'Original meaning' and the constitution

[foxpaws]

Madison is only one man. He did not make the constitution into the law of the land. from May 25 to September 17, 1787, the constitution was heavily debated, modified, and eventually ratified by the Philadelphia Conventon, which had fifty of the brightest minds of the era workin on it. They had to come to some sort of agreement on the constitution. Then it was ratified by the various states, after a vigorous campaign (including much public debate). The constitution, including the various parts and their meanings were throughly vetted and commonly understood by the majority of society at the time.

In fact, this is the basic debate between original intent and original meaning. I tend to subscribe to the "original meaning" view. You have a much broader textual base and better understanding of what the various parts of the constitution mean.

Yes, the constitution was changed, altered, and finally ratified, over the course of decades.

But, it is pretty much agreed that the 'father of the constitution' Madison, was the major 'author' of the constitution, and in particular the first amendment. If you review his diary of the 'building' of the constitution, as well as notes of the debates, the first amendment survived pretty much intact from draft.

And, in fact, if you read the New Jersey constitution, which much of the US Constitution was based - the religion 'section' of the document is quite different - adding 'Almighty God' into the text - Madison deliberately deleted any reference to 'God' on purpose within his text of the US Constitution.

New Jersey Constitution -
3. No person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor under any pretense whatever be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his faith and judgment; nor shall any person be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing any church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right or has deliberately and voluntarily engaged to perform.

4. There shall be no establishment of one religious sect in preference to another; no religious or racial test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust.

If you haven't read his treatises - Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments - you might want to - it is pretty interesting reading.

I believe there is very little 'interpretation' or 'original meaning' discourse necessary in the First Amendment, just as there is little interpretation needed in the 2nd Amendment. I think the 'boys' had a pretty good idea of what they wanted to say, and succinctly stated it. Those 2 Amendments are so interdependent on each other, that I think that interpretation of either of them, diminishes the other one.

And, if only we had a time machine, all of this would be sooo much easier -

 

[LsUnV2]

how much horsepower does the constitution have and can you lower it???????

 

[shagdrum]

When people are misinterpreting the constitution as having a "wall of separation" between church and state, and the phrase "under God" is questioned, it is clear that the constitution is sorely misunderstood.

And you haven't show why we should only go by what Madison thought the constitution ment, as opposed to what the general concensus was among the framers and the general populace as a whole who ratified it. One method of interpretation better places the constitution in it's historical context and one does not.

Either way, when it comes to the religion clauses, the understanding is generally the same between the two approaches, and it does not support a "wall of separation between church and state" as it is understood today.

Madison's own words:

"Religion is the basis and Foundation of Government.... We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
June 20, 1785 ​

 

[foxpaws]

But, very little remains of what the framers thought of the first amendment - do you have any quotes from Stewart or Morris? There has been speculation that the lack of other supportive material indicates that this part of the constitution wasn't heavily debated.

Also, if you read Madison's treaties, "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" -1785
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html
it is pretty hard to see anything other than freedom of religion.

"The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him."

Where is your quote from Shag - I would like to read it in context - please read mine in context.

 

[LsUnV2]

this is a car site

 

[foxpaws]

this is a political Forum...

However, we do have cars in common - even though some incorrectly believe that Lincolns are better than Caddy's... fools

 

[Kbob]

this is a car site

... with a politics and current events forum. What's your point? Let them discuss what they want in here. This stuff doesn't bleed into the rest of the site. We all love cars, that's the #1 reason why we're here. That doesn't mean we don't have other interests. Heck, look at the anything goes forum. Talk about not having anything to do with cars ....

 

[LsUnV2]

yesterday i had a caddy owner tell me lincolns were much better...

 

[cammerfe]

Actually, this is the Politics and Current Events section of a very broad-ranging Site that's based on an interest in Lincolns and---whatzit---Oh, caddys!
KS

 

[shagdrum]

There has been speculation that the lack of other supportive material indicates that this part of the constitution wasn't heavily debated.

speculation based on what? There was a rather strong understanding going into the convention and not much need for a debate, as far as everything I have read.

Also, if you read Madison's treaties, "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" -1785
it is pretty hard to see anything other than freedom of religion.

no one is debating the whole "freedom of religion" thing. It is more the whole "wall of separation" thing that is debated today.

Where is your quote from Shag - I would like to read it in context - please read mine in context.

Here is the website I pulled the quote from.

 

[foxpaws]

Well, I just did a quick little look for that quote - because I had never heard it and I have read a lot of Madison and Jefferson.

So, it looks like it might be fake - it seems like it first appeared in about 1939 - when I did the search for it, and could be attributed to something that David Barton referenced. I was a little worried because all of the sources are religious sites... the ones I use are very well documented - with Madison's original letters and treatises available in museums and universities - as well as being quoted during Madison's lifetime...

I could be wrong - but, it really doesn't sound like Madison - civilization - probably not his words... and the Ten Commandments - never. Here is a man with extensive writings clearly declaring his ideals of church and state, and to find one - with questionable origins, seems to pretty well point to fake -

And the freedom of religion, although does not speak to 'wall of separation' it does obviously point to the absence of religion within government and the absence of government within religion.

Obama in the morning - some perks to still having a little clout in the party.

 

[foxpaws]

speculation based on what? There was a rather strong understanding going into the convention and not much need for a debate, as far as everything I have read.

Debate before it got to the convention... during the drafting process, with first framers - they seemed to have little debate with the first amendment.

 

[foxpaws]

OK - it is late - and I had to make Obama signs... and during a clarifying moment (or perhaps I have been sniffing too many markers)

The Bill of Rights - Introduced in 1789 - after the convention - to appease the states, and some founding fathers/framers that the constitution failed to protect the basic principles of human liberty...

Madison wrote them as amendments because he took forever to get the constitution through the first convention - and he didn't want to risk a 2nd constitution - which might undermine all the work it took to get the constitution (the 'workings' of government) approved.

Madison I think worked a lot with the states on writing the Bill of Rights - along with using the Virginia Declaration of Rights.


Into law - 1791

 

[foxpaws]

I edited the post above - but forgot to add the 'why edit' line - I think this all has been caused by my Red markers -

 

[shagdrum]

So, it looks like it might be fake - it seems like it first appeared in about 1939 - when I did the search for it, and could be attributed to something that David Barton referenced. I was a little worried because all of the sources are religious sites... the ones I use are very well documented - with Madison's original letters and treatises available in museums and universities - as well as being quoted during Madison's lifetime...

David Barton is a bad source? Religious sites are a bad source?

 

[shagdrum]

And the freedom of religion, although does not speak to 'wall of separation' it does obviously point to the absence of religion within government and the absence of government within religion.

Actually, it was only at the federal level. An absence of an official religion at the federal level. The Bill of Rights was only a restriction on the federal government, specifically Congress. the states were free to do as they pleased, and many at the time the constitution was passed has state religions, and religious tests for state office.

Freedom of religion is different and distinct from the whole "wall of separation" idea (or similar ones). That is why the 1st amendment has two religious clauses, the free exercise clause and the establishment clause. They cover different things and are very distinct.

That is not to say that religion was banned from the federal level, just that there couldn't be any law "respecting an establishment of religion" by the legislature.

Religion did play a large role in this nation's founding. In fact the framers counted on this country being religious, so as to allow for the level of freedom they set up the nation with.

Heck, the idea of natural rights which this nation was founded on, was understood to me that certian rights come from God and cannot be taken away by any government.

 

[fossten]

Other sources say that quote is taken out of context. Apparently the quote is actually this:

SECTION 15, Because finally, "the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his religion according to the dictates of conscience" is held by the same tenure with all his other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consider the "Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of government," it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis.

-- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, June 20, 1785

 

[shagdrum]

Other sources say that quote is taken out of context.

fair enough...

 

[fossten]

Although, to be fair, most of these sources are from atheist websites.

 

[foxpaws]

I am not saying that religion is a bad thing – far from it – obviously religion played a huge part in forming this country, and continues to form it – from the Pilgrims arriving on our shores due to religious persecution in England, to the inspirational words of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. We have a long and very treasured history of welcoming those of varying faiths and sects into our country, and giving them a voice once they arrive on our shores

Yes, the entire constitution is at a ‘federal level’. I feel that especially since it was written and adopted at a time when States’ Rights were at the forefront of political thought, and far more valued and treasured then they are today, that the framers’ placed within the constitution only those exact points that were required to ‘secure the Blessings of Liberty’.

I don’t really know all the States’ Constitutions and Declarations of Rights – but I do believe all of the original 13 had clauses referring to religious freedoms, although I need to check Connecticut.

And Christianity doesn’t hold a ‘lock’ on the natural rights banner – Judaism, Confucianism, Buddhists, others, all have traditions based in sentient rights, and those three are older than Christianity. Even the 10 Commandments that are held so dear at the beginning of this thread are not Christian in origin.

And, yes, I do believe that Barton would be a bad source on this particular subject – because he would be bias.

And thanks Foss – I was racking my brain trying to figure out when in the heck Madison would have said anything like "sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” It is so far removed from everything else I have read of his. I went to the Madison Library site, the Library of Congress site - dug out books and scanned indexes - nothing.

So, the wall of separation that you talk of Shag – I am going to assume you mean Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (odd to think that the Baptists in this case were worried about their immutable rights) in 1802…

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate 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.”

Was there a lot of argument during Jefferson’s time that contradicts his statement in that letter?

 

[shagdrum]

And, yes, I do believe that Barton would be a bad source on this particular subject – because he would be bias.

gonna have to do better then an ad hominem circumstansial point to discredit Barton as a source.

Can you show him taking things out of context?

So, the wall of separation that you talk of Shag – I am going to assume you mean Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (odd to think that the Baptists in this case were worried about their immutable rights) in 1802…

Was there a lot of argument during Jefferson’s time that contradicts his statement in that letter?

Yes, the Danbury Baptist letter...

His wall of separation was completely different then what it means today. Today, it means a wall with government on one side and religion on the other. What Jefferson ment was a wall with the federal government on one side and religion and all lesser governments (state, county, city) on the other.

Religion was set apart from the federal government only. not the states, according to the U.S. constitution.

And that doesn't mean that religion, and specifically a Christian God, was not instrumental in the founding on this nation. the idea of Natural Rights is one example. I need to find some old papers to get more, but I don't have time at the moment. Gotta go to work.

 

[fossten]

Even the 10 Commandments that are held so dear at the beginning of this thread are not Christian in origin.

Not only are you wrong, but there is no way you can substantiate this statement.

 

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by foxpaws View Post
Even the 10 Commandments that are held so dear at the beginning of this thread are not Christian in origin.

Not only are you wrong, but there is no way you can substantiate this statement.

They are Jewish - from the Torah... predating Christianity by anywhere from 3 to 6 hundred years.

 

[fossten]

They are Jewish - from the Torah... predating Christianity by anywhere from 3 to 6 hundred years.

Sorry, but Christianity derived from God, and predated Judaism.

"Before Abraham was, I AM."

-- Jesus Christ

 

[foxpaws]

Sorry, but Christianity derived from God, and predated Judaism.

"Before Abraham was, I AM."

-- Jesus Christ

Christ as part of the holy trinity was here at the beginning of time, however, Christianity (the religion) at the very earliest could have only started with the birth of Christ.