Is Declaration of Independence unconstitutional?

World Net Daily ^ | 11-23-2004 | World Net Daily

[mrustow]

How about FUBAR?

What does "FUBAR" mean? I used to think it had something to do with the "F" word. (F'ed up beyond all recognition?) Then on Veterans Day, I saw the first hour of Saving Private Ryan, and one GI character said it was a German phrase, but I'm a German speaker, and I've never heard of it. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding of the German word, "furcthbar," which means horrible, frightful ("Furcht/furchten" means fear/to fear, as in the Biblical injunction, "Furchtet Euch nicht -- "Fear not"). Or maybe the one G.I. character was just having some fun with the other one.

[navygal]

This is one of the reasons why I left california.

[mrustow]

The real question is, is distributing the Declaration in school unconstitutional. Subversives like the ACLU would have you believ that it is. After all, look at the closing words: "And for support of this Declaration, with a frim reliance on Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

Those closing words always blow me away. Imagine what America's domestic enemies would more likely say: "And for support of this conspiracy, with contempt for Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other other people's lives, fortunes, and sacred honor."

[RepCath]

Indeed.

[bvw]

"Don't worry though...If this measure stands, in a few years, the Constitution will be considered un-Constitutional!"

Already is. Modern Federal Law makes "stare decisis" master of all and god of laws.

[bfree]

Only those misfits in our wonderful public education system would think so. Fire all teachers and rehire them based on ability. These liberal, deep thinking do gooders, certainly wouldn't qualify.

[mrustow]

The Bible is pre-Constitution also, but it is unconstitutional to READ OR DISTRIBUTE it in public schools.

I don't know about distributing it, but it is NOT unconstitutional to read Bible passages in the public schools. You just can't preach it. You have to teach "the Bible as literature," rather than the Bible as truth.

[RepCath]

Well, the ACLU helps Newdow and internet pornographers and those lovely teachers who teach students to put condoms on cucumbers in schools more than others...how about anti-christ?

[bfree]

That is moronic.

[BraveMan]

I'd suggest resurrecting the word Farcicality:

1. Resembling a farce; ludicrous.
2. Ridiculously clumsy; absurd.

---

farci·cali·ty (-kl-t) or farci·cal·ness n.

[inquest]

Or maybe the one G.I. character was just having some fun with the other one.

And with you as well ;-)

[Y0K]

"And for support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

OH MY GXX, in accordance with the ACLU and a lot of Democraps, this bugger could possibly have someone believe that there is a power bigger than them...meaning the original founders of this country acknowledge GOD---Oh, Oh, Oh...tear it up, rip it, dismantle, don't let anyone read this...

[ApplegateRanch]

That is moronic.

Hate to sound Clintoonish, but can you define "that"? Without a definite referent, the single-sentence post is a meaningless noise.

[ApplegateRanch]

I don't know about distributing it, but it is NOT unconstitutional to read Bible passages in the public schools. You just can't preach it. You have to teach "the Bible as literature," rather than the Bible as truth.

Correct; reading as literature IS allowed. I over simplified.

These classes are history, however, so that makes it murky as Libs & lawyers like to say. I guess one has to BE a Lib to 'get it'; I know I certainly don't.

My only real point was that 'predating' the Constitution or not has no bearing on the "constitutionality" of the usage of the Declaration in the classroom. (See post # 2, "...the declaration came BEFORE the constitution and therefore cannot be judged on its terms.")

There have been cases, unfortunately, where the simple passing out of Bibles, and Bible related matterials have been banned.

One example:
It used to be a tradition, as late as the late 70s, for {Califronia for sure) colleges to allow the distribution of small New Testaments, by an outside group (Nursing order? I don't remember.) to graduating nursing students. The ACLU sued, won, and it was upheld, and the practice was stopped.

[RecallMoran]

For some time, the legal community has mused over whether the Declaration could survive a legal challenge that it is unconstitutional to be taught in school. There are multiple religious references, the most profound being the clause "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." That is a pure statement of natural law, that our freedoms exist as a gift from God and not men. Before the Anita Hill idiocy, liberals grilled Clarence Thomas because he was fascinated by natural law. It was the first application of the standard from liberals that men and women of faith should not be nominated. I have no doubt that most liberal Senators and judges would utterly reject the Declaration's premise and find that teaching the principles of the Declaration is unconstitutional. Keep in mind that this is a Court that upheld flag burning and other idiotic acts, and there were judges who found the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional.

This is more of a statement of how out of control our judiciary is than the merits of the case.

[Mikey]

All these questions, all these arguments, statements etc., are all irrelevant.
The first Amendment clearly states that the government will not establish a religion. Secular humanism is a religion because it worships man as his own god. Therefor the government is being unconstitutional.

The Constitution also very clearly states that the government can not "...prohibit the free exercise thereof...."
The FEDERAL government itself is acting unconstitutionally in forcing schools, public buildings, private homes etc., from displaying and/or teaching anything about Christianity.

The so-called "wall of separation of church and state" all these anti-Christian bozo's keep spewing forth is nothing more then a misquote from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists and then again to the Virginia Baptists.

"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

-- Thomas Jefferson, to Danbury Baptists, 1802. This was used again by Jefferson in his letter to the Virginia Baptists,

[Bernard]

The new word should be "Mapes". It's an all-purpose word, as in "We really Maped that one!" And the confusion caused by the s at the end could lead to many entertaining debates among people who take that kind of thing seriously.

[YummiBox]

i misinterpreted the content of the article based on the title - i guess i'm just getting to used to all the nonsense especially with the latest boy scouts ruling.

[YummiBox]

seems that the ACLU is trying real hard to be the left wing's revisionist historians

[Auntie Dem]

What does "FUBAR" mean?

FUBAR is an acronym that stands for F'd Up Beyond All Recognition