Duck Dynasty
Forums › General Discussion › Duck Dynasty-
★fnord★ wrote:
I know you wished the constitution clearly spelled out a seperation of C&S but that's not the case. So when you make statements like "the constitution established a seperation of C&S". You know know you were wrong and called on it. As far as getting you to specify whether you were siting the Constitution or just one take on the interpretation of the 1st A, somehow you and oarsman have concluded I don't think the BofR play an important part of the USC. You can accuse me of that but that's not what I have said or believe. Don't make assumption.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ
You should take another look at that link...
"There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically says that there is a wall of separation between religion and government. The exact words, "Wall of separation of church and state" do not appearYour claim that amendments are not part of the constitution is ludicrous.
-
Oarsman wrote:
I wasn't suggesting it to begin with.Undertow.
Are you still suggesting that the 1st amendment is not part of the constitution?
-
It's spelled C-I-T-E
Sorry, that was just bothering me. Please continue.
-
Ojibwe wrote:
TouchéIt's spelled C-I-T-E
Sorry, that was just bothering me. Please continue.
-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Lol they gave you FACTS and PROOF. Yet what do you do? 🙉🙈 nag nah nah I'm not listening, you are wrong I am right 🙈🙉. Just like a 2 year old. LolOjibwe wrote:
It's funny how those semantics are stubern facts. Non of which you can site to form your opinion because your opinion I based on things like media talking points, clever water cooler comments and guilty feelings. Non of which establish fact.Nit picky BS. "The first amendment is not part of the constitution because it is part of the amendments to the constitution." Noise, just more noise. It doesn't add to the conversation one iota. Just undertow playing games with semantics. Keep yap yap yapping and tell yourself you're winning.
-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
You sure did.Oarsman wrote:
I wasn't suggesting it to begin with.Undertow.
Are you still suggesting that the 1st amendment is not part of the constitution?
"Are you telling me the Bill of Rights - IS - the Constitution ? They are amendments. You site amendments but no paragraph or article in the constitution. FAIL! Your statement is inaccurate if you claim a separation of C&S is in the Constitution.Look it up. You are wrong."
-
Oarsman wrote:
Are they separate documents joined or one document?Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
You sure did.Oarsman wrote:
I wasn't suggesting it to begin with.Undertow.
Are you still suggesting that the 1st amendment is not part of the constitution?
"Are you telling me the Bill of Rights - IS - the Constitution ? They are amendments. You site amendments but no paragraph or article in the constitution. FAIL! Your statement is inaccurate if you claim a separation of C&S is in the Constitution.Look it up. You are wrong."
-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Right here undertow. You say the bill of rights are not the constitution.★fnord★ wrote:
Are you telling me the Bill of Rights - IS - the Constitution ? They are amendments. You site amendments but no paragraph or article in the constitution. FAIL! Your statement is inaccurate if you claim a separation of C&S is in the Constitution.Look it up. You are wrong.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote: ✂️Fnord, wheres the article and paragraph that spells out a seperation of C&S in the constitution.
US Constitution
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;... I eagerly await your well-reasoned factually and historically accurate rebuttal. -
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
OneOarsman wrote:
Are they separate documents joined or one document?Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
You sure did.Oarsman wrote:
I wasn't suggesting it to begin with.Undertow.
Are you still suggesting that the 1st amendment is not part of the constitution?
"Are you telling me the Bill of Rights - IS - the Constitution ? They are amendments. You site amendments but no paragraph or article in the constitution. FAIL! Your statement is inaccurate if you claim a separation of C&S is in the Constitution.Look it up. You are wrong."
-
They were written at seperate times. However once an amendment is ratified it becomes a part of the Constituion. Thus making them one and the same.
-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Do you mean physically, like stapled together lol? Yes, Undertow, they are joined in every sense of the word that matters. They are inseparable from one another. Just a second ago you said you weren't trying to downplay the significance of the Bill of Right. Why the further idiocy now?Oarsman wrote:
Are they separate documents joined or one document?Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
You sure did.Oarsman wrote:
I wasn't suggesting it to begin with.Undertow.
Are you still suggesting that the 1st amendment is not part of the constitution?
"Are you telling me the Bill of Rights - IS - the Constitution ? They are amendments. ✂️
-
I'm curious, Undertow. How do you interpret the 1st amendment? You've made it clear you disagree with my interpretation and the interpretation of the article you told us to study, as well as the numerous Supreme Court opinions in the same article. What do you think it says?
-
Oarsman wrote:
The BofR were not part of the original Constitution signed in 1789 but were added immediately after. So kind of both.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
OneOarsman wrote:
Are they separate documents joined or one document?Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
You sure did.Oarsman wrote:
I wasn't suggesting it to begin with.Undertow.
Are you still suggesting that the 1st amendment is not part of the constitution?
Your statement is inaccurate if you claim a separation of C&S is in the Constitution.Look it up. You are wrong."
My reason for asking fnord if was for him to specify/ admit that the constitution including the BofR does not clearly state a seperation of C&S.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
No. There not stapled. They only had rivets in the 1790'sÙℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Do you mean physically, like stapled together lol? Yes, Undertow, they are joined in every sense of the word that matters. They are inseparable from one another. Just a second ago you said you weren't trying to downplay the significance of the Bill of Right. Why the further idiocy now?Oarsman wrote:
Are they separate documents joined or one document?Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
You sure did.Oarsman wrote:
I wasn't suggesting it to begin with.Undertow.
Are you still suggesting that the 1st amendment is not part of the constitution?
"Are you telling me the Bill of Rights - IS - the Constitution ? They are amendments. ✂️
-
Boner Jams '03 wrote:
Bases arguments on faith???? Where have I done that in this post? Again you have generalized and lumped me into someone else's arguments.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
For someone who bases their argument on faith, you sure are hung up on facts.Ojibwe wrote:
It's funny how those semantics are stubern facts. Non of which you can site to form your opinion because your opinion I based on things like media talking points, clever water cooler comments and guilty feelings. Non of which establish fact.Nit picky BS. "The first amendment is not part of the constitution because it is part of the amendments to the constitution." Noise, just more noise. It doesn't add to the conversation one iota. Just undertow playing games with semantics. Keep yap yap yapping and tell yourself you're winning.
-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Just because the word separation does not appear in the constitution doesn't mean that don't the intent.Oarsman wrote:
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Oarsman wrote:
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
You sure did.Oarsman wrote:
I wasn't suggesting it to begin with.Undertow.
Are you still suggesting that the 1st amendment is not part of the constitution?
Congress cannot establish a state religion. Neither can it inhibit an individual's free exercise thereof.
The government must seperate itself from religion. What's hard to understand about that?
-
The question could be posed to you regarding the second amendment. Where in the second amendment does it say an individual has the right to bear arms?
It doesn't. One must go back to the writings and speeches of the founders. In those you find the founders clearly wanted a separation of church and state. You also find they intended the second amendment to include individuals.
You can't have it one way on one of the amendments and another way a different amendment.
-
You are correct Undertow. I have not seen you weigh in on the issue itself, only pick apart certain statements people have made for their side. Do you have an opinion on the topic, or did you just come here to talk about the constitution?
-
Not to mention that if the 1st Amendment had read "There shall be a wall of separation between church and state", it would come across as a bit vague and open to interpretation. The word separation can be interpreted many ways. The 1st Amendment as it is now is much more clear about the mechanics of that separation IMO.
-
Boner Jams '03 wrote:
Ha! We haven't commented on the topic for about six pages.You are correct Undertow. I have not seen you weigh in on the issue itself, only pick apart certain statements people have made for their side. Do you have an opinion on the topic, or did you just come here to talk about the constitution?
But... I did see that Sarah Palin admitted to not reading the article she is defending Phil Robertson over. I had a good eye roll over that information.
-
ok.... i freely admit im extrememly ignorant in this area and i don't have much background information on the situation and no interest in the show or the characters. i don't see how the network firing him has anything to do with seperation of c&s..... don't slam me... just help me understand.....
-
Oarsman wrote:
Just as marriage is not in the constitution so the federal government should not have any say it and it should be left to the states.The question could be posed to you regarding the second amendment. Where in the second amendment does it say an individual has the right to bear arms?
It doesn't. One must go back to the writings and speeches of the founders. In those you find the founders clearly wanted a separation of church and state. You also find they intended the second amendment to include individuals.
You can't have it one way on one of the amendments and another way a different amendment.
-
Deicide wrote:
Topic drift Deicide. It happens. :)ok.... i freely admit im extrememly ignorant in this area and i don't have much background information on the situation and no interest in the show or the characters. i don't see how the network firing him has anything to do with seperation of c&s..... don't slam me... just help me understand.....
-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Then you have to refer to the 14th amendment. Particularly, the equal protection clause.Oarsman wrote:
Just as marriage is not in the constitution so the federal government should not have any say it and it should be left to the states.You can't have it one way on one of the amendments and another way a different amendment.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United 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."
-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Where you been? Under a rock? The states have been passing laws prohibiting gay marriage and the courts have been declaring them unconstitutional. Supreme law of the land, states can't pass laws that are unconstitutional. See Utah.Oarsman wrote:
Just as marriage is not in the constitution so the federal government should not have any say it and it should be left to the states.The question could be posed to you regarding the second amendment. Where in the second amendment does it say an individual has the right to bear arms?
It doesn't. One must go back to the writings and speeches of the .
You can't have it one way on one of the amendments and another way a different amendment.
-
If straights can marry. Gays can marry. That's equal protection.
-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Lol changing the subject eh? Finally realized you failed with the constitution argument now you move on to something else to fail on? LolOarsman wrote:
Just as marriage is not in the constitution so the federal government should not have any say it and it should be left to the states.The question could be posed to you regarding the second amendment. Where in the second amendment does it say an individual has the right to bear arms?
It doesn't. One must go back to the writings and speeches of the founders. In those you find the founders clearly wanted a separation of church and state. You also find they intended the second amendment to include individuals.
You can't have it one way on one of the amendments and another way a different amendment.
-
〓 S E E K E R 〓 wrote:
It is still a discussion regarding the constitution. I just want to see how he argues the 14th Amendment has no bearing here.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Lol changing the subject eh? Finally realized you failed with the constitution argument now you move on to something else to fail on? LolOarsman wrote:
Just as marriage is not in the constitution so the federal government should not have any say it and it should be left to the states.It doesn't. One must go back to the writings and speeches of the founders. In those you find the founders clearly wanted a separation of church and state. You also find they intended the second amendment to include individuals.
You can't have it one way on one of the amendments and another way a different amendment.
-
That recent Utah decision is very interesting. The Federal judge really did a good job of addressing the state attorney's objections point by point on clear Constitutional grounds (Separation of C&S played no role, Undertow). I found it especially interesting that he cited legal precedents from the overturning of inter-racial marriage bans. Honestly I think it blew the doors off of it and the rest of the states are going to fall like dominoes. That's how these types of things have gone historically at least. I'm so pleased for my gay friends that you are finally getting the rights you've long been denied.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
The judge's reasoning in the ruling is very sound. I think this case will be before the Supreme Court shortly. I think they will uphold it. If they do the other state bans on gay marriage will fall along with Utah's.That recent Utah decision is very interesting. The Federal judge really did a good job of addressing the state attorney's objections point by point on clear Constitutional grounds (Separation of C&S played no role, Undertow). I found it especially interesting that he cited legal precedents from the overturning of inter-racial marriage bans. Honestly I think it blew the doors off of it and the rest of the states are going to fall like dominoes. That's how these types of things have gone historically at least. I'm so pleased for my gay friends that you are finally getting the rights you've long been denied.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC