Last edited:
Keep "In God we trust" on our money.....
- Thread starter Mafesto
- Start date
More intriguing dialogue from a guy that has no clue other than what people have told him to think....
and this coming from someone that isn't capable of thinking...
That is open for debate... but for you, it's already a done deal. You've exposed your intellect on many pages and the opinions that were formed are now backed by a simple fact that you don't know what you're talking about.
And in keeping with your democratic process, you should start a poll on Snwest asking for others to comment and see if I'm right about how incredibly mis-guided you are most of the time...
ha ha... you crack me up...
I think the quotes show the founders view, as for the "no God We Trust" Sinc the federal courts have found all all kinds of government rights not anywhere in the constitution I guess I would have to accept but I don't think you will ever get enough people to vote that one in. I think Mtm7 made it clear where does it state you can't?
Originally Posted by ruffryder
That is correct. But then why is a religious saying on the coins, and in public places? Would you take offense if it said "In no god we trust"?
Where does the constitution state that you can put spiritual phrases in the govern
Northwest Glacier Cruisers
John Quincy Adams
“ The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: It connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”
“ The United States of America were no longer colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swampwater
as that is democratic process and we are a republic, a government of laws and not of men. Swampy
Technically it is a democratic republic.. We democratically choose the people to represent us.
Government of laws and not of men? So what would you say about government of god? And didn't men create the laws in the first place?
__________________
Northwest Glacier Cruisers
No we were founded as a representative republic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountain-powder-slut
Shouldn't government represent the people? The majority of the people? Not the minority!
I read represent not rule however I think MPS would probably agree it should read represent all citizens. Swampy
Originally Posted by ruffryder
That is correct. But then why is a religious saying on the coins, and in public places? Would you take offense if it said "In no god we trust"?
Where does the constitution state that you can put spiritual phrases in the govern
Northwest Glacier Cruisers
John Quincy Adams
“ The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: It connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”
“ The United States of America were no longer colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swampwater
as that is democratic process and we are a republic, a government of laws and not of men. Swampy
Technically it is a democratic republic.. We democratically choose the people to represent us.
Government of laws and not of men? So what would you say about government of god? And didn't men create the laws in the first place?
__________________
Northwest Glacier Cruisers
No we were founded as a representative republic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountain-powder-slut
Shouldn't government represent the people? The majority of the people? Not the minority!
I read represent not rule however I think MPS would probably agree it should read represent all citizens. Swampy
Last edited:
M
MPS
Well-known member
Sure I agree that government should represent all citizens on a daily basis. However, it cannot represent everyone when a democratic issue is voted on. For example, when gay marriage did not pass in CA....then it should continue to be banned. The CA government cannot represent those that supported it can they? ...by allowing them to get married? No...they can be empathetic and say oh that sucks for you...good luck if you get the proposal through again. ...and lets not get off on a tangent about gay marriage ok Ruffy? ....i know you like to do that....get off on tangents that is! hahahaha 
Did I clarify what I meant?
Did I clarify what I meant?Bingo I think you might be getting it. The constitution is a contract between the states and the federal government. It gave the federal government certain powers as listed beyond which the federal government could not transgress, the rest was left to the people and the states. The problem is the federal government refuses to stay within limited powers, thanks of course to the federal judiciary and the passing of the seventeenth amendment.Swampy
Bingo I think you might be getting it. The constitution is a contract between the states and the federal government. It gave the federal government certain powers as listed beyond which the federal government could not transgress, the rest was left to the people and the states. The problem is the federal government refuses to stay within limited powers, thanks of course to the federal judiciary and the passing of the seventeenth amendment.Swampy
ahh thats probably what he(ruffy) was asking... man did i miss that...ooops!
oh yeah good job swampy!
My only argument is the california government is moving beyond it's jurisdiction even in entertainning any legislation regarding marriage, that is not within their jurisdiction. Unfortunately all governmental agencies love to step outside their lawful jurisdictions. I haven't read the california constitution but I am sure therer is no mention of definition of marriage anywhere in it. Swampy
Sure I agree that government should represent all citizens on a daily basis. However, it cannot represent everyone when a democratic issue is voted on. For example, when gay marriage did not pass in CA....then it should continue to be banned. The CA government cannot represent those that supported it can they? ...by allowing them to get married? No...they can be empathetic and say oh that sucks for you...good luck if you get the proposal through again. ...and lets not get off on a tangent about gay marriage ok Ruffy? ....i know you like to do that....get off on tangents that is! hahahaha
M
MPS
Well-known member
My only argument is the california government is moving beyond it's jurisdiction even in entertainning any legislation regarding marriage, that is not within their jurisdiction. Unfortunately all governmental agencies love to step outside their lawful jurisdictions. I haven't read the california constitution but I am sure therer is no mention of definition of marriage anywhere in it. Swampy
very true...they did step out of their jurisdiction by entertaining that and very good definition of how the Constitution was set up...that is exactly how it was set up and the federal government has become way to large and powerful....the exact fear of our founding fathers!
