "sources the Framers tapped." How many time was the Bible tapped as a source during the making of the Constitution?

I will give you an example; Natural Rights. Jefferson referenced them in the Declaration, and they are mentioned in the 5th amendment "nor be deprived from life, liberty, or property". The idea comes from Locke, and basically says that because humans are created in God's image, they are entitled to certian rights that the state cannot take away. This nation was largely Christitan at the time, as were the Framers and Locke, so the "God" in that context is a Christian God.

Another example, checks and balances. Since man was understood as inherently sinful by the Framers, government was needed to control that sinful human nature. Since the government was run by men (again who are inherently sinful) a need for a system of checks and balances was neccessitated. Again, Madison if Federalist 51:
If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

Ben Franklin wrote in response to a manuscript Thomas Paine sent him that advocated against the concept of a providential God:
You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself.

It seems to me the debate here is over the common law rules of construction method of interpretation vs. originalism.

I would still like to see a textual base for that being the method for interpretation of the constitution subscribed to by the Framers, but even assuming that, I still have two questons:

1: How does common law interpretation account for the 200+ year gap in the present vs. when the laws were created?

There are a lot of interpretation issues today that wouldn't have been present at that time, namely due to the growing time gap between today and the founding of the nation. People today view the world differently, certain ideas, like natural rights, have no meaning to the average person today, and a different meaning from a scholarly point of view then they did at that time. for example, the idea of Natural Rights has become Human Rights, and lost any connection to being created in God's image; just because you are born human, you have those rights. To correctly interpret the constitution, you logically need to view it in the historical context it was created in.

Basically, I am saying, while that may have been the method subscribed to at that time, and the best one to go by then, why should it still be considered the best one to go by today?

2: How can common law be used to interpret the constitution?

the constitution was written very broadly and generally, intentionally. It didn't so much create laws as it did provide the framework for laws to be created in. The constituton broke down how the powers would be divided, the limits of those powers and the checks and balances system. In certian areas (like elections, and impeachments), it spelled out certian specific procedures, but left the actual lawmaking to the legislature.

Common law basically did for the legal system, what the constitution did for the rest of the government; provided a framework to function in. Certian concepts and principles were taken from the British common law a well; such as, Stare decisis, Statute of Frauds, etc. But common law only clarified procedure and how certian laws should be applied. Common law says nothing about weather a certian law or action is unconstitutional and beyond the scope of the limited powers given to that part of the government.

For example; how does common law help determine what is ment by the right to bear arms in the second amendment? Why would you turn to common law, instead of what that amendment was understood to mean by those who wrote that amendment and those who ratified that amendment, to clarify the meaning?

You have now shown a double standard, it seems. You say we should look at common law

That's not what I meant to say. The rules of construction should be used, not only because they originated in English law, but also because the historical evidence establishes the fact that the lawmakers assumed the rules would be used to interpret the Constitution.

which influenced certain aspects of the law

The rules of construction dictate what can, and can't, be considered when attempting to ascertain the will of the lawmakers at the time the Constitution was made.

That's not what I meant to say. The rules of construction should be used, not only because they originated in English law, but also because the historical evidence establishes the fact that the lawmakers assumed the rules would be used to interpret the Constitution.

I need more then just assertions to accept this.

The rules of construction dictate what can, and can't, be considered when attempting to ascertain the will of the lawmakers at the time the Constitution was made.

How? Where does it draw the line?

Examples? Quotes? I am in the middle of midterms here and don't have time at present to research all this stuff.

I need you to summarize and package it for me, and for whoever else is reading this thread and may be curious about this.

You have now shown a double standard, it seems. You say we should look at common law, which influenced certain aspects of the law, but did not create law, yet you wanna ignore other influences. Sorry, but you can't logically do that.

The common law, and any other law for that matter, can only be considered if allowed by the rules of construction.

shag hasn't checked out the wording of the treaty of tripoli. act 11.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html


The lawmakers couldn't have possibly meant for us to gather the meaning of their words from a future treaty.

Ok, so Jefferson didn't communicate it well (at least in today's context). I understand that his original "wall of separation" basically would have the Federal government on one side, and the state and local government on the other.

The Constitution wasn't adopted with the understanding that it would be construed according to what Thomas Jefferson wrote over a decade after it became law.

Never mind...............

The common law, and any other law for that matter, can only be considered if allowed by the rules of construction.

Textual proof. You keep ignoring that. I have asked for it numerous times in this thread. Post a quote, something, please.

Also, you still haven't answered my questions:

1: How does common law interpretation account for the 200+ year gap in the present vs. when the laws were created?

There are a lot of interpretation issues today that wouldn't have been present at that time, namely due to the growing time gap between today and the founding of the nation. People today view the world differently, certain ideas, like natural rights, have no meaning to the average person today, and a different meaning from a scholarly point of view then they did at that time. for example, the idea of Natural Rights has become Human Rights, and lost any connection to being created in God's image; just because you are born human, you have those rights. To correctly interpret the constitution, you logically need to view it in the historical context it was created in.

Basically, I am saying, while that may have been the method subscribed to at that time, and the best one to go by then, why should it still be considered the best one to go by today?
2: How can common law be used to interpret the constitution?

the constitution was written very broadly and generally, intentionally. It didn't so much create laws as it did provide the framework for laws to be created in. The constituton broke down how the powers would be divided, the limits of those powers and the checks and balances system. In certian areas (like elections, and impeachments), it spelled out certian specific procedures, but left the actual lawmaking to the legislature.

Common law basically did for the legal system, what the constitution did for the rest of the government; provided a framework to function in. Certian concepts and principles were taken from the British common law a well; such as, Stare decisis, Statute of Frauds, etc. But common law only clarified procedure and how certian laws should be applied. Common law says nothing about weather a certian law or action is unconstitutional and beyond the scope of the limited powers given to that part of the government.

For example; how does common law help determine what is ment by the right to bear arms in the second amendment? Why would you turn to common law, instead of what that amendment was understood to mean by those who wrote that amendment and those who ratified that amendment, to clarify the meaning?

Never mind...............

I am honestly trying to understand what you are talking about, but I need more then assertions; I need explanations, examples, applications, quotes....something.

Yeah, I was gonna ask about the Story thing, as he just turned 8 at the end of the Convention. Basically, you are saying, he codified this method of interpretation that the Framers subscribed to.

I don't know that he codified it. But he certainly advocated the use of objective rules of construction.

Still, an assertion that this is what the Framers subscribed to is nice, but could you give me more? Maybe a link? Some sort of textual basis, preferably from a few of the Framers and/or citing a few of the Framers?

Are you familiar with the discussions during the the Constitutional Convention regarding whether or not to use the term "post ex facto?"

Yeah, meaning vs. Intent. I would say I subscribe to the meaning area, or a textualism informed by original meaning. Most discussions I have on this subj