Pikkukuvaa napsauttamalla pääset Google Booksiin.
Ladataan... Original intent: the courts, the constitution, and religion. (1996)Tekijä: David Barton
- Ladataan...
Kirjaudu LibraryThingiin nähdäksesi, pidätkö tästä kirjasta vai et. Ei tämänhetkisiä Keskustelu-viestiketjuja tästä kirjasta. The review by @hewhocutsdown is most unfortunate. While he may disagree with the decidedly religious bent of Barton's work, what he cannot refute is the reality that there is no such thing in the Constitution as a separation of church and state (nor indeed in any other founding documents, claims to the contrary notwithstanding). No doubt, @hewocutsdown and others will cite the influence of Jefferson, as several claimants before the Supreme Court have erroneously argued (eg. Everson vs Board of Education, 1947, et al), but what they do not understand is that Jefferson was, by his own admission, not even on the North American continent, but rather in Europe, "when the Constitution was planned, and never saw it till after it was established" (Jefferson's reply to Dr. Joseph Priestly in a letter dated June 19, 1802), Perhaps some who think Barton's work is ignoble and slanted should educate themselves on the true history of the establishment of our founding documents. In fact, Barton's work is well documented, and correctly attributive of sources, with an extensive bibliography and enough endnotes to keep @hewhocutsdown busy running them all down until he exhausts himself from the effort. This is an excellent book that gives little comfort to those who attempt to redefine the history and context of the U. S. Constitution, thereby pitting it against well-documented American political thought going all the way back to the first whispers of independence on the lips of our forefathers. Let it be noted here, if never in another place, the so-called "separation of church and state" is not a part of the First Amendment, but is rather a figment of the imagination the social and judicial activists who constantly and incessantly beat the drums of their attempts to circumvent the Law. The First Amendment simply and irrefutably states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Deal with it. näyttää 4/4 ei arvosteluja | lisää arvostelu
In their own words, the Supreme Court has become "a national theology board," "a super board of education," and amateur psychologists on a "psycho-journey." The result has been a virtual rewriting of the liberties enumerated in the Constitution. A direct victim of this judicial micromanagement has been the religious aspect of the First Amendment. For example, the Court now interprets that Amendment under: a "Lemon Test" absurdly requiring religious expression to be secular, an "Endorsement Test" pursuing an impossible neutrality between religion and secularism, and a "Psychological Coercion Test" allowing a single dissenter to silence an entire community's religious expression. Additional casualties of judicial activism have included protections for State's rights, local controls, separation of powers, legislative supremacy, and numerous other constitutional provisions. Why did earlier Courts protect these powers for generations, and what has caused their erosion by contemporary Courts? Original Intent answers these questions. By relying on thousands of primary sources, Original Intent documents (in the Founding Fathers' own words) not only the plan for limited government originally set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights but how that vision can once again become reality. Book jacket. Kirjastojen kuvailuja ei löytynyt. |
Current Discussions-Suosituimmat kansikuvat
Google Books — Ladataan... LajityypitMelvil Decimal System (DDC)320Social sciences Political Science Political ScienceKongressin kirjaston luokitusArvio (tähdet)Keskiarvo:
Oletko sinä tämä henkilö? |
Barton also spends a significant amount of time establishing that the vast majority of the founding fathers were indeed religious, and that the United States was created and founded in Christianity.
An interesting read, it certainly changes my viewpoint when I realize that "separation of Church and State" is NOT in the Constitution at all. ( )