It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
History changes? Not unless you have a time machine, although you are correct if you are talking about progressive "revisionist" history, you know, the lies and half truths that are taught to kids in our public education system.
By the way, the 14th amendment is not in Article 6. Article 6 is about debts, supremacy and oaths. The supremacy clause does state that federal law supersedes state law, but then we are right back where we started because it all depends on one's definition of separation of church and state, and if one believes that was the intent of the first amendment. The 14th amendment talks about citizenship and electing representatives. More specifically, the original intent of the 14th amendment was to make clear that freed slaves were in fact American citizens. The sole purpose of the 14th amendment was to protect the citizenship of freed slaves.
I'm not against the separation of church and state because in it's original intent and meaning it is a good thing. What I am against is the current definition of the term because it is dead wrong. To me it is a non issue and another glaring example, among many, of progressive ignorance/deceit.
The 9th amendment simply means that other rights aside from those listed may exist, and just because they are not listed doesn't mean they can be violated. That has nothing to do with separation of church and state, nor does it have anything to do with whether or not the Constitution is a living and breathing document.
This is similar to the line "we hold these truths to be self evident.." The meaning behind that is that they felt the bill of rights, among others(9th amendment), existed regardless of whether or not they wrote them down on paper, because they are natural rights granted by God.
If the Constitution were literally set on fire today and it burned into ash would it still exist? Would the bill of rights still exist? Could I still own a gun? Could you still say whatever you want? The short answer to all of those questions is yes.
The only way that the Constitution is a living document is through the amendment process, and that's it. This is clear in the Federalist Papers, which were written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. The sole purpose of the Federalist Papers were to explain in greater detail what the Constitution was and the meaning behind the numerous ideas within the Constitution.
Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist 78 "Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it prior to such an act."
I could care less what a Federal Judge has to say about it.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
I could care less what any politician says about it. In my opinion, any judge or politician that feels the Constitution is "living and breathing" and would attempt to change it through the legislative or judicial process is in direct violation of their oath and should be thrown out of office.
The intent of the framers is more than clear, and if you read the Federalist Papers you will know their intent.
It isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.
What progressives need to do is at least be honest and say "I don't care what the Constitution says or what the original intent was...I'm doing it anyway." That is what they are doing, so they might as well be honest and say it.
*I was going to include some great websites on this matter, but you would only say that they are biased or ridiculous, so what's the point. You are set in your ways, and so am I
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
My argument is that history is constantly changing because we're constantly adding to it and no 200+ year old document is going to be able to keep up.