"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --
217142
Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823\n\nAnd it means that people should not try to find every loophole available in the original meaning behind the Consititution. They should just remember what the principles it was based on represented and conform to that.
443352
That was the norm back then. They had to compromise on the slave situation or the Constitution would never have been ratified by all the states.  But the people who wrote the constitution provided a legal framework and a form of government that allowed for progress and the eventual provision of rights to blacks and women. That is what makes us a great nation now.
551644
Oh of course it does, and what they thought was very flawed by our standards today. Man kind changes through time, we should not be stifled by some archaic text.
511343
You already know that the phrase does not appear, therefore the provocative "I'm waiting..."  You already know that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."  \n\nI'm also sure that you are already aware of the letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, quoting the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, he writes: "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."   You might also want to recall the Treaty of Tripoli, in which it is stated that "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;..."\n\nObviously, if the founders wished to create a government in which religion would hold sway, or have a formal say in civil law or liberties, they could have easily done so.  They did not create a theocracy, but a democratic republic.  All of the above has been primarily interpreted to support separation of church and state, and the Supreme Court has upheld this "notion" time and time again.  It never fails to amaze me how some people persist in believing the founders intended this country to be based on religious (Christian) tenets.  They weren't idiots - if they wished that to be the case they could have clearly laid it out as such.  Their personal writings and letters reflect controversy of feeling over the matter, and quotes can be found to reflect both positions.  The proof in the pudding is that they chose to erect that wall, and did not choose to install a government run by religious leaders, and made sure those would be leaders had no power to do so.  Considering that the founders had widely differing religious leanings and knew the pitfalls of a government led by the "church," it probably wasn't a hard decision to reach.  The difficulty most likely lay in the language to be used.  There were religious leaders of that day who wished for nothing more than a theocracy to be created.  The founders had to reach a consensus on how to word the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to please everybody, and that included the theocratists.  They did such a good job that we are still arguing over it today.  We trust our Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, and they have done so time and time again, in favor of the wall.  It's an integral part of our government, this wall, and if it weren't the Pat Robertsons and Fred Phelps of our nation would be dictating our laws and civil rights.  A scary thought, that.
157391
The phrase itself was from a letter to the Danbury Baptists by President Jefferson, in response to their worries that their state would give a rival Christian sect tax money and special privileges by law.  He told them not to worry, because the First Amendment was designed to form a wall of separation between chuch and state.
404504
The constitution provides a legal foundation for our\nlaws and our cival discourse. Disputes and questions regarding\nall manner of civall and criminal conduct have a final\narbiture with the Supreme court and the federal and state courts.
110030
wth? they dont actually state the language in the constitution my dear...\n\nbut it does seem a bit odd seeing as though the whole document is written in...*ahem*...ENGLISH!\n\nand what kind of question is this? you have absolutely no grounds for this foolishness...it doesnt even makes sense...
32285
MEDITATION I.\n\nOF THE THINGS OF WHICH WE MAY DOUBT.\n\n\n1. SEVERAL years have now elapsed since I first became aware that I had accepted, even from my youth, many false opinions for true, and that consequently what I afterward based on such principles was highly doubtful; and from that time I was convinced of the necessity of undertaking once in my life to rid myself of all the opinions I had adopted, and of commencing anew the work of building from the foundation, if I desired to establish a firm and abiding superstructure in the sciences. But as this enterprise appeared to me to be one of great magnitude, I waited until I had attained an age so mature as to leave me no hope that at any stage of life more advanced I should be better able to execute my design. On this account, I have delayed so long that I should henceforth consider I was doing wrong were I still to consume in deliberation any of the time that now remains for action. To-day, then, since I have opportunely freed my mind from all cares [and am happily disturbed by no passions], and since I am in the secure possession of leisure in a peaceable retirement, I will at length apply myself earnestly and freely to the general overthrow of all my former opinions.[L][F]\n\n2. But, to this end, it will not be necessary for me to show that the wholeof these are false--a point, perhaps, which I shall never reach; but as even now my reason convinces me that I ought not the less carefully to withhold belief from what is not entirely certain and indubitable, than from what is manifestly false, it will be sufficient to justify the rejection of the whole if I shall find in each some ground for doubt. Nor for this purpose will it be necessary even to deal with each belief individually, which would be truly an endless labor; but, as the removal from below of the foundation necessarily involves the downfall of the whole edifice, I will at once approach the criticism of the principles on which all my former beliefs rested.[L][F]\n\n3. All that I have, up to this moment, accepted as possessed of the highest truth and certainty, I received either from or through the senses. I observed, however, that these sometimes misled us; and it is the part of prudence not to place absolute confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived.[L][F]\n\n4. But it may be said, perhaps, that, although the senses occasionally mislead us respecting minute objects, and such as are so far removed from us as to be beyond the reach of close observation, there are yet many other of their informations (presentations), of the truth of which it is manifestly impossible to doubt; as for example, that I am in this place, seated by the fire, clothed in a winter dressing gown, that I hold in my hands this piece of paper, with other intimations of the same nature. But how could I deny that I possess these hands and this body, and withal escape being classed with persons in a state of insanity, whose brains are so disordered and clouded by dark bilious vapors as to cause them pertinaciously to assert that they are monarchs when they are in the greatest poverty; or clothed [in gold] and purple when destitute of any covering; or that their head is made of clay, their body of glass, or that they are gourds? I should certainly be not less insane than they, were I to regulate my procedure according to examples so extravagant.[L][F]\n\n5. Though this be true, I must nevertheless here consider that I am a man, and that, consequently, I am in the habit of sleeping, and representing to myself in dreams those same things, or even sometimes others less probable, which the insane think are presented to them in their waking moments. How often have I dreamt that I was in these familiar circumstances, that I was dressed, and occupied this place by the fire, when I was lying undressed in bed? At the present moment, however, I certainly look upon this paper with eyes wide awake; the head which I now move is not asleep; I e
273666
The Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution.
170524
This short, to the point statement should be read by everyone in AMERICA !    \n\n  Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.\n\n\n"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." \n\nTheodore Roosevelt 1907
29028
try the federalist papers, and the constitution of the United States
53941
You’re asking a great deal, whole sections of libraries hold many books just on this one subject and you could spend a lifetime studying the nuances associated with this Amendment.  For example, It states. . . . . \n\n“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”\n\nThis has roots in the Articles of Confederation which state in Article II. . . . \n\n“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”\n\nThese were not simply words to the Founders, during the convention (4 December 1787), James Wilson (Delegate of Pennsylvania) said. . . . \n\n“ . . . Sir, I think there is another subject with regard to which this Constitution deserves approbation.  I mean the accuracy with which the line is drawn between the powers of the general government and those of the particular state governments.  We have heard some general observations, on this subject, from the gentlemen who conduct the opposition.  They have asserted that these powers are unlimited and defined.  They have already been answered by my honorable colleague, (Mr. M’Kean) therefore I shall not enter into an explanation.  But is is not pretended that the line is drawn with mathematical precision: the inaccuracy of the language must, to a certain degree, prevent the accomplishment of such desire.  Whoever views the matter in a true light, will see that the powers are as minutely enumerated and defined as was possible, and will also discover that the general clause, against which so much exception is taken, is nothing more than was necessary to render effectual the particular powers that are granted. . . ”\nContinuing he stated, “ . . . But let us suppose – and the supposition is very easy in the minds of the gentlemen on the other side – that there is some difficulty in ascertaining where the true line lies.  Are we therefore thrown into despair?  Are disputes between the general government and the state governments to be necessarily the consequence of inaccuracy? . . . ”\n\nMy point is that the Founders were both concerned and not of the same mind as to the consequences of the Constitution in the relationship between the general government and the several State governments.  This resulted in a wide difference as to the need of a Bill of Rights including the 10th Article.\n\nIt is also interesting to note that at the time of the convention, all States (colonies) had existing constitutions and these constitutions provided incentive to the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Here with one example, from The Declaration of Rights for the Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania. . . . . \n\n“Chapter I.  That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable Rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defining life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”\n\nEven after ratification differences arose and these few following selections from United States Supreme Court decisions demonstrate that reality.\n\nFrom the opinion of the U. S. Supreme Court case, Gordon v. United States [1864].  “The reservation to the States respectively can only mean the reservation of the rights of sovereignty which they respectively possessed before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and which had not parted from by that instrument.”\n\nAnd then in the case of Kansas v. Colorado [1907].  “This Amendment disclosed the widespread fear that the National Government might, under the pressure of a supposed general warfare, attempt to exercise powers which had not been granted.  With equal determination the framers intended that no such assumption should eve
36872
The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln, America's first Republican president.\n\n\nFour score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. \n\nNow we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. \n\nBut, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, shall not perish from the earth.
21811
Of course not. You should be the first one to obey the constitution because you swore to abide by it
195576
IMHO, the spirit of compromise imbedded in the document, and reinforced with checks and balances.  I.e., it exists at all because both ends of the political spectrum knew they couldn't get everything they wanted, so they compromised: everyone got something, and then built into the document the processes and mechanisms to ensure that future generations would be forced to compromise as well.  (Interesting that the one civil war we've had in the US was due to the founders' one failed compromise: the existence and spread of slavery.  They put it off 'til later, and so we had to fight it out.)  A bicameral legislature--each chosen differently--so legislation has to be worked out between them; an executive with some power over legislation but also subject to it; a court which has to be appointed by the executive and ratified by the legislature but then can overrule both; a system for amending the document that's doable but not easy; frequent, staggered elections to change the makeup of the executive & legislature...and so on.\n\nAlso IMHO, that's the danger with the current use of war powers to expand the executive: when the President, in the name of security and for the sake of expediency, argues that special circumstances entitle him to act without Congress, and not have to get court warrants for certain activities, he essentially subverts the mechanisms of the Constitution that have made it survive.  Compromise is no longer necessary; power and its exercise falls into fewer (and unchecked) hands; and the Constitution is potentially not so much repealed as simply ignored.
325011
You ask which "should" be the final set of rules to govern how we live in the USA. The clear implication is that you seek a value judgment, rather than a legal analysis. \n\nThe legal analysis is obvious -- the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The Bible is a religious text with no legal authority. \n\nHowever, if you believe that the Bible is the revealed, literal word of the Almighty, then clearly you have no choice but to prefer its dictates to the Constitution or any other man-made law. But, this is only the personal opinion of the believer. There is no object proof of the existence of God, nor can there ever be, because if God were provable by any scientifically valid experiment, God would instantly cease to be supernatural, i.e., cease to be God. \n\nSo, the answer is, that until God returns and demands that we follow His supreme laws, we must follow our own, and hope that our choices in making those laws are sufficiently wise to please the Lord of all hosts. \n\nIf not, then I'm fairly certain He will let each of us know in time.
441900
Well, each state had to ratify the Constitution before it became effective. So, the debates in each state determined whether the state supported it or not.\n\nSurely, you're looking for something more specific than that.