The founders wanted a balance between the government allowing for the free expression of religion, and not coercing religion. That is why there are indirect references to God in both the Constitution and Declaration.

The last paragraph of the Constitution says: ..."on this day, 1787, in the year of our Lord." There is only one Lord born 1787 years before that time and it was Christ Jesus.

Also, the Constitution calls for no Congress on Sunday, the Christian Sabbath.

The founders wanted a balance between the government allowing for the free expression of religion, and not coercing religion. That is why there are indirect references to God in both the Constitution and Declaration.

The last paragraph of the Constitution says: ..."on this day, 1787, in the year of our Lord." There is only one Lord born 1787 years before that time and it was Christ Jesus.

Also, the Constitution calls for no Congress on Sunday, the Christian Sabbath.

The First Amendment is a balancing act between tolerating the free expression of religious thoughts and actions, while not forcing it upon the people.

The founders wanted a balance between the government allowing for the free expression of religion, and not coercing religion. That is why there are indirect references to God in both the Constitution and Declaration.

The last paragraph of the Constitution says: ..."On this day, 1787, in the year of our Lord." There is only one Lord born 1787 years before that time and it was Christ Jesus.

Also, the Constitution calls for no Congress on Sunday, the Christian Sabbath.

See Merola's last column on this same topic:

http://tour.townhall.com/columnists/ChristopherMerola/2008/ 12/29/the_separation_of_church_and_state_-_reloaded

a Constitutional right to violate the Constitutional rights of people in the name of states rights.

You see how nutty these arguments are.

It is not a zero-sum game. You don't uphold the states rights at the expense of federal rights or vice versa.

We must uphold both federal and states rights at the same time.

So according to you, the consequence of the south ceceding was a war they lost, which should not have been waged, so that slaves should not have been made free?

I guess you want to buy a few slaves yourself and keep them as the 10th Amendment somehow allows it?

The culprit here is the not Abe Lincoln, but the slave traders and the southern plantation owners for hiding behind a false interpretation of the 10th Amendment. They thought states rights meant they can do anything they want.

Such arrogance led to the Dred Scott decision where the Supreme Court called people "property."

That is not what the founders meant by property when they wrote the 5th Amendment.

I think Larry was talking about slavery, not leaving the Union.

The argument is for a state having the Constitutional right to violate the Constitution in having slaves in the first place.

Leaving the Union is a states right, but the consequence in war. The south lost that war.

End of story.

Constitution. Dude, that is a brilliant argument. Are you an attorney or something like that?

I have never heard a better explanation of how the south went too far in their view of states rights.

Their view would mean the states had a Constitutional right to violate the Constitution.

Truly brilliant.


Awesome. Thanks.

Lilly spews assertions without facts to back them up.

Same old liberal propaganda.

Figures.