quote:

---

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

---

quote:

---

Because of that tradition, mention of the Deity and Scripture was deliberately left out of the Constitution of the United States.

---

quote:

---

most prominent founders were not Christians

---

quote:

---

Each form of government has a guiding principle: ...
aristocracy in which the guiding principle is moderation----Moderation in aristocracy? HAhahaha

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society.--are they serious??

---

quote:

---

Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err. Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Three fourths of the Biblical citations in Lutz's 1760 to 1805 sample come, not from secular sources, but from reprinted sermons (one of the most popular types of political writing during these years). Conversely, the Bible accounts for only 9% of all citations in secular literature, about equal to the number of citations from classical authors (Origins, p. 140). Hence, were it not for the political activity of religious clergy, the Bible would be tied for fourth place among source citations during 1760 and 1805

---

quote:

---

Ethan Allen, whose capture of Fort Ticonderoga while commanding the Green Mountain Boys helped inspire Congress and the country to pursue the War of Independence, said, "That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally "denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised "to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God." Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those "written in the great book of nature."

---

quote:

---

It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship [The Barbary Treaties], which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

---

quote:

---

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."

---

quote:

---

The Barbary Treaties: Treaty of Peace and Friendship, .... Ratified by the United States [Senate]June 10, 1797.
ARTICLE 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 tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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.

---

quote:

---

all of the early settlers of North America (Puritans, Quakers, etc.) came here seeking religious freedom from the "Christian Nation" of England.

---

quote:

---

The place we know as the USA was settled by very very religous puritans.

---

quote:

---

Wow, I'd never heard of that clause before. I *heart* Google!

Note that any treaty ratified by the Senate becomes part of the law of the United States, in effect an extension of the Constitution. That's the gist of it, anyway, I forget the legal mumbo-jumbo.

---

quote:

---

Note that any treaty ratified by the Senate becomes part of the law of the United States, in effect an extension of the Constitution.

---

quote:

---

What happens when a treaty provision and an act of Congress conflict? The answer is, that neither has any intrinsic superiority over the other and that therefore the one of later date will prevail leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. In short, the treaty commitments of the United States do not diminish Congress' constitutional powers.

---

quote:

---

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

---

quote:

---

to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

---

quote:

---

Calvin drafted the new ordinances that the government modified and adopted as a constitution for Geneva governing both secular and sacred matters. Calvin also supported development of a municipal school system for all children, with the Geneva Academy as the center of instruction for the very best students.

---

quote:

---

Ideas of government created by Calvin found wider expression in Scotland and the United States when Calvinists brought them to those countries. Calvin's model of church government became the model for national governments.

---

quote:

---

Which principles that formed the basis of this country are specifically Christian? As opposed to other faiths or philosophies, I mean? "Don't kill" can be described as a Christian principle but it's certainly not exclusive to Christianity. Which American principles are solely Christian?

---

There are very few (if any) principles that are solely Christian. The "golden rule," for example, can be found in some form or other in every major religion, and predates Christ by a long shot.

Extending "Christianity" to "Judeo-Christianity" you might consider the Ten Commandments. But the first 4 are in direct conflict with the first amendment, and the next 6 are essentially secular in nature. I've recomended posting those six commandments as a compromise for those who want to post all ten in government buildings.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I always thought we should post all 10, but with the ones relating to god (either the first 3 or 4 depending on whose version you use) crossed out so as to reflect both our Christian and our Enlightenment nature. But yeah, that'll never fly.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Nope, it wouldn't.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Mr. Squicky, thank you for your long post above. I was aware of a lot of that stuff on the Enlightenment, but hadn't really linked it all together in my own mind.

This was a popular topic in the variety of Christianity in which I was raised. My father vehemently disagreed every time one of these "speakers" saying "America was a Christian nation" came to present at our church and loved to argue with them. Why my parents stay in that sect I'm not sure, because they are actually far more liberal than they think they are on most subjects. But as a result I'd heard bits and peices of the above, but not the whole thing.

AJ
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I appreciate you acknowledging it Banna. It does mean a lot to me when I know that people have read and thought about what I've written. I'm glad that you found it useful, rough though it may be. I wish that Jay and people like him would make use of resources like it, but it seems like the America they love is very different from the one that I love.

[ February 11, 2005, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Well Squick, that was the right length... sometimes you get a little longwinded and I do go into "overload". I'd also say it was more entertaining than your usual expounding. Maybe because it was more richly populated with historical figures, than the ever important, but not nearly as readable dry facts?


AJ
 

---

Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
 
Mr. Squicky, that was a tour de force. Thank you for laying all of that out, it's given me a lot more to think on and a better understanding of the Enlightenment in Europe and in America.

I don't know if you are a teacher by trade, but you've been an educator today.
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
Good post, Squicky. I disagree with this part though:

quote:

---

The Protestant Reformation had already raised the individual to the position of central concern, but it did so without humanism and tended to regard the individual as bascially evil who's basic duty was submission.

---

I realize submission to God was considered a duty. But weren't Protestants the main group that fought against the authority of the Catholic Church, and later against the divine right of Kings? Also, Puritan repression at the hands of Queen Elizabeth and her successors, James I, Charles I ,Charles II and James II led to Puritan striving for the right of freedom of religion, not submission to authority, whether of the King of England or the Pope. This later was a factor in the establishment clause, I suppose.
Puritan repression in the 17th century

Meh, I'm rambling--maybe I'll take a nap.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Morbo, read up on how the Puritan's governed once they were in power. I think the necessity of submission was still there, just in a different form.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
True, Cromwell was a dictator. But most revolutions end up that way, exchanging one group of rulers for another.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Calvin also burn dissenters at the stake in his little commune in Geneva?
 

---

Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
 
A lot depends on which Reformers one is talking about. Some of the Reformers were nearly as authoritarian as the power structure they were opposing--they just disagreed with it on some issues. At the opposite end of the spectrum you had the "Radical Reformers" such as the Anabaptists, who sometimes ventured all the way out into violent anarchist territory. (Thus the Martin Luther document that urged rulers to "smite, stab, and slay the murdering hordes of peasants.")

But between their own extremists and the authoritarians who were suppressing them, the Radical Reformers didn't make much headway in their view of things until they were "joined" by more secular philosophers--not that those philosophers wanted much to do with them either.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I did a little looking. Here's some quotes from Martin Luther.

Echoing St. Paul's Letter to the Romans, chapter 13 and St. Augustine in The City of God:

quote:

---

Even if those in authority are evil or without faith, nevertheless the authority and its power is good and from God.... Therefore, where there is power and where it flourishes, there it is and there it remains because God has ordained it.

---

quote:

---

God would prefer to suffer the government to exist no matter how evil, rather than allow the rabble to riot, no matter how justified they are in doing so.

---

quote:

---

A prince should remain a prince no matter how tyrannical he may be.

---

quote:

---

Therefore, let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as when one must kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him he will stike you, and a whole land with you.

---

quote:

---

Historical aside: The New England, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were settled for largely religious reasons by Puritans, Quakers, and Catholics. Virginia (the first one settled) and Georgia were clearly commercial enterprises, although Georgia also had some penal objectives as well. The rest of the colonies had a less clear initial impetus.

The Puritans weren't even close to a majority. Principally religious settlers may not have been a majority either.

---

I was mearly stateing that they were among the very first tini collonys mantained.

Thanks you for the (rather long) post Mr.S I think you had a lot of good points in it.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Part of that is simply in-born Virginian frustration with the popular conception that the Pilgrims were the first permanent English settlers.

When you grow up an hour from Jamestown, you get it hammered into your noggin.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
It's the principles we internalize and live by that we should be concerned about. References to founding documents/ideals are a powerful thing, but to what end? Surely they matter most in the context of an ongoing debate about our nation's direction and purpose, not just as bugs stuck in amber.

Is the concern over this really just boiling down to a fight over whether America = Christian nation? What does it mean if we call it that? Would that provide a rallying point that isn't already inherent in our laws and government (regardless of first sources)? And would it provide an excuse for exclusions (stop teaching diversity) or for equal coverage (make sure Chanukkah, Kwanzaa and Christmas decorations are either all allowed or none are allowed in public places)?

I'm just not sure why we Americans should care about this issue.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Jeez, I wasn't fishing for praise, honest. It's just that I write out the long posts (that one probably took me at least 15 minutes) and then I often have no idea if it's worth the effort or if people just look at how long they are and don't read them. It's nice to hear from time to time that people did read a post and are thinking about.

That's one of the weird things for me. I look forward to long posts full of facts. I like it when people provide a big thing for me to read. It's the short posts where people don't seem to make a stand or provide definitions or support for what they're saying that I'm not all that happy with.

When I write a post here, I feel sort of like I've got to get what I'm trying to say under the wire. When I stop, I've always always have more to say. Like, in this case, I was very disappointed by how poorly and shallowly I went into the role of epistemoloy in the revolution of thought in the Enlightenment, especially in light of Geoff's new thread about values. I think it's cool how things go together, how systems work (I had a number theory thread pretty recently that just didn't get off the ground), so when I talk about stuff, I try to gget into the whole system of the thing. I get jazzed about it and sometimes it's hard for me to see how other people don't get what I think is so cool about.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Oh, and Jay (and likeminded people), I'd be interested in what you have to say in response to my post.
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
I just wanted to chime in in support of Squickster. He has laid out rather neatly the real philosophical underpinnings of American political, legal and social institutions as set up by the Founding Fathers. Additionally, he has conceded that our moral system (such as it is, ahem) owes much to Christianity. Very well thought-out analysis, Squicky.
 

---

Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
 
I like to do that too, Squicky....the trouble for me usually is remembering everything I want to say, and where I found it. Memory is a funny thing, and mine is particularly unreliable, especially when it comes to When and Where I read something.

The result is most often that I end up making a much shorter post that points out a single apparent flaw in someone's argument, having forgotten, or not been able to justify, the rest of what I wanted to say.

Addit: Also, posts look longer in the message box than they do spread out all over the page.

[ February 15, 2005, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Well, I like what you said on the Enlightenment. I don’t for a second think that our nation wasn’t founded on Christian principles. And to claim that Bush lies when he says so, just shows extreme bias and hatred. To narrow it down drastically the reformation and enlightenment were just how we got away from the state run Catholic Church. I really like what constitutional scholar and First Amendment specialist, Daniel Dreisbach, writes:

The U. S. Constitution’s lack of a Christian designation had little to do with a radical secular agenda. Indeed, it had little to do with religion at all. The Constitution was silent on the subject of God and religion because there was a consensus that, despite the framer’s personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the individual citizens and their respective state governments (and most states in the founding era retained some form of religious establishment). The Constitution, in short, can be fairly characterized as “godless” or secular only insofar as it deferred to the states on all matters regarding religion and devotion to God.

I truly believe that if the founding fathers would have known that “separation of church and state” would be abused and falsely accepted as in the constitution, they would have put something in to prevent the atheist take over of our government. Here they were trying to make it so that each state could decide. That way Utah could be a Mormon state, South Carolina a Baptist state, California could be the Humanist state, and everyone else whatever their citizens decided or changed to with time. But of course this hasn’t been the case and the current system is very biased against religion and very pro atheist and humanism. Both of which should be considered types of religions. They might not believe in a God, but it is still a belief and that in itself makes it a religion.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

To narrow it down drastically the reformation and enlightenment were just how we got away from the state run Catholic Church.

---

quote:

---

They might not believe in a God, but it is still a belief and that in itself makes it a religion.

---

Are you really suggesting that all beliefs are religions, Jay?
 

---

Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 
I believe so.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
I believe that Jay is a "WWW*". Is that religion?

*Wight Wing Wacko
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Jay, Please don't take offense, I was just trying to be funny. Our polical views are an such opposite ends of the spectrum that I would be flattered if you called me a "Commie Pinko".
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

quote:

---

Really, the only limitations put on states in the original Constitution plus Bill of Rights was to keep them from interfering with Federal powers or discriminating against citizens of other states.

---

quote:

---

Here they were trying to make it so that each state could decide. That way Utah could be a Mormon state, South Carolina a Baptist state, California could be the Humanist state, and everyone else whatever their citizens decided or changed to with time.

---

quote:

---

Actually, that matter was heavily contested prior to the 14th amendment with some legal scholars arguing that the Bill of Rights regulated state governments and some supporting your view. Contension on this issue was one of reasons for the Civil War. It is rather unfair to make statements on the constitution as if they are well established, when in fact they are highly controversial.

---

quote:

---

The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government. Many people today find this to be an incredible fact. The fact is, prior to incorporation, discussed below, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. This is, however, quite in line with what the Constitution was originally designed to be: a framework for the federal government. In other words, though the federal government was banned from violating the freedom of the press, states were free to regulate the press. For the most part, this was not an issue, because the state constitutions all had bills of rights, and many of the rights protected by the states mirrored those in the federal Bill, and many went further than the federal Bill.

This point is best illustrated by one of the amendments that Madison proposed in his initial speech:

Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:

No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.

This clause, seemingly innocuous to us today, was rejected by the Senate in its final draft of the Bill, and the concept that any part of the Bill of Rights would apply to the states was still 100 years away. Several cases that came before the Supreme Court in the 19th century attempted to have the Court establish that the Bill should apply to the states, to no avail:

In Barron v. Baltimore (32 U.S. 243 [1833]), the Court ruled that the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment did not apply to the City of Baltimore and the State of Maryland by extension. Succinctly, the Court wrote: "...the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states."

In Pervear v. Massachusetts (72 U.S. 475 [1866]), the Court was asked to rule on fines imposed upon a liquor dealer by the state. Pervear was licensed by the United States under the current internal revenue code to keep and sell liquor. He was fined and sentenced to three months of hard labor for not maintaining a state license for his liquor business. Part to the defense attempted to invoke the 8th Amendment's Excessive Fines and Cruel and Unusual Punishment clauses. The Court, again quite succinctly, said: "Of this proposition it is enough to say that the article of the Constitution relied upon in support of it does not apply to State but to National legislation."

---

quote:

---

The legislative history of the Bill of Rights confirms that its framers and ratifiers did so rely. Various state conventions endorsed amendments limiting the new central government, some phrased in general language, others using words explicitly targeted at the central government-"Congress," the "United States," and so on. [30] Yet no one ever suggested that the general language, simply because of its juxtaposition with other clauses worded differently, would limit state governments as well. When Madison distilled these endorsements into his own list of proposed limitations, he suggested that most of these limitations be inserted in Article I, Section 9. Following the rule of construction implicit in that Article, he used general language and explicit references to Congress indiscriminately. [31] The proposed location of these clauses made it clear that, however worded, they applied only against the federal government. But the first Congress eventually decided to put these amendments at the end of the original Constitution. There is no evidence that this change was anything but aesthetic. Nevertheless, the change had the unhappy effect of blurring the implicit rule of construction at work, creating an interpretive trap for the unwary, which Marshall gracefully avoided by keeping his eyes on Section 9.

Unlike state ratifying conventions, Madison believed that additional restrictions in favor of liberty should also be placed on state governments and said [Page 1201] so on the floor of the House; [32] but even more important for our purposes, he proposed a constitutional amendment that used explicit language to communicate this idea-the very same explicit language that John Marshall seemed to be asking for in Barron: "No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." [33] Moments earlier, Madison had proposed that the following general language be inserted into Section 9: " N or shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed ... and the freedom of the press ... shall be inviolable." [34] Had this general wording, taken alone or in juxtaposition with references to Congress in nearby clauses, been understood to apply to states, Madison's "No state shall" proposal would have been horribly repetitive, eligible for inclusion in the department of redundancy department. [35] What's more, in limiting its list of rights that "No State shall" abridge to press, conscience, and juries, Madison's wording clearly suggested under the principle of expressio unius that states could do other things prohibited by the general language of his proposed Section 9 insert. That general language, for example, prohibited both establishment of religion and infringement of conscience. Madison's "No State shall" list included the latter but pointedly omitted the former, thus implying that states would continue to be free to establish churches. But if so, we are again driven to the obvious rule of construction that the general language about establishment-like all general language-applied only to the federal government.

Still further corroboration comes from Madison's speeches on the House floor. Whereas he candidly admitted that his proto-Tenth Amendment "may be considered as superfluous" and "unnecessary," he described his "No State shall" proposal, in very different language: "[T]his [is] the most valuable amendment in the whole list" [36]-valuable because it added something obviously not implicit elsewhere in general language. Yet he also noted that even this most valuable amendment would bind states only to "those particular rights" [37] listed in the "No State shall" clause, once again making clear that merely general language would not limit states. [38] [Page 1202]

So far, so good for Marshall's opinion. But what makes Barron's holding compelling is neither its technical parsing of Article I, nor its use of lawyerly rules of construction, nor even the narrow legislative history of the Bill of Rights in Congress. Rather, it is what Marshall near the end of his opinion called the "universally understood" historical background of the Bill of Rights. [39] In state convention after state convention in 1787- 88, Anti-Federalists voiced loud concerns about a new, distant, aristocratic, central government that was being called into existence. [40] Many ultimately voted for the Constitution only because Federalists like Madison promised to consider a Bill of Rights soon after ratification. Madison of course kept his word, and knew that if he had not, states' rightists might have called a second constitutional convention to repudiate the basic structure of the Constitution he had labored so hard to build. [41] In short, without the good will of many moderate Anti-Federalists, prospects for the new Constitution looked bleak in 1787-88; and a Bill of Rights was the explicit price of that good will. But the Bill of Rights that Anti-Federalists sought was a Bill to limit the federal government-not just for the sake of individual liberty, but also to serve the cause of states' rights. [42] Madison and his fellow Federalists could hardly have placated their critics, or won over their skeptics, by sneaking massive new restrictions on states into apparently innocuous general language. Nor would Anti-Federalists in Congress or in states have knowingly allowed such a trojan horse though the gates. Madison did openly advocate a small number of additional restrictions on states-clearly labeled as such in a package wrapped in the words "No State shall"-but even that modest proposal was too much for a Senate jealously guarding states' rights.

Barron's holding thus kept faith with both the letter and the spirit of the original Bill of Rights. We should not be surprised, then, that the decision in Barron was unanimous, or that the Court repeatedly and unanimously reaffirmed [Page 1203] Barron's rule over the next thirty-three years in cases involving the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments. [43]

---

quote:

---

As modern day legal positivists, we tend to view the Bill as creating or conferring legal rights. But the congressional resolution accompanying the Bill explicitly described some of its provisions as "declaratory." [63] To a nineteenth-century believer in natural rights, the Bill was not simply an enactment of We the People as the Sovereign Legislature bringing new legal rights into existence, but a declaratory judgment by We the People as the Sovereign High Court that certain natural or fundamental rights already existed. [64] Under this view, the [Page 1207]

First Amendment was not merely an interpretation of the positive law code of the original Constitution, declaring that Congress lacked Article I, Section 8 enumerated power to regulate religion or suppress speech; the Amendment was also a declaration that certain fundamental "rights" and "freedoms"-of assembly, petition, speech, press, and religious exercise-preexisted the Constitution. Why else, it might be asked, did the Amendment speak of "the" freedom of speech, implying a preexisting entitlement? [65] The Ninth and Tenth Amendments did more than make explicit rules of construction for interpreting the Constitution as a positive law code; they also declared that certain "rights" and "powers" were retained by "the people" and "reserved" to them in contradistinction to "states."

Technically speaking, perhaps the Bill did not bind state governments of its own legislative force. But under the strong declaratory view, the result was virtually the same. An honest state court would be bound-though the precise nature of the obligation, legal or moral, was somewhat fuzzy-to respect "declarations" of the High Court of We the People that certain "rights" and "freedoms" existed. [66] Unlike Rawle's expressio unius argument, demolished by Barron, this was an argument that states might be constrained even by the First Amendment-at least, by those clauses of the First Amendment that spoke of "rights" or "freedoms." (The establishment clause most distinctly did not.)

---

quote:

---

Its amazing how lawyers can get away with this when scientist are called on the table for it even an overwhelming consensus exists.

---