Constitutional Rights

[Gcront]

Constitutional Rights

We are now hearing much about our Constitutional Rights, a right that now should be studied and taught in our schools. We would have to go back much farther than our Foundering Fathers; this is a Constitution Right that our Forefathers brought here into our country. To find our original Constitution Foundation, you would have to go all the way back to the Creation of God.
The first Constitution Foundation was given unto us by our one and only God Jehovah, a Constitution Foundation from the Bible that first came to us in English in the year of fifteen thirty-five. Then after this came the Authorized King James Version of the Bible in the year of sixteen-eleven. This was filled by these very qualified fifty-four Bible Scholars, a Version of the Bible that was to follow some of the King James ancestors after their overthrow came here to America in their latter years.

This was and came after the downfall of the Stewart Kingdom over Scotland after a full two hundred and thirty-two years and also over Scotland and England both for another full one hundred and twelve years. We know that we can very easy trace our roots into the New World, by following the long hard road of our Christianity roots that our forefather had to follow.
Then the Puritan religious being a group of Protestants, which was then being expressed in England in the late A.D.1500’s. Then at first it was opposed by the officials of the Church of England, and also by the English government, which had the supervision over the religious affairs.

The first permanent English Colony in American was establish in Virginia in A.D.1607, this was in search for treasure and to spread the Christian faith among the Indians. This was named Jamestown in honor of King James I, the Puritans known as the Protestant also migrated to New England latter with Captain John Smith.
Then after Captain John Smith held the English Colony together, after what was a very bad winter, he had to return back to England for the treatment of a wound in 1609AD. Then after he returned back to America in A.D.1614, and explored and named what he had found New England.

Then he wrote a book being a description of New England, latter it was to become a guide for the Pilgrims here into the new country. Smith hoped to establish a permanent Colony in Massachusetts Bay, but bad luck prevented him.
The pilgrims while in England, they had also been a part of a body of the Protestants, which was called Puritans in the year of about the 1600AD. Some of the Puritans separated from the Church of England and had set up their own congregation then in A.D.1620 to A.D.1623. The pilgrims came to America seeking freedom of worship, as they pleased. But within their freedom of religion, there was still only one God, their one and only God Jehovah.

Our Constitution was first founded and studied by our Founding Fathers as early as seventeen eighty-three, they gladly working under the supervision coming from the word of God, this was as they drawled up the seven article of our Constitution. We know that many Bible scholars say or believe that the New World is not mention, anywhere in the Book of Revelation. And no Marvel; we know that if man can trace their own family tree, or roots back unto the old country.
Then we know that man can also truly trace their roots back, to what was once known, as the Holy Land of God. Our forefathers once fought and died for our religious rights, being the true word of our one and only true Godhead. We find that the many amendments has now over shadowed the seven Original Article that was handed down by forefathers, as sin has now invaded our country through this dark shadow.

Go to www.glorifiedchrist.com for more information.
God Bless You
Herbert Ogletree

 

[Pah]

While it is widely know that Plymouth Colony was established under strong religious principle, it is not readily known that when that colony was assumed under Massachusetts Bay Colony, the religious aspect of government was replaced with the Common Law from England. As far as I know, all other settlements in early American history also adopted common law as the framework of justice and government. This is what guided the Constitution's founding fathers.

References of English law during that time period.

In the Church of England, the Ecclesiastical Courts are a system of courts, held by authority of the Crown, whose holder is the Supreme Governor of the Church. The courts have jurisdiction over matters dealing with the rights and obligations of church members, now limited to controversies in areas of church property and ecclesiastical disciplinary proceedings. In England these courts, unlike common law courts, are based upon and operate along civil law procedures and canon law-based jurisprudence.

Offences against ecclesiastical laws are dealt with differently based on whether the laws in question involve church doctrine. For non-doctrinal cases, the lowest level of the court is the Archdeaconry Court, which is presided over by the local Archdeacon. The next court in the hierarchy is the Bishop's Court, which is in the archdiocese of Canterbury called the Commissiary Court and in other dioceses the Consistory Court. The Commissiary Court is presided over by a commissiary-general; a Consistory Court is presided over by a chancellor. The chancellor or commissiary-general must be thirty years old and either have been legally qualified for seven years or have held high judicial office.

The next court is the Archbishop's Court, which is in Canterbury called the Arches Court, and in York the Chancery Court. Each court includes five judges; one judge is common to both courts. The common judge is called the Dean of Arches in Canterbury and the Auditor in York; he is appointed jointly by both Archbishops with the approval of the Crown, and must either have been legally qualified for seven years or have held high judicial office. Two members of each court must be clergymen appointed by the Prolocutor of the Lower House of the provincial Convocation.[1] Two further members of each court are appointed by the Chairman of the House of Laity of the General Synod;[2] these must possess such legal qualifications as the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain requires.

In cases involving church doctrine, ceremony or ritual, the aforementioned courts have no jurisdiction. Instead, the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved hears the case. The Court is composed of three diocesan bishops and two appellate judges; it has jurisdiction over both of the provinces of Canterbury and York. The Court, however, meets very rarely.

Appeal from the Arches Court and Chancery Court (in non-doctrinal cases) lies to the Queen-in-Council. In practice, the case is heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which includes present and former Lord Chancellors, a number of Lords of Appeal and other high judicial officers. The Queen-in-Council does not have jurisdiction over doctrinal cases from the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved, which instead go to an ad hoc Commission of Review, composed of two diocesan Bishops and three Lords of Appeal (who are also members of the Judicial Committee). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_courts

Upon the theory that the English colonists carried with them the entire system of the English law as it existed at the time of their migration from the fatherland, the colonial courts adopted and acted upon the theory that each colony, at the very moment of its inception, was governed by the legal system of England including the juridical principles administered by the common law courts and by the High Court of Chancery. Thus, law and equity came hand in hand to America and have since been the common law of the former English colonies.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09068a.htm

English law has an evolving history dating from the local customs of the Anglo-Saxons, traces of which survived until 1925. After the Norman Conquest there grew up, side by side with the Saxon shire courts, the feudal courts of the barons and the ecclesiastical (church) courts. From the king’s council developed the royal courts, presided over by professional judges, which gradually absorbed the jurisdictions (legal powers) of the baronial and ecclesiastical courts. By 1250 the royal judges had amalgamated the various local customs into the system of common law – that is, law common to the whole country. A second system known as equity developed in the Court of Chancery, in which the Lord Chancellor considered petitions.
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0001170.html

Law in the United States, except for Louisiana is based on English Common Law which has it's origins in the Magna Carta not God's law.

 

[Scott1]

References of English law during that time period. Law in the United States, except for Louisiana is based on English Common Law which has it's origins in the Magna Carta not God's law.

Ummmm....

From the Preamble to the Magna Carta:

"John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciaries, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects, greetings. Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul, and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of his holy Church and for the rectifying of our realm, we have granted as underwritten by advice of our venerable fathers,"
(empasis mine)
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/magna-carta.html

I don't doubt your summation about the origin of US law... but you really think the Magna Carta is not a theistic document?

 

[Scott1]

As far as I know, all other settlements in early American history also adopted common law as the framework of justice and government. This is what guided the Constitution's founding fathers.

Yep... they sure did... I'm just not sure that you will like what that implies:

In the 1700's, Sir William Blackstone, a famous lawyer, set down these ideals as legal rights of the people in his famous Commentaries on the Laws of England. Also in the 1700's, colonists carried these English ideals on legal and political rights to America. The ideals eventually became part of the framework of the Constitution of the United States.
http://www.aolsvc.worldbook.aol.com/wb/Article?id=ar338140&st=Magna+Carta

Have you read any of Sir Blackstone's work?
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/

I don't think anyone would call him an "atheist"...

 

[Pah]

Ummmm....

From the Preamble to the Magna Carta:

I don't doubt your summation about the origin of US law... but you really think the Magna Carta is not a theistic document?

Not really. The guts of the document establish rights. The conclusion is indicative

63. Wherefore we will and firmly order that the English Church be free, and that the men in our kingdom have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and wholly, for themselves and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all respects and in all places forever, as is aforesaid. An oath, moreover, has been taken, as well on our part as on the art of the barons, that all these conditions aforesaid shall be kept in good faith and without evil intent. Given under our hand - the above named and many others being witnesses - in the meadow which is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June, in the seventeenth year of our reign.

Forham University says

The scope for extortion and abuse in this system, if it were not benevolently applied, was obviously great and had been the subject of complaint long before King John came to the throne. Abuses were, moreover, aggravated by the difficulty of obtaining redress for them, and in Magna Carta the provision of the means for obtaining a fair hearing of complaints, not only against the king and his agents but against lesser feudal lords, achieves corresponding importance.

About two-thirds of the clauses of the Magna Carta of 1215 are concerned with matters such as these, and with the misuse of their powers by royal officials. As regards other topics, the first clause, conceding the freedom of the Church, and in particular confirming its right to elect its own dignitaries without royal interference, reflects John's dispute with the Pope over Stephen Langton's election as archbishop of Canterbury: it does not appear in the Articles of the Barons, and its somewhat stilted phrasing seems in part to be attempting to justify its inclusion, none the less, in the charter itself. The clauses that deal with the royal forests (§§ 44, 47, 48), over which the king had special powers and jurisdiction, reflect the disquiet and anxieties that had arisen on account of a longstanding royal tendency to extend the forest boundaries, to the detriment of the holders of the lands affected. Those that deal with debts (§§ 9-1l) reflect administrative problems created by the chronic scarcity of ready cash among the upper and middle classes, and their need to resort to money-lenders when this was required. The clause promising the removal of fish-weirs (§ 33) was intended to facilitate the navigation of rivers. A number of clauses deal with the special circumstances that surrounded the making of the charter, and are such as might be found in any treaty of peace. Others, such as those relating to the city of London (§ 13) and to merchants (§ 41), clearly represent concessions to special interests.

As in the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta preamble is not depostitive to the type and purpose of the document. It's a common mistake made when claiming America was a Christian nation. The Magna Carta does, in the first clause seem to establish a freedom of religion but I don't think you'd call the First Amendment "theistic" even if it only contained the religious freed clauses

Added -

It seems that

Pope Innocent III replied favorably to King John's appeal. He condemned Magna Carta and declared it null and void.
http://www.crf-usa.org/Foundation_docs/Foundation_lesson_magna.html

Hardly a thing to do to a "theistic" document

 

[Pah]

Yep... they sure did... I'm just not sure that you will like what that implies:

Have you read any of Sir Blackstone's work?
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/

I don't think anyone would call him an "atheist"...

I'm not sure why you referenced the "Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769)". Was there a section in the 33 chapters that you think I would not like? In his introduction he makes clear the separation of common, civil, and ecclesiastical law.

But those gentlemen who intend to profess the civil and ecclesiastical laws, in the spiritual and maritime courts of this kingdom, are of all men (next to common lawyers) the most indispensably obliged to apply themselves seriously to the study of our municipal laws. For the civil and canon laws, considered with respect to any intrinsic" obligation, have no force or authority in this kingdom: they are no more binding in England than our laws are binding at Rome

and then goes on to detail the common law of the time

Should I also take note that Blackstone might well have not been an "Atheist" when he produced a book on common law? It is evident that in spite of the religious "affiliation" of our founding fathers that they produced a "godless" Constitution.

So what is your point about mentioning Blackstone?

 

[Scott1]

Not really. The guts of the document establish rights.

Not really? We'll have to disagree....

It seems that Hardly a thing to do to a "theistic" document

To the contrary, that the Papacy got involved shows me that it (Magna Carta) most certainly had more to it than the secular "guts".

Was there a section in the 33 chapters that you think I would not like? In his introduction he makes clear the separation of common, civil, and ecclesiastical law.

I guessed you missed the section about the basis of all common, civil, and ecclesial law = natural law.

Let me show you some "greatest hits":
Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being.

This will of his maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws.

This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other-It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.

Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.

You can try to force your view of a non-theist onto history, my friend.... but we'll just have to disagree on it.

Peace,
Scott

 

[Pah]

Not really? We'll have to disagree....

Aside from the preamble, I don't understand the basis of your disagreement.

To the contrary, that the Papacy got involved shows me that it (Magna Carta) most certainly had more to it than the secular "guts".

What was the reason Pope Innocent III got involved?

By a Bull dated 24 August at Anagni, Innocent III revoked the charter and later on excommunicated the rebellious barons. The motive of Innocent's actions are not far to seek. To begin with, he was probably misled as to the facts, and trusted too much to the king's account of what had happened. He was naturally inclined to protect the interests of a professed crusader and a vassal, and he took up the position that the barons could not be judges in their own cause, but should have referred the matter to him, the king's suzerain, for arbitration. But, more than this, he maintained quite correctly that the king had made the concessions under compulsion, and that the barons were in open rebellion against the Crown. It is indeed manifest that the charter could not have been a final settlement; it was accepted as such by neither extreme party, and even before the gathering at Runnymede had separated, the archbishop had grown suspicious of the executive committee of twenty-five. War over the French king's son, and, during the sixteen troubled months that intervened between the signing of the charter and the end of the reign, John had on the whole the advantage.

New Advent

It was secular power - not theology that concerned Pope Innocent III and from a bull on which he was ill advised.

I guessed you missed the section about the basis of all common, civil, and ecclesial law = natural law.

Let me show you some "greatest hits":
Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being.

This will of his maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws.

This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other-It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.

Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.

I guess you missed these stanzas

If man were to live in a state of nature, unconnected with other individuals, there would be no occasion for any other laws, than the law of nature, and the law of God.Blackstone

Municipal law, thus understood, is properly defined to be "a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the Supreme power in a state [the supreme power of a state is the government] commanding what is right, and prohibiting what is wrong."Blackstone

But municipal or civil law regards him also as a citizen, and bound to other duties towards his neighbor, than those of mere nature and religion: duties, which he has engaged in by enjoying the benefits of the common union: and which amount to no more, than that he do contribute, on his part, to the subsistence and peace of the society. Blackstone

The term is of English origin and is used to describe the juridical principles and general rules regulating the possession, use and inheritance of property and the conduct of individuals, the origin of which is not definitely known, which have been observed since a remote period of antiquity, and which are based upon immemorial usages and the decisions of the law courts as distinct from the lex scripta; the latter consisting of imperial or kingly edicts or express acts of legislation. That pre-eminent English lawyer and law-writer, Sir William Blackstone, states in his "Commentaries upon the Laws of England" that the common law consists of rules properly called leges non scriptœ, because their original institution and authority were not set down in writing as Acts of Parliament are, but they receive their binding power and the force of laws, by long immemorial usage, and by their universal reception throughout the kingdom; and, quoting from a famous Roman author, Aulus Gellius, he follows him in defining the common law as did Gellius the Jus non scriptum as that which is "tacito illiterato hominum consensu et moribus expressum" (expressed in the usage of the people, and accepted by the tacit unwritten consent of men)
New Advent

For when civil society is once formed, government at the same time results of course, as necessary to preserve and to keep that society in order. Unless some superior be constituted, whose commands and decisions all the members are bound to obey, they would still remain as in a state of nature, without any judge upon earth to define their several rights, and redress their several wrongs. But, as all the members which compose this society were naturally equal, it may be asked, in whose hands are the reins of government to be entrusted? To this the general answer is easy; but the application of it to particular cases has occasioned one half of those mischiefs, which are apt to proceed from misguided political zeal. In general, all mankind will agree that government should be reposed in such persons, in whom those qualities are most likely to be found, the perfection of which is among the attributes of him who is emphatically styled the supreme being; the three grand requisites, I mean, of wisdom, of goodness, and of power: wisdom, to discern the real interest of the community: goodness, to endeavor always to pursue that real interest; and strength, or power, to carry this knowledge and intention into action. These are the natural foundations of sovereignty, and these are the requisites that ought to be found in every well-constituted frame of government. New Advent

It seems that not only Blackstone but the Catholic Church itself that recognizes common law as something different from God's Law.

You can try to force your view of a non-theist onto history, my friend.... but we'll just have to disagree on it.

New Advent, I think at the bottom of each page but certainly at the bottom of the web page referenced

Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

 

[Scott1]

Like I said.. we'll have to agree to disagree...

Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Not sure what you were getting at with this quote..... do you know what Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur mean?

 

[michel]

[font=arial, verdana, sans-serif]As far as tghe Magna Carta is concerned, I don't know if this will help you guys:- From my perspective, it dealt as much with religion as to legislation.[/font]​

[font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][/font]​

[font=arial, verdana, sans-serif]The Magna Carta of 1215[/font]​

[font=arial, verdana, sans-serif]Why would a king - who was meant to be all powerful in his own country - agree to the demands of the barons who were meant to be below him in authority ?[/font]
​

[font=arial, verdana, sans-serif]England had for some years owned land in France. The barons had provided the king with both money and men to defend this territory. Traditionally, the king had always consulted the barons before raising taxes (as they had to collect it) and demanding more men for military service (as they had to provide the men). This was all part of the Feudal System. [/font]
​

[font=arial, verdana, sans-serif]While kings were militarily successful abroad, relations between the kings and the barons were good. John was not successful in his military campaigns abroad. His constant demands for more money and men angered the barons. By 1204, John had lost his land in northern France. In response to this, John introduced high taxes without asking the barons. This was against feudal law and accepted custom. [/font]
​

[font=arial, verdana, sans-serif]John made mistakes in other areas as well. He angered the Roman Catholic Church. The pope, angered by John's behaviour, banned all church services in England in 1207. Religion, and the fear of Hell, were very important to the people including the barons. The Catholic Church taught the people that they could only get to Heaven if the Catholic Church believed that they were good enough to got there. How could they show their goodness and love of God if the churches were shut ? Even worse for John was the fact that the pope excommunicated him in 1209. This meant that John could never get to Heaven until the pope withdrew the excommunication. Faced with this, John climbed down and accepted the power of the Catholic Church giving them many privileges in 1214.[/font]
​

[font=arial, verdana, sans-serif]1214 was a disastrous year for John for another reason. Once again, he suffered military defeat in an attempt to get back his territory in northern France. He returned to London demanding more money from taxes. This time the barons were not willing to listen. They rebelled against his power. The barons captured London. However, they did not defeat John entirely and by the Spring of 1215, both sides were willing to discuss matters. The result was the Magna Carta.[/font]
​

[font=arial, verdana, sans-serif]What did the Magna Carta bring in?[/font]
​

[font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][/font]
​

[font=arial, verdana, sans-serif]The document can be divided into sections :[/font]
​

[font=arial, verdana, sans-serif]The first clauses concern the position of the Catholic Church in England.[/font]
​

[font=arial, verdana, sans-serif]Those that follow state that John will be less harsh on the barons.[/font]
​

[font=arial, verdana, sans-serif]Many of the clauses concern England's legal system. [/font]
​

[font=arial, verdana, sans-serif]Magna Carta promised laws that were good and fair. It states that everyone shall have access to courts and that costs and money should not be an issue if someone wanted to take a problem to the law courts.[/font]
​

[font=arial, verdana, sans-serif]John, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, greeting.[/font]
​

[font=arial, verdana, sans-serif]Know that before God, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, Peter bishop of Winchester, Jocelin bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh bishop of Lincoln, Walter Bishop of Worcester, William bishop of Coventry, Benedict bishop of Rochester, Master Pandulf subdeacon and member of the papal household, Brother Aymeric master of the Knights of the Temple in England, William Marshal, earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warren, William earl of Arundel, Alan de Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin Fitz Gerald, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip Daubeny, Robert de Roppeley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and other loyal subjects:[/font]
​

[font=arial, verdana, sans-serif]

1. First, that we have granted to God, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity. We have also granted to all free men of our realm, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:
T​

[/font][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif]he "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed.[/font]
​

http://www.britannia.com/history/magna2.html

 

[Scott1]

Hehe.... I was wondering if Pah knows that.

 

[Pah]

Hehe.... I was wondering if Pah knows that.

Certainly do, Scott. That is the basis of "It was secular power - not theology that concerned Pope Innocent III and from a bull on which he was ill advised.".

I'd gladly join you in a thread discussing "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" in relation to the Magna Carta information in New Adbvent if you like. But this thread should stick to the premise that "Our Constitution was first founded and studied by our Founding Fathers as early as seventeen eighty-three, they gladly working under the supervision coming from the word of God, this was as they drawled up the seven article of our Constitution". My arguement is that it was not since it was common law that guided our founding fathers. Your counter to that was that common law was in fact "theistic" according to Blackstone. I showed where that interpretation was misguided and that the discussion follwing in Balackstone's book was secualr. You thought " We'll have to disagree.." thus closing yourself off to the arguements in Blakckstone and New Advent. I used the article from New Advent that directly disccussed common law. My statement, quoted above, was from New Advent material http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09531a.htm. "a Bull dated 24 August at Anagni". Disagree if you like, Scott, but it would be nice to know why in light of the new material. I find it hard to imagine that you would not take the renowned authority, New Advent, as factual, "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" or not.

 

[Scott1]

Certainly do, Scott. That is the basis of "It was secular power - not theology that concerned Pope Innocent III and from a bull on which he was ill advised.".

Michel's post was edited... the only thing I was responding to was the original.. that ONLY included the definition of "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur".

New Advent is not my only source of information... I have come to the conclusion that common law ... all law.....was based on the idea of Natural Law. Law only has "teeth" if it is backed up by something.... and that "teeth" was God and the idea of Natural Law.

You are much more educated on the topic than I, so forgive my lack of argumentation.... and again... we'll just have to disagree... if you'd like me to publicly proclaim victory for you, I'd be happy to start a new thread.

 

[Pah]

[/color]
Michel's post was edited... the only thing I was responding to was the original.. that ONLY included the definition of "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur".

New Advent is not my only source of information... I have come to the conclusion that common law ... all law.....was based on the idea of Natural Law. Law only has "teeth" if it is backed up by something.... and that "teeth" was God and the idea of Natural Law.

You are much more educated on the topic than I, so forgive my lack of argumentation.... and again... we'll just have to disagree... if you'd like me to publicly proclaim victory for you, I'd be happy to start a new thread.

Boy! This thread seems to be a spawning ground for new threads. There are several who consider "natural law", God's "natural law", to be documented in the Old Testament. If you concede that then there is no need for a new thread. But that consession would pretty much rend your conclusion. Inclusion of God in law would pretty much indicate that God should be included in everything "natural" and we know there are disclaimers to that proposition. New thread?

It must be very difficult to reconcile differing authoritative voices of the Church. But I see you done just that in denying New Advent.

I also don't mean to be harsh but an inarcticulated point is no point and, therefore, no discoursive conclusion. It is always, however, a matter of faith to recognize God as author of law. I can respect that in individuals but not as political argument.

Victory is not what I'm seeking but a correction of a misunderstanding. Perhaps others can voice the reasons why they think common law, at the time of our founding, is based on God's "natural" law. It certainly wasn't executed in our parent nation that way. England had separated theological law from secular law in the operation of her courts. That is history and should be recognized as the dominate philosophy of law that our founding fathers understood. Our founding fathers rejected the rule of kings and purposefully failed to include God in our Constitution while the churches in our young nation maintained separate courts of canon (and still). Sure sounds like a separation of church and state to me.

 

[Scott1]

It must be very difficult to reconcile differing authoritative voices of the Church. But I see you done just that in denying New Advent.

I will concede all on all points except this one.... like I said... you are much more educated on the topic.

... but there is only ONE authoritative voice of the Roman Catholic Church. If the Vatican does not put it out, it's not 100% binding in every case.

New Advent is a commercial website onwned by a layman... it quotes a Catholic Encyclopedia NOT written by the Church.... the The "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" DO NOT mean that it is official.