Perhaps you should have made it clear that you were giving your interpretation.
The Constitution doesn't actually say "in regard to religion."Quote:
If laws cannot be made in regard to religion, religion cannot oppress because it has no leg to stand on.
What exactly was unclear in the Original Constitution with respect to religion?Quote:
Timeline
US Constitution: 1787
First Ammendment: 1791
Wow... it seems that the entire constitution got flipped on its head in only three short years! But no, any intelligent person can figure out why the first ammendment was added. It was to clarify the nation's position on the matter for people like you.
Where did the lawmakers indicate that their will at the time they made the Constitution was to be gathered from anything other than what was admissible under the common law "rules of construction?"Quote:
I offered the letters to show you their intent.
What rules and principles guide those (with a better grasp) when they interpret the Constitution?Quote:
Those who do the interpreting generally have a better grasp of it than you do. But we can leave them out if you like, the point still stands.
Now you do want to explore the intentions at the time the law was made. [/quote] That's what the common law "rules of construction" say we're supposed to do. The lawmakers, according to the historical evidence, probably wanted us use the "rules of construction."
What rules and principles, if any, did you use to select the letters from which to gather the meaning of the Constitution?Quote:
Hence my reference to letters which explained them in plain English.
Show us where the lawmakers ever indicated or even suggested that the meaning of the Constitution should be gathered from what someone, who wasn't even one of the lawmakers, wrote over a decade after the Constitution was made.Quote:
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.
- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
I humbly recommend that you consider taking the time to learn and master the common law "rules of construction." Otherwise, I don't believe you'll ever be able to correctly, or rather objectively, ascertain the will of the lawmakers at the time they made the Constitution.
I think l like you interpretation of the Constitution. However, your methodology, in my humble view, is unsound. Have you ever considered the possibility that both sides of the public debate regarding church and state are wrong to assume the Constitution was constructed to be interpreted according to an analysis of the wittings and actions of the founders, unless those writings and actions are admissible under the "rules of construction?"