Oh woe is me....

[Serenity]

[OperaTenor]

What's a liturgical?

Most churches have some form of liturgy that guides the flow of service, but a "liturgical church" conducts its services by a strict, prescribed liturgy — a formal structure or order of worship, which has been passed down from tradition. This type of church generally places much emphasis upon ceremony and ritual, and may use various forms of religious icons.

A historical form of liturgy practiced in many such churches, is as follows:

(1) Confession of Sins
(2) Pronouncement of Absolution
(3) Acknowledgment of God's Authority
(4) The Reading of God's Word
(5) A Hymn of Praise
(6) A Sermon
(7) The Offering
(8) The Prayers of the Church
(9) The Holy Communion

Well known liturgical churches who follow a similar form are the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopal, and Eastern Orthodox churches.

[Shapley]

Separation of church and state is an interpretation of the establishment clause of the first amendment made by Thomas Jefferson. If your liberal sensibilities force you into believing that there is a connection between the US Government and any religion, I suggest you read a few of the writings of Jefferson and Madison regarding their efforts toward disestablishment.

Jefferson and Madison had their views, which were not recognized by all those involved in the drafting of the Constitution. That which is codified into law is the overriding factor, not the individual views of those who debated it. Their writings are significant in understanding the thinking that went into the law, and even in understanding the context of the wording used (since language changes over time), but the actual codified text is what is law, and the codified text deal with very specific limitations on the Congress. Because this limitation is specifically on Congress, as in "Congress shall pass no law...", and not "There shall be no law...", the limitation is clearly on the Federal government, and not on the individual State governments.

It's called checks and balances. If you read the Constitution as a conservative, you will note that "the morals of the majority of the people" have no standing in the laws of the United States.

They have no standing as legal precedent, but they are factor in the electing of representatives, and in the context of laws drafted by those representatives. Thus, we've had 'blue laws', laws against sodomy, 'age of consent' laws, etc. Even today, it could be argued that 'hate crime' laws are morality based, in that the populace seems to find crimes committed on the basis of 'hate' (however that is defined) to be somehow more attrocious than those commited on the basis of greed, lust, or simple evil.

[Serenity]

[Shapley]

So neither Jefferson's nor Madison's views mean nothing.

Double negative, but the answer is yes....

And, that perspective is written in stone.....the Constitution is not a living, breathing, changing document? It shall be protected against all who dare question it?

It's not written in stone, but it is written on parchment. It is not 'living, breathing', that is nonsense. It can be changed, by the methodology laid out in the document, but the wording written at the time is the law until it is done so. Quod scripsi, scripsi, so to speak.

I will live my life by whatever document inspires me.....if none exists, then I shall write my own Constitution! I want to live by a Constitution that reflects principles I believe in and not force myself to live by written rules I do not believe in. I believe in the spirit of the Constitution, not in the written paperwork.

Elected officials take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. That would be the Constitution as written...

Why have rules at all if you're only going to accept the ones you believe in? There is a term for that, anarchy.

[Serenity]

[Shapley]

I want absolute liberty over my life.
The less there is an established authority over my decisions the better for me.
If I can eliminate coercive authority from my life the more I accept responsibility for my decisions.

The absense of government is the ultimate freedom, but it provides no security. When we band together to form governments, we trade some liberty for some security. I believe our Constitution, as written, provides the best balance yet achieved between freedom and security.

I said that in 1996, when running for office. I believed it then and I believe it now.

If you have absolute liberty over your life, you have the liberty to take what rightfully belongs to others, who have no recourse but their own liberty to retaliate. You have the liberty to take the lives of your neighbors, who have no recourse, nor do you have protection from those who choose to exercise their liberty to take your life. We have laws that define the limits of your liberties, and we codify those laws into written word, so their interpretation is not subject the whims and fancies of a judge or Imam, who believes his own personal liberty is to determine the law as a 'living, breathing' thing.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

Jefferson and Madison had their views, which were not recognized by all those involved in the drafting of the Constitution.

Madison's views aren't part of the Constitution? And you're changing the subject.

Because this limitation is specifically on Congress, as in "Congress shall pass no law...", and not "There shall be no law...", the limitation is clearly on the Federal government, and not on the individual State governments.

Amendment XIV reads, in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priveliges or immunities of citizens of the Unites States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I fully expect the restrictions on marriages to be overturned by the SCOTUS, although it will take some time.

They have no standing as legal precedent, but they are factor in the electing of representatives, and in the context of laws drafted by those representatives. Thus, we've had 'blue laws', laws against sodomy, 'age of consent' laws, etc. Even today, it could be argued that 'hate crime' laws are morality based, in that the populace seems to find crimes committed on the basis of 'hate' (however that is defined) to be somehow more attrocious than those commited on the basis of greed, lust, or simple evil.

We've also had laws recognizing slavery and conscription. Hopefully we've progressed from those days.

[Shapley]

We've also had laws recognizing slavery and conscription. Hopefully we've progressed from those days.

They were abolished through the amendment process, which is the proper way to bring the Constitution into alignment with modern sentiment, not by simply ignoring or re-interpreting the law based on a 'living, breathing, concept.

[analog]

If I can eliminate coercive authority from my life the more I accept responsibility for my decisions.

not everybody is a good egg.

If there's no government there'd better be lots of old fashioned religion about to keep things orderly.
Absence of both puts us back to tooth and claw.

Remember Dr Moreau - 'the beast creeps back...'

[barfle]

They were abolished through the amendment process, which is the proper way to bring the Constitution into alignment with modern sentiment, not by simply ignoring or re-interpreting the law based on a 'living, breathing, concept.

Conscription hasn't been abolished. Young men still have to register for the draft.

And no Constitutional amendments were required to get rid of blue laws, just recognition of the existing provisions. And one Constitutional amendment provides restrictions on what restrictions state governments can place on their citizens, as noted.

[Shapley]

Conscription hasn't been abolished. Young men still have to register for the draft.

True, but there has been no draft since President Nixon abolished it during his term. Thanks to President Ford, I was never required to register. Pesident Carter reinstated the registration requirement, but the draft itself has not been implemented. No Constitutional amendment was required, since it is not a Constitutional issue - conscription only dates back to the Great War.

And no Constitutional amendments were required to get rid of blue laws, just recognition of the existing provisions.

I could be mistaken, but I believe some State Constitutions had to be amended in order to abolish such laws. Missouri, I believe, was one of them. There were, to the best of my knowledge, no Federal blue laws enacted.

And one Constitutional amendment provides restrictions on what restrictions state governments can place on their citizens, as noted.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Since Amendment I only places a limit on the Congress, the power not prohibited to the states is reserved to them. Amendment XIV does not change this.

[piqaboo]

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Since Amendment I only places a limit on the Congress, the power not prohibited to the states is reserved to them. Amendment XIV does not change this.

This sure seems like the constitution prohibiting a power to the states:

Amendment XIV reads, in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priveliges or immunities of citizens of the Unites States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[Shapley]

This sure seems like the constitution prohibiting a power to the states:

Amendment XIV reads, in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priveliges or immunities of citizens of the Unites States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It does prohibit certain powers to the States. But not that power.

[barfle]

...there has been no draft since President Nixon abolished it during his term. Thanks to President Ford, I was never required to register. Pesident Carter reinstated the registration requirement, but the draft itself has not been implemented. No Constitutional amendment was required, since it is not a Constitutional issue - conscription only dates back to the Great War.

As I noted, no amendment required to cease drafting students.

I could be mistaken, but I believe some State Constitutions had to be amended in order to abolish such laws. Missouri, I believe, was one of them. There were, to the best of my knowledge, no Federal blue laws enacted.

Once the "equal protection of the law" phrase was understood, blue laws had to be abolished.

Since Amendment I only places a limit on the Congress, the power not prohibited to the states is reserved to them. Amendment XIV does not change this.

Amendment I isn't the only amendment that applies. Your cafeteria conservatism is showing.

[barfle]

It does prohibit certain powers to the States. But not that power.

It prohibits the states from passing laws that discriminate against a segment of its citizenry.

[Shapley]

As I noted, no amendment required to cease drafting students.

Correct. A law was created to allow it. the law was modified to stop it. The law was again modified to require registration in case it was deemed necessary to start drafting again. Still within my point that it is changed through the process, not through some sort of living, breathing reinterpretation of existing law.

I could be mistaken, but I believe some State Constitutions had to be amended in order to abolish such laws. Missouri, I believe, was one of them. There were, to the best of my knowledge, no Federal blue laws enacted. Once the "equal protection of the law" phrase was understood, blue laws had to be abolished.

How so? As I recall, most States held referenda to abolish them, though some were deemed unconstitutional, rightly or wrongly so. Many States still prohibit liquor sales on Sundays. Here in Missouri, shopkeepers were concerned that they were losing business to Illinois on Sunday, because Missouri businesses had to be closed and Illinois did not, so the laws were overturned by referendum. I don't believe it took two hundred years before we understood the 'equal protection of the law' phrase....

Since Amendment I only places a limit on the Congress, the power not prohibited to the states is reserved to them. Amendment XIV does not change this.

Amendment I isn't the only amendment that applies. Your cafeteria conservatism is showing.

Amendment I is the place that prohibits the establishment and restriction of religion, unless you're probing around in the penumbrae. I know this topic has gone on a long time, but if my memory serves me, that is where this discussion wound up....

[barfle]

Still within my point that it is changed through the process, not through some sort of living, breathing reinterpretation of existing law.

I didn't make that point. The point I've been making all along is that the states are prohibited from enacting laws that discrinimate against a segment of its citizenry, and that prohibition has been in place longer than the prohibition against slavery.

As I recall, most States held referenda to abolish them, though some were deemed unconstitutional, rightly or wrongly so. Many States still prohibit liquor sales on Sundays. Here in Missouri, shopkeepers were concerned that they were losing business to Illinois on Sunday, because Missouri businesses had to be closed and Illinois did not, so the laws were overturned by referendum. I don't believe it took two hundred years before we understood the 'equal protection of the law' phrase....

It may have taken court decisions. Fortunately, I never lived where blue laws were in place (at least while I was old enough to pay attention), so an election to comply with the Constitution seems a bit redundant.

Amendment I is the place that prohibits the establishment and restriction of religion, unless you're probing around in the penumbrae. I know this topic has gone on a long time, but if my memory serves me, that is where this discussion wound up....

And amendment XIV extends that prohibition to state governments.

And I so wish you would apply some precision to your use of the quote function on the boards. You've taken far too much credit for my work!

[Shapley]

Still within my point that it is changed through the process, not through some sort of living, breathing reinterpretation of existing law.

I didn't make that point. The point I've been making all along is that the states are prohibited from enacting laws that discrinimate against a segment of its citizenry, and that prohibition has been in place longer than the prohibition against slavery.

I've not argued that. I've argued that a failure to extend the definition of 'Marriage' beyond its' current limitations does not discriminate against the populace. Laws and rules such as right of survivorship, right of visitation, etc., are set by government, and can be allowed outside of marriage. For instance, insurance policies are taken out regularly that designate as beneficiaries persons outside of the normal familial unit. Inheritance and other laws can be written to allow the designation of heirs absent ceremony, if so desired. Marriage is not a right, and there are heterosexual couples who are also forbidden from it.

And I so wish you would apply some precision to your use of the quote function on the boards. You've taken far too much credit for my work!

I think I've fixed that. I don't know. I've forgotten who said what by this time....

[Serenity]

MEH!