Strict Constructionists

That is why I said "The 9th Amendment, together with the 10th Amendment...". Who is the 9th amendment protection those individual rights from? I believe the 9th Amendment is protecteting those rights from being attacked by those in government who would say, they are not enumerated so we can legislate against them.

 

The D of I is not a document of law. </font>[/QUOTE]The Supreme Court declared in 1897, the Constitution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

The Constitution itself connects itself to the Declaration of Independence by dating itself from the date of the Declaration of Independence, thereby showing clearly that it is the second great document in the government of these United States and is not to be understood without the first.

Article. VII.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

The Founders believed the Declaration was the foundational document in our Constitutional form of government. The Founders dated their government acts from the year of the Declaration rather than the Constitution. The date of the Declaration of Independence was the recognized date of Sovereignty and Independence of the United States.

In the Declaration, the Founders established the foundation and the core values on which the Constitution was to operate. The Constitution was never to be interpreted apart from those values expressed in the Declaration.

Samuel Adams pointed out: Before the formation of this Constitution this Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union, and has never been disannulled.

Well into the twentieth century, the Declaration and the Constitution were viewed as inseparable and interdependent. While the Court's change of standards has perhaps been a display of poor judgment, the Court's actions have actually been illegal under the standards of original intent. Furthermore they have violated the value system of "the laws of nature and of nature's God" established in the Declaration of Independence.

Source: Constitution Connected To the Declaration of Independence

 

Are you kidding? Companies get sued every year, and lose, over the issue of employees free speech rights.</font>[/QUOTE]Just because companies get sued and the courts rule in favor of the plaintiff doesn't automatically mean that those courts are properly interpreting the First Amendment and the US Constitution. More and more we are seeing courts ignoring the Constitution and trying to create laws, by doing this they are in violation of the Constitution and acting illegally.

Using your logic then a Christian publishing company should be required by law to hire Muslims to work at their business.

 

The case in question was regarding the awarding of attorney's fees. The reference you cite is in a justice's opinion and states very clearly that the constitional decisions DO NOT cite the D of I as law, and in fact the opinion says that the D of I "...may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty..." The opinion only discusses whether or not attorneys fees have their place in a society where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are saught.

Thay did not at all. In fact, you completely omit that the Constitution was the second attempt at a governmental body of law. The fist was the Articles of Confederation, which proved to be ineffective.

That's untrue. The founders dated from the year of their independence as an independent nation, not as a reference to the D of I.

Really? Several amendments containing phrases referring to the D of I were were drafted and rejected, including amendments referring to God, all ultimately replaced with Amendment I.

He was not referring to a body of law. In fact, the Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution. The D of I is not codified or cited as law in any Constitutional opinion. And SCOTUS has had every opportunity to do so, since the D of I is mentioned in over 100 SCOTUS opinions, but never as law or as codified citation.

Not as matters of law. The D of I has never been viewed as a document of law. In fact, declarations dna resolutions in general have no legal standing.

The line in the D of I referrs to depriving a person the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The catalist for that was taxation without representation, when they felt deprived a person of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution is a completely separate document that neither references the D of I as law, nor attempts to codify the D of I itself. So attempting to declare somethign as illegal because it does not conform to the D of I is like declaring something unscriptural because it does not conform to the apocrypha.

 

No, religious-based companies are protected under Amendment I 's freedom of religion clause. For example, the SBC is allowed to hire only SBC members as employees. A Methodist university is allowed to hire only methodist teachers. That has been continually upheld by the courts for over 150 years.

 

It looks like this is an issue that you and I will never agree on, it seems you hold the "living document" view of the Constitution and I hold the "strict constructionists" view. Based on all of my studies I believe the founding fathers did indeed view the Declaration as our nations charter and the Constitution was written and ratified with that in mind, you don't. I believe the majority of our founders were in fact Christians, and even those that I have questions about still acknowledge God as the scouce of all rights.

What about a Christian owned business that doesn't claim any one denomination, but has a practice of hiring only Christians, should they be required to hire Muslims or Hindus?

 

Not really, I tend to adhere to the constuctionist view, to the point where, even if the constitutional law sucks and needs to be changed, we need to adhere to it nonetheless, until it is amended.

Take a citizenship or government class. You'll find you're in error. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and beholden to no other.

Amendment I does not require a denominational affiliation as a litmus test. If a Christian (even if not affiliated with a denomination or church group) is running a nonsecular company and wants to hire only like-minded Christians, he is constitutionally protected.

 

I agree that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, but I also understand that only one that acknowledges that all rights are given to us by God alone is able to properly understand and interpret the Constitution. I would assume that many that teach these citizenship and government classes don't have a proper understanding of the Constitution because of Humanism.

What would define a "nonsecular company", what if I as a Christian Internet consultant who owns a Internet hosting company that host both Christian web sites and secular business web sites, chooses only to hire Christians to work with and for me, should that be allowed?

 

JG,

That is why I said "The 9th Amendment, together with the 10th Amendment...".

You're right, I misread your quote. 'Sorry, and thanks.


Johnv,

Are you kidding? Companies get sued every year, and lose, over the issue of employees free speech rights.

But you said, "Then you'll have to change the first amendment." These suits are based on the Supreme Court's "changing" of the First Amendment, not the First Amendment's language.

 

I disagree, for that would place a higher authority for interpretation above the Constitution, and result in misapplication of the Constitution in the same manner (though possibly a different outcome) that you point to as having happenned. The only authority that the Constitution is beholden to is the Constitution itself, and a justice should not look to any other source for Constitional interp[retation except for the Constitution itself.

I think that's a farfetched claim. Constitutional understanding stands on its own.

If you're operating as a Christian company, which I think this would qualify, then I think this is permissible. I'm admittedly not abundantly familiar with the limits of such, but I do know that such companies do exist, and are Constitutionally protected as such.

No, these suits are based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment. The interpretation has been upheld numerous times over the last 100 years and more. The Constitution expressly permits SCOTUS from interpreting the Constitution. I see no basis for presuming that the employment cases referenced were not Constitutional.

 

Does that include the right of a secular employer to discriminate against a person's religion? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes. In a society that respects the legitimate "rights" of individuals, it does.

Every person has the right to practice their religion and use their property as they fit. They do not have the right to dictate limits to conscience and property rights to others. That includes sceular employers.

The right to practice religion and do what you want ends at the doorstep of the business that grants you the privilege of employment. Employers as individuals with rights should not lose their rights just because someone wants the benefits of working for them.

Liberals have made up "the right" to employment. It directly conflicts with and contradicts property rights.

 

Because unless one's religion is a part of the workplace, one's constitutional right to worship are infringed if you are required to change them in order to secure employment.j</font>[/QUOTE] That's absolutely ridiculous.

Employment is not a right. They aren't being forced to change religion. They are being denied the privilege of employment which is a legitimate right of an employer in the practice of their own religious liberty.

What the government has effectively done is trample all over the rights of the employer to act according to his/her conscience with regard to religion. Government has told employers that you must not consider this as a factor regardless of what you believe on the subject.

Are you kidding? Companies get sued every year, and lose, over the issue of employees free speech rights.</font>[/QUOTE] But they shouldn't. That's the point. The Constitution primarily set boundaries for government. A person has rights even if they happen to be an employer. Those rights should not be suspended just because someone else wants a benefit.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

But would any of these companies attract the kind of employees they need to be successful? If the press did its real job and exposed these businesses, would they be able to stay in business?

If so then we are simply too lazy and apathetic to be free.

 

No, religious-based companies are protected under Amendment I 's freedom of religion clause. For example, the SBC is allowed to hire only SBC members as employees. A Methodist university is allowed to hire only methodist teachers. That has been continually upheld by the courts for over 150 years. </font>[/QUOTE]Shouldn't be necessary. Any free individual should be able to act according to their own conscience with regard to their own property and the activities that take place on it.

 

&gt;We are given rights by our creator.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

You said that being employed is not a right. If that's true, then empoying someone is likewise not a right.

But it also guarantees a person's rights, and does not give persons the right to infringe another's constitutional rights.

True, but just as certain rights for an employee stop at the front door of business, certain rights for an employer stop at that same front door of business.

That's not the issue at hand. The issue is whether a person's rights are constitutionally protected from an empoyer. They are.

 

huh?

 

Daisy,

This is the basis, imo, for the right to privacy. Just because it was not among the enumerated rights should not mean it does not belong to people.

I'm a little worried--we actually agree on something, but not completely, if I had to guess. I do believe that a right to privacy exists but it is not absolute and is balanced against the states' Tenth Amendment police powers; e.g., I believe that states do have a right to regulate morality within their borders as in prohibiting homosexual conduct, but I don't believe that it gives them the right to tear down doors. I think that Texas's situation in Lawrence v. Texas is an example of that balance. They went in to investigate a call. The law thereby also serves the purpose of setting standards of behavior.

That balance between the two amendments and the federalist system also means that standards can vary between states.

 

Wow, I pretty much agree with fromtheright's statement.

 

What the government has effectively done is trample all over the rights of the employer to act according to his/her conscience with regard to religion. Government has told employers that you must not consider this as a factor regardless of what you believe on the subject.

If you look back through case law history. The courts afforded Congress this right under the Commerce Clause of Article I sec. 8 of the constitution. If a business operates in more than one state, has out of state customers, etc. then Congress has the power to regulate. The Due Process Clause of the 5th ammendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th applied to the government only, not individuals. Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applied these ammendments to private individuals under the Commerce Clause. In this day and age it is highly unlikely that a business would not operate in one state alone so the rights do apply to employees of private businesses. Case law has upheld this doctrine for years.