http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html





Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

Annals of Congress, 5th Congress

Article 1. There is a firm and perpetual peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, made by the free consent of both parties, and guarantied by the most potent Dey and Regency of Algiers.

Art. 2. If any goods belonging to any nation with which either of the parties is at war, shall be loaded on board of vessels belonging to the other party, they shall pass free, and no attempt shall be made to take or detain them.

Art. 3. If any citizens , subjects, or effects, belonging to either party, shall be found on board a prize vessel taken from an enemy by the other party, such citizens or subjects shall be set at liberty, and the effects restored to the owners.

Art. 4. Proper passports are to be given to all vessels of both parties, by which they are to be known. And considering the distance between the two countries, eighteen months from the date of this treaty, shall be allowed for procuring such passports. During this interval the other papers, belonging to such vessels, shall be sufficient for their protection.

Art. 5. A citizen or subject of either party having bought a prize vessel, condemned by the other party, or by any other nation, the certificates of condemnation and bill of sale shall be a sufficient passport for such vessel for one year; this being a reasonable time for her to procure a proper passport.

Art. 6. Vessels of either party, putting into the ports of the other, and having need of provisions or other supplies, they shall be furnished at the market price. And if any such vessel shall so put in, from a disaster at sea, and have occasion to repair, she shall be at liberty to land and re-embark her cargo without paying any duties. But in case shall she be compelled to the land her cargo.

Art. 7. Should a vessel of either party be cast on the shore of the other, all proper assistance shall be given to her and her people; no pillage shall be allowed; the property shall remain at the disposition of the owners; and the crew protectedand succored till they can be sent to their country.

Art. 8. If a vessel of either party should be attacked by an enemy, within gun-shot of the forts of the other , she shall be defended as much as possible. If she be in port she shall not be seized on or attacked, when it is in the power of the other party to protect her. And when she proceeds to sea, no enemy shall be allowed to pursue her from the same port, within twenty-four hours after her departure.

Art. 9. The commerce between the United States and Tripoli; the protection to be given to merchants, masters of vessels, and seamen; the reciprocal right of the establishing Consuls in each country; and the privileges, immunities, and jurisdiction, to be on the same footing with those of the most favored nations respectively.

Art. 10. The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further payments is ever to be made by either party.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Art. 12. In case of any dispute, arising from a violation of any of the articles of this treaty, no appeal shall be made to arms; nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the Consul, residing at the place where the dispute shall happen, shall not be able to settle the same, an amicable referrence shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Dey of Algiers; the parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he, by virtue of his signature to this treaty, engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case, according to the true interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observance of the same.

Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211— corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796, by

JUSSOF BASHAW MAHOMET, Bey.
MAMET, Treasurer.
AMET, Minister of Marine.
SOLIMAN KAYA.
GALIL, General of the Troops.
MAHOMET, Commander of the City.
AMET, Chamberlain.
ALLY, Chief of the Divan.
MAMET, Secretary.

Signed and sealed at Algiers, the 4th day of Argill, 1211—corresponding with the 3d day of
January, 1797, by

HASSAN BASHAW, Dey,

And by the agent Plenipotentiary of the United States of America,

JOEL BARLOW.

[Edited on January 12, 2007 at 3:37 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2007 3:35:51 PM

come on, I took the time to find the Treaty of Tripoli

1/12/2007 5:13:18 PM

I knew this.

Did you know Thomas Jefferson was a Unitarian, believing he didn't believe Jesus was the "son" of God? Rather, he rejected the trinity, recognized the "oneness" of God (Jesus as a prophet), and identified God as being the one true force. He and John Adams shared this belief (despite their classic disagreence over Federalism).

Deism ftw.

[Edited on January 12, 2007 at 7:25 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2007 7:24:18 PM

^A lot of those guys were Unitarian.

I wouldn't say FTW just cause ole TJ and pals were into it though.

1/12/2007 7:48:10 PM

But the evangelicals have been telling us the US is a christian nation

1/12/2007 8:07:37 PM

yeah. thanks. we needed you to tell us this.

1/12/2007 8:09:56 PM

you don't find it interesting that a treaty enacted early on in the countries history and unanimously adopted says this land is not founded on Christianity?

1/12/2007 8:14:55 PM

Quote :

"he didn't believe Jesus was the "son" of God? Rather, he rejected the trinity, recognized the "oneness" of God (Jesus as a prophet), and identified God as being the one true force."

i.e., he was a true Christian.

this trinity nonsense is not part of true Christianity.

1/12/2007 8:18:55 PM

Quote :

"you don't find it interesting that a treaty enacted early on in the countries history and unanimously adopted says this land is not founded on Christianity?"

Or that those who wrote the treaty were smart enough to know how to word things. Officially, the United States is secular. Practically speaking, much of the US Government is based on Christianity. Right or wrong, denying it is retarded.

1/12/2007 8:35:56 PM

^exactly, the bicameral legislature is from mathews 10

[Edited on January 12, 2007 at 9:35 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2007 9:35:35 PM

catholics and the trinity ftw

1/12/2007 9:48:58 PM

What don't you understand about this capy?

Quote :

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

1/12/2007 10:08:57 PM

OK, so they were politicians. Actions often speak louder than words?

1/12/2007 10:49:44 PM

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=5

The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a "Holy War" between Christians and Muslims.17 Consequently, Article XI of that treaty stated:


As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.18


This article may be read in two manners. It may, as its critics do, be concluded after the clause "Christian religion"; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates. But even if shortened and cut abruptly ("the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government.

Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation (demonstrated in chapter 2 of Original Intent), they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.

Reading the clause of the treaty in its entirety also fails to weaken this fact. Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries (with whose practices the Muslims were very familiar) and thus would not undertake a religious holy war against them.

This latter reading is, in fact, supported by the attitude prevalent among numerous American leaders. The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as "wise and virtuous," 19 by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," 20 and by John Adams as "rational." 21 A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries. As Noah Webster explained:


The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it.22


Daniel Webster similarly explained that American Christianity was:


Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [burning stake or hot branding iron] are unknown—general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land!23

1/13/2007 1:26:15 AM

Wallbuilders.com, eh?

1/13/2007 2:48:41 AM

Quote :

" Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation (demonstrated in chapter 2 of Original Intent), they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation."

I'd like to reiterate this. Religion was left up to the states and several states had established churches on into the 1800s. No one questioned the constitutionality of this arrangement. Jefferson, being the big champion of states' rights that he was, would have been abhorred at the thought of the federal judiciary running prayer out of local schools, barring displays of the Ten Commandments, etc.

Jefferson on the subject of religion:

Quote :

"Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority."

This idea that the feds have any business dictating religious policies to the States is a relatively new invention that comes from the arcane legal reasoning of one Justice Hugo Black in Everson v. Board of Education (1947). In his majority opinion in that case, Black essentially ignores history and concocts an original intent analysis of his own in applying the Establishment clause to the states. He quotes Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" statement, but completely ignores the fact that for Jefferson the wall of separation was between the federal government and religion, not the states and religion.

1/13/2007 10:24:23 AM

So what benefits to democracy might one see coming from establishment by the states?

1/13/2007 10:30:32 AM

^^Yeah, the judge clearly valued religious tolerance more than states' rights and recognized that it was 1947, not 1776.

Permitting the states to establish is a ridiculous idea that promotes intolerance. Why are you even talking about that?

1/13/2007 10:37:08 AM

and all that time i thought the judge was supposed to value the constitution

1/13/2007 11:19:54 AM

So what benefits to democracy might one see coming from establishment by the states?

1/13/2007 11:26:33 AM

^^That's adorable.

1/13/2007 12:53:09 PM

I don't support states establishing religions. There's a difference between recognizing a states' right to have a specific policy and actually endorsing that policy. I bring out the point to show how ridiculous it is for people - presumably people like the originator of this thread - to go into convulsions over religious symbols being put on public property ostensibly in the name of the Constitution when those who actually framed that document would have been abhorred at the notion of the federal judiciary dictating policy on these issues to states and localities.

Quote :

"So what benefits to democracy might one see coming from establishment by the states?"

Please explain the "benefits to democracy" that come from nine lawyers on the Supreme Court dictating policy on these issues to 300 million Americans. I see words like "tolerance" being thrown around here. What could be more tolerant than allowing the people in the 50 states to make their own decisions on these issues instead having a one size fits all policy from the feds? Unless of course those who feign "tolerance" are merely using the word as a cover for a larger agenda of imposing their own preferences on the entire population using the power of the Supreme Court...

1/13/2007 1:34:45 PM

1. Though at the time Jefferson believed the matter to be up to the states, he and Madison actively fought for the separation of church and state in Virginia. His Bill of Religious Freedom for Virginia was one of his proudest achievements

2. The 14th Amendment wins this thread. Freedom of religion is a privilege of US citizenship, and therefore states cannot deny it.

^ So basically, what would be more tolerant than allowing states to practice unconstitutional intolerance?

[Edited on January 13, 2007 at 1:42 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2007 1:40:49 PM

Quote :

"when those who actually framed that document would have been abhorred at the notion of the federal judiciary dictating policy on these issues to states and localities."

While some may have certainly spoke out you must remember that the first migrating colonies whole reason for coming to America was to be free from religious oppression in England.
Hypothetically, I think TJ and others could have and would have included that reason in pursuing a policy against state supported churches if that were the case. So, to answer your question it would have benefitted the freedom of religion greatly. Maybe, and I mean just maybe if this clause was set up in those times then the wide spread Indian-colonist conflicts would not have been so great, ie. tolerance to other religions such as the native animist-nature religion of those tribes.


[Edited on January 13, 2007 at 1:55 PM. Reason : ^^]

1/13/2007 1:49:50 PM

What oldright's saying is that for Thomas Jefferson, state's rights trumped federal freedoms, no matter how important he believed those freedoms to be.

And he's right.

Unfortunately for oldright's overall argument, the 14th Amendment exists

[Edited on January 13, 2007 at 2:04 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2007 2:03:26 PM

^ Whether or not the 14th Amendment imposes the Bill of Rights onto the states is debatable. The idea that the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment, as you seem to imply, confers more than the very basic rights (the right to contract, inherit property, own property, etc.) was rejected by the Supreme Court in the Slaugther-House cases in 1873.

To turn to a more modern authority on the Court's take on the incorporation of the Bill of Rights onto the states, consider Justice Felix Frankfurter's view on the subject in Adamson v. California:

Quote :

"Between the incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment into the Constitution and the beginning of the present membership of the Court -- a period of seventy years -- the scope of that Amendment was passed upon by forty-three judges. Of all these judges, only one, who may respectfully be called an eccentric exception, ever indicated the belief that the Fourteenth Amendment was a shorthand summary of the first eight Amendments theretofore limiting only the Federal Government, and that due process incorporated those eight Amendments as restrictions upon the powers of the States. Among these judges were not only those who would have to be included among the greatest in the history of the Court, but -- it is especially relevant to note -- they included those whose services in the cause of human rights and the spirit of freedom are the most conspicuous in our history. It is not invidious to single out Miller, Davis, Bradley, Waite, Matthews, Gray, Fuller, Holmes, Brandeis, Stone and Cardozo (to speak only of the dead) as judges who were alert in safeguarding and promoting the interests of liberty and human dignity through law. But they were also judges mindful of the relation of our federal system to a progressively democratic society, and therefore duly regardful of the scope of authority that was left to the States even after the Civil War."

I like to cite Frankfurter here because the man was helped found the ACLU. The type of incorporation you advance here is a relatively modern phenomenon in which the Supreme Court has illegitimately intruded on the rights of the states.

In addition to the Court rejecting it, if you look at the legislative history of the 14th Amendment it's also highly doubtful that Congress actually intended it to do so. In 1875 the Congress took up passing a constitutional amendment which came to be known as the Blaine Amendment. It reads:

Quote :

"No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefore, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations."

This amendment explicitly applies the First Amendment -- notably the establishment clause -- to the states. If the Fourteenth Amendment had done this, the Blaine Amendment would have been completely unnecessary. (BTW, the Blaine Amendment never passed).

Even accepting your argument that the 14th Amendment incoporates freedom of religion (or most of the rest of the Bill of Rights for that matter), I still don't see how the Establishment Clause could be imposed onto the states. All the establishment clause does is prevent "Congress" -- the federal government -- from making a law respecting the establishment of religion. Anyone familiar with the history of that Amendment knows that it was intended to prevent the feds from messing with state establishments. Therefore, to somehow use the Establishment clause as a battering ram against state sovereignty is completely contradictory to the intent of those who actually ratified it. It would be as illogical as incorporating the Tenth Amendment against the states.

1/13/2007 2:47:34 PM

I'm sorry that you believe incorporation is illegitimate. Unfortunately, all these court cases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29#Which_rights_have_been_incorporated.3F

disagree with you.


And the First Amendment clearly isn't only limited to the Congress, even within the realm of the national government. If an executive department were to violate 1st Amendment freedoms, the Supreme Court could declare their actions unconstitutional, as well. Plus, last time I checked, the First Amendment wasn't written with the 14th Amendment in mind.

1/13/2007 3:11:19 PM

^ Has it ever occured to you that the modern Court might be wrong? I put forth a couple of evidences above that support that proposition and you didn't address them. The Court itself has done scant little to address these legitimate questions either as it pretty much concocted incorporation out of whole cloth.

The fact remains that the Court closest to the ratification of the 14th Amendment rejected incorporation. Justice Felix Frankfurter, a founding member of the ACLU, was highly critical of incorporation. And logic screams against the incorporation of the Establishment Clause.

It's not that I'm unsympathetic to what incorporation seeks to accomplish (i.e., the protection of individual rights), but it has greatly impacted our ability to govern ourselves as the Court has manufactred new "rights" like the right to welfare, the right to an abortion, etc.

Quote :

" And the First Amendment clearly isn't only limited to the Congress"

Right... and its limited application applies only to the actions of the federal government not to those of the states.

I have no idea what you're saying about the First Amendment. Where did I say anything to suggest th

[Edited on January 13, 2007 at 3:38 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2007 3:38:01 PM

this nation was NOT founded on christian belief

the ENGLISH COLONY was founded on religious belief but the people who founded the US did not predicate it on religious belief. i find it very amusing when people try to transpose the 2

1/13/2007 3:39:27 PM

Quote :

"Right... and its limited application applies only to the actions of the federal government not to those of the states. I have no idea what you're saying about the First Amendment. Where did I say anything to suggest th"

Except the 14th Amendment translates it to the states.

1/13/2007 3:51:32 PM

Frankfurter did believe is incorporation, but to a lesser extent than today's judges. It's silly to pick and choose exactly which freedoms are included under the 14th Amendment, though.

You're arguing that it only included our "very basic rights." What exactly are these rights? Is the First Amendment not our most basic right? Frankfurter (and you, I assume) argued that some rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights were "more-basic" than others. This is silly, and the modern court agrees with me.

As for your evidence. An act that was never passed is not convincing evidence. For all I know, it could have been passed because its contemporaries thought it was redundant. As for the supreme court cases you cited, the slope between the 14th Amendment being meaningless and full incorporation is near-vertical. You can't seriously argue which of our rights as US citizens are more-basic.


Regarding the First Amendment only being limited to congress... ugh. You said it was limited to congress (yay semantics). I noted that it is also applied to all areas of the federal gov't, which disproved your literal interpretation. Are you now saying that it cannot apply to the states because it doesn't say so? You realize that the 14th Amendment was created for a reason, right? None of the previous amendments were to be applied to the states; hence the necessity for passing it in the first place.

1/13/2007 3:53:52 PM

Didn't read the thread. nutcancr, you really shouldn't bring up points like this. It only legitimizes the idea that the views of the founding fathers matter more than those of us who actually live here now.

1/14/2007 1:12:22 PM

oldright:

Quote :

"Has it ever occured to you that the modern Court might be wrong? I put forth a couple of evidences above that support that proposition and you didn't address them. The Court itself has done scant little to address these legitimate questions either as it pretty much concocted incorporation out of whole cloth. "

Numerous Supreme Court Judges who all studied law and spent decades as lawyers and judges before being appointed to the S.C.O.T.U.S. = wrong
Some guy on TWW = right

Oh, and all historical and other discussion aside, let's use a little common sense, people. If they founding fathers wanted to found this country as a Christian nation, they would've written the Constitution to make it a Christian nation. The fact that the Constitution has parts in it that allow people to worship who/what they choose freely and keeps government from establishing an official religion means the founders of this country never meant for it to be a Christian nation. End of discussion!

[Edited on January 15, 2007 at 12:10 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2007 12:07:24 PM

Quote :

"But the evangelicals have been telling us the US is a christian nation"

retards have been saying retarded shit, news at 11.

1/15/2007 5:44:22 PM

Quote :

"You're arguing that it only included our "very basic rights." What exactly are these rights? Is the First Amendment not our most basic right? Frankfurter (and you, I assume) argued that some rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights were "more-basic" than others. This is silly, and the modern court agrees with me."

I'm arguing for a historical definition of the words "privileges and immunities." You imply above that "privileges and immunities" = the Bill of Rights. That is simply not true as a matter of history. The Supreme Court rejected that explicitly in the Slaughterhouse cases and has instead constructed the doctrine of incorporation out of the bizarre notion of "substantive due process." "Privileges and immunities," as it was understood historically and at the time simply refers to the basic rights of Americans to contract, bring a lawsuit, etc. against state action.

In any case, why on earth would a due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment be necessary at all if "privileges and immunities" incorporates the Bill of Rights and by extension the Fifth Amendment's own due process guarantee? Unless of course "privileges and immunities" does not equal the Bill of Rights.

As far as choosing picking and choosing which rights are more fundamental, that's what the Court has done and continues to do. Incorporation is more properly reference as "selective incorporation" in the literature precisely because the Court has selectively incorporated provisions of the Bill of Rights (the 1st Amendment) while not incorporating others (the 2nd Amendment).

Quote :

" As for your evidence. An act that was never passed is not convincing evidence. For all I know, it could have been passed because its contemporaries thought it was redundant."

Fair point. Thanks for bringing it out. Unfortunately for your case, there is no evidence that "contemporaries thought it redundant." To support this allow me to cite a 1951 comment entitled "The Blaine Amendment and the Bill of Rights" by Alfred Meyer in the Harvard Law Review. In this article Meyer reviews the debates surrounding the Blaine Amendment in the United States Senate in detail.

Of particular interest are some of the quotations from Senators and Representatives who were contemporaries of the passage of the 14th Amendment and the debates surrounding it. I reproduce three representative opinions below:

* Rep. Banks:

Quote :

"If the Constitution is amended so as to secure the object embraced in the principal part of this proposed amendmen it prohibits the States from exercising a power they now exercise."

* Senator Frelinghuysen:

Quote :

"I call the attention of the Senate to the first alteration the House amendment makes in our Constitution. The first amendment to the Constitution tion, enacted shortly after the adoption of the Constitution, provides that — [" ] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.["] This is an inhibition on Congress, and not on the States. The House article very properly extends the prohibition of the first amendment of the Constitution to the States. [Here, Senator Frelinghuysen urged the addition to the proposal of a clause prohibiting the States from making religious tests a qualification for office.] Thus the article as amended by the Senate prohibits the States, for the first time, from the establishment of religion, from prohibiting its free exercise, and from making any religious test a qualification to office. "

* Senator Whyte:

Quote :

"... the first amendment to the Constitution prevents the establishment of religion by congressional enactment; it prohibits the interference of Congress with the free exercise thereof, and leaves the whole power for the propagation of it with the States exclusively; and so far as I am concerned I propose to leave it there also."

What the quotes above demonstrate is that the understanding at the time was that the Blaine Amendment would have radically altered the relationship between the feds and the states vis-a-vis religion. How could such an alteration take place if the 14th Amendment, which had been ratified 7 years earlier, had already done so?

According to Meyer, the 14th Amendment was referenced exactly once in the entire debate on the Blaine Amendment and that reference was to how poorly it was worded. Not a single mention of the Blaine Amendment being redudant. No, not one.

Quote :

"Numerous Supreme Court Judges who all studied law and spent decades as lawyers and judges before being appointed to the S.C.O.T.U.S. = wrong Some guy on TWW = right"

There are "numerous Supreme Court Judges" who have made the same kind of point I'm making in this thread. In fact, the Supreme Court has actually held my anti-incorporation of the Establishment clause position for longer than it hasn't since the ratifaction of the 14th Amendment (79 years from the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the incorporation of the Establishment clause in 1947 vesus 60 years from 1947 to today).

I'm trying to make a case based on history and sound legal reasoning. If my facts and exegesis are wrong, show me why I'm wrong instead of having what borders on blind faith in some kind of constitutional priesthood.

Quote :

" Oh, and all historical and other discussion aside, let's use a little common sense, people. If they founding fathers wanted to found this country as a Christian nation, they would've written the Constitution to make it a Christian nation. The fact that the Constitution has parts in it that allow people to worship who/what they choose freely and keeps government from establishing an official religion means the founders of this country never meant for it to be a Christian nation. End of discussion!"

Apparently you haven't read the entire thread because then you'd see very clearly that the Constitution, in its original construction, did not keep government from establishing religion. Several states had tax supported churches on into the 1800s and no one questioned the constitutionality of these arrangements. Several state Constitutions of that time period explicitly identify the state as Christian (i.e., South Carolina declared Protestant Christianity to be the official religion of the state).

More than anything, the fact that the Constitution is more or less silent on religion is more telling to the fact that the feds were to keep their hands off the religious affairs of the states.

1/15/2007 10:01:36 PM

What? I can't hear you over the Treaty of Tripoli and the 14th Amendment.

[Edited on January 15, 2007 at 10:12 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2007 10:12:15 PM

Quote :

"You imply above that "privileges and immunities" = the Bill of Rights. That is simply not true as a matter of history. The Supreme Court rejected that explicitly in the Slaughterhouse cases"

How could the Supreme Court reject this if the Slaughterhouse cases didn't even involve the Bill of Rights? It gave a narrow definition of the "privileges and immunities," but that's it. The footnotes for the cases even said so. (I wikipedia'd for this point. I hope you're happy now):

Quote :

"In dicta, Justice Miller's opinion in Slaughterhouse went so far as to acknowledge that the privileges or immunities of a citizen of the United States include at least some rights listed in the first eight amendments: "The right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances ... are rights of the citizen guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.""

And once again, I'll state the obvious: if the 14th Amendment covers any of the Bill of Rights, it covers them all.


As far as historical interpretations of the 14th Amendment go, I'll direct you to Plessy v. Ferguson. Clearly we rocked at interpreting it prior to the doctrine of incorporation.

1/16/2007 12:59:46 AM

Quote :

"How could the Supreme Court reject this if the Slaughterhouse cases didn't even involve the Bill of Rights? It gave a narrow definition of the "privileges and immunities," but that's it."

And that "narrow definition" rejects the notion that "privileges or immunities" = the Bill of Rights, which seems to be the argument you were making above.

You say, "Freedom of religion is a privilege of US Citizenship." Show me where the Court has ever referenced "freedom of religion" as being a "privilege" of US Citizenship (implying coverage under the privileges or immunities clause). I'm not aware of any such cases. The Court has incorporated the portions of the First Amendment pertaining to religious freedom under the doctrine of "substantive due process" not under the rubric of privileges or immunities.

Quote :

"if the 14th Amendment covers any of the Bill of Rights, it covers them all."

Well, then you disagree with the modern Court on this because, last time I checked, the Second Amendment as well as a right to a grand jury trial haven't been incorporated. Just more evidence that "14th Amendment" = "Bill of Rights imposed against the states" isn't a sound position.

What the Court has done essentially is impose the provisions of the Bill of Rights as it sees fit... and according to its own heart felt, ideological predilections.

1/27/2007 10:48:52 AM

1/27/2007 12:25:52 PM

Quote :

"You say, "Freedom of religion is a privilege of US Citizenship." Show me where the Court has ever referenced "freedom of religion" as being a "privilege" of US Citizenship (implying coverage under the privileges or immunities clause). I'm not aware of any such cases. The Court has incorporated the portions of the First Amendment pertaining to religious freedom under the doctrine of "substantive due process" not under the rubric of privileges or immunities."

In including freedom of religion as a "substantive right" of due process, they're implying that it's a fundamental right, which goes even further than saying it's a "privilege of citizenship."

Quote :

"Well, then you disagree with the modern Court on this because, last time I checked, the Second Amendment as well as a right to a grand jury trial haven't been incorporated. Just more evidence that "14th Amendment" = "Bill of Rights imposed against the states" isn't a sound position."

"last time I checked, the Second Amendment as well as a right to a grand jury trial haven't yet been incorporated."

Also, remind which state has outlawed guns again?


PS: Why is it that Southern Pride folks are always Constitutional History junkies? Could it be that they realize their quest to morally justify the South is futile, and so they turn to legalese to justify their pride in a society founded on one of the most disgusting institutions in human history?

Just thinking out loud...

[Edited on January 27, 2007 at 12:40 PM. Reason : .]

1/27/2007 12:32:56 PM

perhaps not Christian beliefs


but certainly judeo-christian ethics and values

1/27/2007 9:50:41 PM

^Which ones?

1/27/2007 10:01:43 PM

Perhaps not Christian beliefs,

but definitely something so vague that I'm guaranteed to be somewhat right.

1/28/2007 1:38:49 AM

oh snap

1/28/2007 2:46:12 AM