Katherine Harris says failure to elect Christians will `legislate sin'

KRT Wire ^ | 8/25/2006 | Jim Stratton

[subbob]

The words "Separation of Church and State" can not be found in our Constitution. That phrases simplifices - and incorrectly states - what the Founding Fathers intended.

They intended freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. One merely needs to look at what they said to know this - several examples are listed below.

John Adams said:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government ofany other."

Noah Webster said:
"In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed....No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people."

Abigail Adams said:
"A patriot without religion in my estimation is as great a paradox as an honest Man without the fear of God. Is it possible that he whom no moral obligations bind, can have any real Good Will towards Men?"

Benjamin Franklin:
"A Bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school in every district--all studied and appreciated as they merit--are the principal support of virtue, morality, and civil liberty."

Thomas Jefferson:
"The only foundation for useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion."

[Mojave]

The common law, in which we are talking about, is adopted by the states but was made up in England starting in the 1100's.

The common law was "made up"? Fascinating.

The common law of California included elements of the Spanish alcalde.

Short term memory loss?

[Mojave]

Test Acts reached well beyond holding public offices.

"In 1777 most states passed Test Acts. They required everyone to take an oath of allegiance promising to defend the revolutionary cause with arms. Pennsylvania law decreed banishment and confiscation of all property for those who refused the oath."

[jf55510]

The common law was "made up"? Fascinating.

Of course it was, where else would it come from? Some magic law fairy? It was made up using decisions from English courts starting in the 1100's.

The common law of California included elements of the Spanish alcalde.

The common law of California does no such thing. Spain, and thusly California, was a civil law jurisdiction. In the 1800's California became a common law jurisdictions and put parts of its civil law jurisdiction into the codes.

Short term memory loss?

Not at all, completely consistent.

[Mojave]

The words "Separation of Church and State" can not be found in our Constitution.

They know. They don't care.

[Mojave]

Of course it was, where else would it come from?

Precedents, standards and customs evolved over time.

Your position that it was "made up" and then fixed for all places for all time is the sort of ignorance Justice Story addressed when he noted that the common law was not "a brooding omnipresence in the sky".

[Mojave]

Correction: Justice Hand, not Justice Story.

[stands2reason]

I can't speak for others who claim to be Christian as you know ANYONE can claim to be Christian, but it's by their fruits, behavior, conduct that you know them.

Elsie (courtesy ping) is the one who told me that rudeness isn't immoral. So did RobbyS (cp). If you want to say they aren't real CHristians, they'll show you the Bible verses to back them up.

OTOH can a non-Christian really determine what's good Christian behavior and what's not?

Yeah, I've read the Bible. I've been a Christian.

You mean like a community of liberals whose morality gives you a phlanderous, godless blah blah blah.

No, the community of conservatives who elected the person. How come those community standards you claim are standard aren't the ones mentioned when it comes to zoning sex clubs?

Either you support and champion biblical morality in our elected officials upon which our system of government was founded and works best under, or be prepared to watch and say goodbye to the Constitution and the country the way it was intended, with all the glorious freedoms that resulted from it.

You are deluding yourself if you beleve only Bible-believers are constitutionalists. I don't mind electing Christians to office, but I will never refuse to vote for a non-Christian.

[jf55510]

Keep naming famous judges and you will get the correct one who wrote that quote.

[Torie]

There is a lot of noise in this thread. Most but not all of English common law,and much common law subsequent to American Independence, has been incorporated into statute, incluiding at least in California, a lot of boilerplate from Blackstone et al., adopted in the 19th century, which remains on the books. What has survived from the common law, is the notion that courts interpret the meaning of statutes, and that if it goes to the appellate level, the holdings that are published interpreting such statutes become law as it were, and sometimes the courts revert, particularly in real property law, to rather ancient precedents.

The point is, is that the words of the statutes are king, and the words of the Constitution trump all. When judges are activist, if there is "ambiguity" in the words in a particular factual context, then the courts "refine" the meaning of the statutory and Constitutional words. But where statutes are silent, as in much of the lacunae of contractual law, for example, prior judicial precedents really matter, and legal practioners rely much more on the case law than the statutes. Without my training to parse case law, I would be largely useless as a legal practioner myself. It is not a simple task often.

[Mojave]

As I look forward to seeing your source for claiming the common law was "made up".

[Mojave]

Most but not all of English common law,and much common law subsequent to American Independence, has been incorporated into statute, incluiding at least in California

Very true. The common law isn't static.

[Torie]

It was made up by courts. In property and contract law, we still refer to some English cases. The statutes have either incorporated such concepts, or remained silent. In some situations, statutes have clearly reversed the common law, such as in absolute legal tort liability, in certain situations. A finding of negligence for example, per the statutes, is no longer necessary, in some factual patterns.

[jf55510]

As I look forward to seeing your source for claiming the common law was "made up".

I don't need one. Anyone who has taken a first year torts class knows it was made up by juges starting in England.

[jf55510]

The common law isn't static.

No one is claiming that the common law is static or fixed. I went back through our discussion and I never claimed as such. I only have stated that the common law was made in England, and that the common law is the same but can be changed, ignored, or kept by statute if the states want.

[Mojave]

It was made up by courts.

Precedents, standards and customs of the time and place were recognized by the courts.

[Mojave]

No one is claiming that the common law is static or fixed.

You began spewing strawmen when it was pointed out that the common law systems of the states reflected their precedents, standards and customs.

[Mojave]

it was made up by juges starting in England.

When?

[Torie]

When I went to England last month on a legal junket, one Oxford professor noted that the reason English courts were allowed to create published precedents, which were then followed, and became law as it were, was that it was all in "legal French," until the late 18th century, not understood by Parliament, and by the time the action was writen in English, it was too late for Parliament to recoup its lost power, in that regard. The tradition of courts creating legal precedents, with the force of law. had become too ingrained, to reverse. Tradition, tradition! In Civil Law countries, although it is changing now in many Civil Law nations, courts are not allowed to create legal precedent with the force of law, in the sense that subsequent courts must follow such prececents, if lower courts.

[jf55510]

You began spewing strawmen when it was pointed out that the common law systems of the states reflected their precedents, standards and customs.

No, you started this whole thing by stating the states made up their common law. That is so incredibly wrong, which the point that I have been trying to get across since the beginning.