So I'm curious, why do you not answer a simple question? I'm granting you the hypothetical power to fix this entire problem with a single sentence. Whats the problem?
"So I'm curious, why do you not answer a simple question? I'm granting you the hypothetical power to fix this entire problem with a single sentence. Whats the problem?"
We haven't been on the same sheet of music since this thread started.
I've participated in message boards where I have insisted that, when the 1st and 10th Amendment are taken together, the 10th Amendment reasonably delegates govennment power to address religious issues uniquely to the state governments. But I'm essentially hissed off the stage because of "my" ideas as the argumentative tone of your replies to my posts reflect.
Oops! Did I forget to mention that I got "my" insane idea about the religious aspects of the 10th Amendment from Jefferson's writings? But when I put Jefferson in their faces, the anti-religious expression lemmings go into denial mode and you cannot reason with them.
People question why the Constitution seemingly doesn't say anything about the powers of the states to legislate religion since the 1st Amendment clearly prohibits this power to the federal government. But this is because they don't understand that the Constitution's silence about state government power to address religion is actually what triggers the 10th Amendment to essentially automatically delegate this power to the state governments.
Indeed, because of widespread constitutional ignorance, the people have been intimidated by the renegade Supreme Court, particularly Justice Black, into thinking that the Founders meant for the establishment clause to mean that the 1st Amendment's religious prohibition on the federal government were meant to apply to the state governements as well. Isn't that obvious? :^O
Don't you think you're being rather ridiculous in insisting he agree with you that a new constitutional amendment is needed? Your basic premise is that amendments should be written in exhaustive detail so as to exclude their misinterpretation by those poor, confused justices who can't be bothered with source writings from the laws' framers in order to ascertain their intent.