Re: church/state seperation

> >> There is nothing in the 2'nd amendment that expresses that idea.
> >
> >It's a simple matter of understanding the history and context of the
> >2nd amendment. Similarly, "Separation of Church and State" are not the
> >precise words of the 1st amendment, but it is the STATED PURPOSE of
> >it.
> >
> >It's a simple matter of being educated.
> 
> It is a simple matter of lying.  The 2'nd amendment says nothing to
> support that idea, but you more than implied that it specifically
> supported it.

Are you truly that hardheaded?

The idea that the 2nd amendment was written to protect the people from
the power of the central government is agreed to be the thrust of the
2nd amendment, both by Alan Keyes on the Right, AND the ACLU on the
left. That kind of agreement is rare, and only seen in the cases where
the issue is a NO-BRAINER!

KEYES: http://www.renewamerica.tv/archives/media/interviews/00_01_25hardball.htm

ACLU:
http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html

> >Do you believe that Separation of Church and State is one of the
> >stated purposes of the 1st amendment?
> 
> No

Hmmmm... well, I think you are wrong. I think that the 1st amendment
does explicitly separate church and state.

> I believe you were lying when you implied that the 2'nd amendment
> said or implied anything about overthrowing the government.  The words
> are not there and you will find no court decision to support your
> interpretation.

As I said above, it's simply common knowledge, and promoted by the
most credentialed constitutional scholars:

I will educate you.

Here are a half dozen reputable sources both liberal and conservative;
multitudes more are available:

1. Professor Sanford Levinson (Ph.D. Harvard, J.D., Stanford) of the
University of Texas, said:

"the Second Amendment was created because people believed guns
provided an important way of protecting their liberty against the
potential tyranny of government."

http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/faculty/sl1/profile.htm
http://www.rice.edu/projects/reno/rn/20021205/guncontrol.html

See also, Sanford Levinson, THE EMBARRASSING SECOND AMENDMENT, Yale
Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659.

2. Hon. Congressman Bernard Sanders, formerly on the faculty of
Harvard University, who wishes to repeal the 2nd Amendment:

"One of the founding principles of the Revolution had been that the
people had the right to overthrow the government if they believed it
to be unworthy. One of the most effective means to overthrow the
government was, of course, with firearms and so the Second Amendment
was born."

http://www.house.gov/bernie/town_meeting/1997/daniel_luzor.html
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=S000033

3. Scott Bursor, lawyer and editor of the legal journal, Texas Law
Review, who is on the other side of the issue, writes:

"The belief that an armed citizenry would subdue aggressive rulers and
keep them sensitive to the rights of the people was perhaps the most
important motivation for the inclusion of the right to keep and bear
arms in the Constitution. Thus, the continued vitality of an armed
populace as a check on the modern state should have important
implications on our interpretation of the Second Amendment."

74 Texas Law Rev. 1125-1151 (1996).

5. Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, wrote:

"The next amendment is 'A well regulated militia being necessary to
the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed.' ... The right of the citizens to keep
and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the
liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against
the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even
if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to
resist and triumph over them."

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,
Vol. 3 at pp. 746-747 (1833).

6. Alan Keyes (Ph.D. Harvard University), who disagrees with Levinson
and Sanders, wrote--

"It is right there in the Declaration that if a government becomes
subversive of liberty, and in the end a design is evinced to destroy
the liberty of the people, 'they have the right,' he said, 'they have
the duty'--okay?--'to alter or abolish it.' And that means that
ultimately the people of the country are the arbiters. And they must
be prepared to defend themselves if push comes to shove. That is why
the Second Amendment is there. We can be timid about it if we like,
but that is the truth of it."

http://www.renewamerica.us/keyes/whois.htm
http://www.renewamerica.tv/archives/media/interviews/00_01_25hardball.htm

4. This is how the Second Amendment was defended by its supporters in
1789!!--

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before
them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must
be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their
power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed
by the next article [2nd Amendment] in their right to keep and bear
their private arms."

Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal
Constitution, Moved on the 8th Instant in the House of
Representatives, Fed. Gazette & Phila. Evening Post, June 18, 1789.
----
So you see, there is no debating this issue. Scholars on both sides of
the spectrum recognize the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.

If you want to keep saying, "The second amendment never implied
anything about overthrowing tyrants," go right ahead; but in doing so,
you show yourself to be entirely at odds with the mainstream of
scholarly opinion.

> >But when it came to how the Nuremberg Judges could hold the heads of
> >state responsible under such laws, Judge Jackson invoked Sir Edward
> >Coke's natural law theory in which even the King may be prosecuted by
> >the "law of God":
> 
> Regardless of how you try to distort reality, they were not charged
> with violating the law of god.  The defendants were charged with
> violating international law.

And if you knew anything about Grotius, and what International Law
really is, you would know, as did Chief Justice Robert Jackson, who
represented the U.S. at Nuremberg, that there is a nexus between
International law and the law of God.

Justice Jackson invoked Grotius in his report at Nuremberg.

Grotius' fundamental grounds for International Law is the following:

"his [a citizen's] duty to the sovereign does not oblige any one to do
an act manifestly unjust and repugnant to the law of God."

What is the law of God? According to Grotius, it is written in our
consciences:

"For God has given conscience a judicial power to be the sovereign
guide of human actions, by despising whose admonitions the mind is
stupefied into brutal hardness."

>From this Grotian maxim, Crimes against Humanity, one of the charges
at Nuremberg, is determined, NOT BY WRITTEN LAWS, but by that which is
a shock to the conscience.

"crimes have to reach the extent of 'shocking the conscience of
humankind' so as to amount to a Crime against Humanity."

http://www.afla.unimaas.nl/en/act/Seminar%20on%20Universal%20Jurisdiction%20for%20Crimes%20against%20Humanity.htm

International Law Attorney Dean Falvy (Harvard Law, J.D.), just this
year called Grotius "perhaps the world's leading authority on
international law."

So, in short, you shouldn't go making assertions until you've done
your homework.

There is plenty available on the foundations of International Law
(i.e., Grotius) online. I suggest that you do a little more homework.
Here are some aides:

http://www.san.beck.org/WP11-Grotius.html
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/nussbaum-grotius.html
http://www.panix.com/~squigle/dcp/grotius.html
http://seminar.jura.uni-sb.de/publ/ss98/ss98/juri/main/eval/data/6/

I won't charge you for this education. You can just say "thanks."

Searle








> 
> 
> >
> >http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DocJac13.htm
> >
> >> No doubt it is as
> >> fallacious as your claim about Moore being punished for saying he
> >> believed in god.
> >
> >I said that he was "grilled" about whether he would acknowledge God;
> >this is factual based on the transcript. I never said he was penalized
> >for it.
> 
> Crap.  It is amazing that you are so lacking in any sense of shame
> that you continue your silly attempt at distorting the truth even
> after your lie was clearly shown for all to see.
> 
> >
> >> Whatever Jackson may or may not have said, the
> >> defendants were charged with violating international law not god's
> >> law.
> >
>  
> >My point was that international law, much of which is unwritten, has
> >long included the principle that soldiers, citizens, and kings of
> >state are REQUIRED to disobey the law of their nation if that law
> >violates higher law, as dictated by conscience.
> 
> Your claim was that they were charged with violating the laws of god.
> They were not.  
> None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
> "But he has got nothing on," said a little child.