Active Users:1441 Time:01/11/2025 11:52:57 AM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
No, it's part of the treaty. Joel Send a noteboard - 22/10/2010 02:02:42 AM
Apparently we can only view as Constitutional that which is expressly stated within the Constitution, but if we come across something we don't like in a treaty, it's "commentary?" How do you even pretend that's logically consistent?

If you want to find commentary on a law or treaty you look for the relevant commentary on it. There is a reason travaux préparatoires exist.

Now, yes, there is some argument to be had given that the Treaty of Tripoli does not have official travaux préparatoires, but seriously, you don't get to cherry-pick treaties after espousing an originalist view of the Constitution. Sorry.

However, elevating the statement that "the United States government was in no sense founded on the Christian religion" to federal law despite only the Senate and President approving it seems SLIGHTLY presumptuous.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 22/10/2010 at 02:03:44 AM
Reply to message
"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" damookster - 20/10/2010 12:33:05 AM 928 Views
You don't want her? nossy - 20/10/2010 01:21:20 AM 492 Views
I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year. everynametaken - 20/10/2010 01:27:13 AM 354 Views
Now there's an answer Isaac - 20/10/2010 01:47:28 AM 456 Views
Voting isn't the only way to contribute *NM* Roland00 - 20/10/2010 02:42:10 AM 155 Views
And most of those posts are a guess at best. everynametaken - 20/10/2010 03:02:04 AM 335 Views
Maybe you shouldn't be guessing then? Isaac - 20/10/2010 06:00:02 AM 319 Views
Local bonds/ballot initiatives? Want the only major road within 10 miles of your house tolled? Joel - 21/10/2010 01:50:41 PM 362 Views
Issac has a point. Tashmere - 20/10/2010 02:14:28 AM 339 Views
Can you not spoil your ballot? Mark - 20/10/2010 10:19:54 AM 319 Views
Depends where you live. Joel - 20/10/2010 01:50:30 PM 395 Views
I don't think so but an intentional no vote is just as valid as voting IMHO. *NM* everynametaken - 21/10/2010 02:45:35 AM 147 Views
The difference is when they look at statistics snoopcester - 21/10/2010 10:49:48 AM 317 Views
Exactly. Joel - 21/10/2010 02:02:46 PM 439 Views
When you don't vote the bad guys win. That simple. Joel - 20/10/2010 01:53:23 PM 449 Views
The bad guys? That implies that there are some "good" guys somewhere in politics. Avendesora - 20/10/2010 05:43:06 PM 312 Views
I didn't say that, just that the bad guys automatically win if you don't vote. Joel - 20/10/2010 05:49:43 PM 315 Views
An intentional NO vote is just as valid as voting. everynametaken - 21/10/2010 02:46:58 AM 318 Views
Apart from the fact there's no record of it whatsoever, yes. Joel - 21/10/2010 01:37:46 PM 320 Views
Re: I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year. Camilla - 20/10/2010 02:54:04 PM 437 Views
She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is... everynametaken - 20/10/2010 01:25:43 AM 433 Views
Re: She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is... TaskmasterJack - 20/10/2010 01:35:48 AM 365 Views
Re: (meant to be under the main thread, but I can't move it) Gaps - 20/10/2010 02:42:23 AM 340 Views
It's a valid argument. Joel - 21/10/2010 03:26:46 PM 316 Views
i feel kinda bad for her Aisha - 20/10/2010 03:31:03 AM 389 Views
What is odd about this is that everyone is used to the 'separation' idea that they don't bother to MightyYT - 20/10/2010 06:44:48 AM 360 Views
Or, you know, the letters on the topic written by the people who drafted the Constitution *NM* Jragghen - 20/10/2010 07:04:47 AM 194 Views
Those aren't the Constitution though. Joel - 20/10/2010 12:39:41 PM 347 Views
which show they considered it but did not include it *NM* random thoughts - 20/10/2010 06:14:37 PM 145 Views
Yep, this. *NM* Zalis - 20/10/2010 07:40:19 PM 180 Views
Personally, I think that's splitting hairs. *NM* rebelaessedai - 20/10/2010 09:20:28 PM 147 Views
a direct reading is splitting hairs? random thoughts - 20/10/2010 09:25:14 PM 320 Views
That's what lawyers like the Founding Fathers do. Joel - 21/10/2010 02:56:36 PM 328 Views
I actually felt bad for her snoopcester - 20/10/2010 10:46:57 AM 339 Views
She's right. Joel - 20/10/2010 12:27:55 PM 459 Views
I'm less concerned about what she said than why she said it. *NM* Avendesora - 20/10/2010 01:32:38 PM 241 Views
It is on youtube snoopcester - 20/10/2010 02:40:12 PM 358 Views
Jesus Christ Camilla - 20/10/2010 03:03:30 PM 370 Views
Re: Jesus Christ snoopcester - 20/10/2010 03:32:02 PM 323 Views
Re: Jesus Christ Camilla - 20/10/2010 03:36:48 PM 309 Views
Re: Jesus Christ snoopcester - 20/10/2010 03:53:46 PM 312 Views
Re: Jesus Christ Camilla - 20/10/2010 04:01:49 PM 396 Views
Re: Jesus Christ snoopcester - 20/10/2010 05:12:28 PM 302 Views
Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse. Joel - 21/10/2010 02:31:19 PM 340 Views
Re: Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse. nossy - 21/10/2010 02:40:23 PM 415 Views
If the subsequent rulings aren't Constitutional they don't matter. Joel - 21/10/2010 03:03:11 PM 333 Views
Re: If the subsequent rulings aren't Constitutional they don't matter. nossy - 21/10/2010 03:57:45 PM 404 Views
She focused on the First Amendments text, and ignored the rest as commentary. Joel - 21/10/2010 04:49:22 PM 415 Views
Ok. nossy - 21/10/2010 05:01:22 PM 319 Views
I certainly don't think she deserves the scorn being heaped on her this time. Joel - 21/10/2010 05:14:03 PM 349 Views
See Dreaded Anomaly's reply below. Camilla - 21/10/2010 03:03:02 PM 375 Views
Done. Joel - 21/10/2010 04:50:52 PM 312 Views
Yet another reason you aren't a lawyer. *NM* Ghavrel - 21/10/2010 05:09:16 PM 119 Views
Because I don't accept arguments I consider unproven? Joel - 21/10/2010 05:23:52 PM 357 Views
The last statement is the only relevant one, and still a bit ambiguous. Joel - 20/10/2010 03:51:35 PM 334 Views
I think it is clear that that argument is beyond her capabilities. It was not what she was saying. *NM* everynametaken - 21/10/2010 02:50:33 AM 127 Views
Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, so she's right. Joel - 21/10/2010 03:41:27 PM 281 Views
I see we have replaced the PDS with ODS random thoughts - 20/10/2010 03:05:58 PM 318 Views
It only depends on just how finely one wants to split hairs. Macharius - 20/10/2010 04:02:28 PM 309 Views
no it depends how far you want to stretch the Constitution to say things it doesn't say random thoughts - 20/10/2010 04:19:04 PM 312 Views
No it does not show that. everynametaken - 21/10/2010 02:58:32 AM 296 Views
It doesn't matter what some of them may have wanted random thoughts - 21/10/2010 02:54:54 PM 293 Views
Treaty of Tripoli through the Establishment clause fairly explicitly affirms this. Sorry. *NM* Ghavrel - 21/10/2010 03:56:09 AM 131 Views
OK which clause allows for amending the Constitution by treaty? I can't seem to find it *NM* random thoughts - 21/10/2010 02:59:01 PM 128 Views
Supremacy clause, not establishment clause. My mistake. Ghavrel - 21/10/2010 05:07:18 PM 309 Views
Sorry, but the Treaty of Tripolis relevant section still seems like commentary. Joel - 21/10/2010 05:18:00 PM 285 Views
This is quickly becoming infuriating. Ghavrel - 22/10/2010 01:41:18 AM 287 Views
No, it's part of the treaty. Joel - 22/10/2010 02:02:42 AM 316 Views
Take it up with the Supremacy Clause. *NM* Ghavrel - 22/10/2010 02:12:11 AM 139 Views
So from 1797 we've been at "perpetual peace" with Libya? Joel - 22/10/2010 02:25:44 AM 291 Views
Fair enough as regards the treaty being broken. Ghavrel - 22/10/2010 02:38:37 AM 306 Views
Seems to apply to the Tenth Amendment only, not the Constitution as a whole. Joel - 22/10/2010 02:56:27 AM 369 Views
When a treaty is ratified by the senate, its provisions become federal law via a few processes. Ghavrel - 22/10/2010 03:02:24 AM 293 Views
Even if we take that at face value, a law can still be unconstitutional. Joel - 22/10/2010 03:19:07 AM 333 Views
it was a poor decision anyway since Amendments should be seen to modify the original random thoughts - 22/10/2010 02:11:22 PM 284 Views
Well, they do, but they modify, they don't automatically negate. Joel - 22/10/2010 08:31:47 PM 284 Views
no your mistake was misreading the clause random thoughts - 21/10/2010 05:48:52 PM 297 Views
Very difficult not to lose my temper here. Ghavrel - 22/10/2010 01:39:21 AM 291 Views
Then you should argue it violate a treaty with a country that no longer exist random thoughts - 22/10/2010 02:03:32 PM 294 Views
Noticed that, too, did you? Joel - 22/10/2010 08:40:09 PM 414 Views
She's so... bewildered! beetnemesis - 20/10/2010 06:40:04 PM 298 Views
that is what I think when I read a lot of the responses here random thoughts - 20/10/2010 07:44:40 PM 294 Views
She was still confused when he clarified what he meant, is what's funny *NM* beetnemesis - 20/10/2010 08:56:56 PM 131 Views
Because the logical conclusion is obvious. everynametaken - 21/10/2010 03:08:39 AM 299 Views
I think it is logical that it means what is say not want some want it to say random thoughts - 21/10/2010 03:02:08 PM 292 Views
Nonsense. The nature of the nation was already changing in the first generation. everynametaken - 22/10/2010 12:35:26 AM 398 Views
but it is an impulse that should be limited random thoughts - 22/10/2010 06:05:10 PM 291 Views
I think it funny that so many people can't see that what she was actually saying was true random thoughts - 20/10/2010 09:23:23 PM 305 Views
I think it is funny that you think that she could argue that angle when she clearly can't. *NM* everynametaken - 21/10/2010 03:10:43 AM 119 Views
For those who think O'Donnell is correct, even on a technicality: Dreaded Anomaly - 20/10/2010 10:49:40 PM 345 Views
exactly damookster - 21/10/2010 03:26:00 AM 329 Views
She started out alright nossy - 21/10/2010 02:32:01 PM 295 Views
She reiterates her question about "separation of church and state" and he repeatedly dodges. Joel - 21/10/2010 03:19:56 PM 318 Views
or she wasn't really paying attnetion to him and was still trying to argue her first point random thoughts - 21/10/2010 03:24:06 PM 444 Views
Lol. Bush-League. LadyLorraine - 21/10/2010 04:39:43 PM 282 Views
at leas thten the haters were hating someone who mattered *NM* random thoughts - 21/10/2010 05:50:03 PM 140 Views
Heh...reminds me of Obama claiming to have visited all fifty seven states. MightyYT - 22/10/2010 12:44:58 AM 420 Views
My favorite bit is how people are attacking the judicary because they disagree with rulings. Ghavrel - 21/10/2010 05:12:01 PM 311 Views
so you believe we all should just accept what the courts say without question? random thoughts - 21/10/2010 05:54:42 PM 320 Views
Given that it's you, Joel and Christine O'Donnell versus two centuries of jurisprudence? YES. *NM* Ghavrel - 22/10/2010 01:49:01 AM 141 Views
Y'know, an alliance as unlikely as that one ought to give you cause for a second look. Joel - 22/10/2010 03:03:05 AM 397 Views
*double posts* Joel - 22/10/2010 08:44:07 PM 313 Views
yes we are the only ones who don't think the courts can rewrtie the Constitution at will *NM* random thoughts - 22/10/2010 02:04:44 PM 130 Views
yes we are the only ones who don't think the courts can rewrtie the Constitution at will *NM* random thoughts - 22/10/2010 02:04:44 PM 127 Views
Come, my brethren! All Hallows Eve approachs, and we have much to do! beetnemesis - 22/10/2010 05:34:01 PM 287 Views
...goddammit beetnemesis - 22/10/2010 05:35:37 PM 311 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes