Are we sure that any of these men who said the Constitution is “divinely inspired” mean the same thing as theologians when they talk about the plenary inspiration of scripture? Perhaps they just mean it was written by godly men inspired by divine principles? Or maybe even they mean the writers were empowered by the Holy Spirit much in the same way any Christian, on any given day, would give credit to God for empowering them for their good deeds?
“Divinely inspired” – Awkward wording that causes unnecessary confusion? Yes. A real issue? I don’t know…seems like grasping at straws.

Wonders,
Please see post 28 for a small list of right wingers saying the Constitution was devinely inspired. The point is not whether or not this is a phrase you use, the point is that this type of rhetoric has been quite common on the right for a while now. It’s odd that all in the sudden Ron Paul is ‘creepy’ for using it.

I saw no reply to my post. Do you then concede the point Joe that allowing the gov’t to decide WHEN something becomes human it also grants the gov’t the power to decide WHEN something is no longer human. If so, do you still support this amendment and why?

Joe wrote;
“Fortunately, WORLD magazine publisher Joel Belz put his finger on what has bothers me about Romney’s Mormonism: “
I too am bothered by Mormonism. Be it Romney’s or anyone elses. My vote for Romney -will- -not- -be- an endorsement of his religious beliefs. The same would be true if I wer to vote for Thomas Jefferson.

I saw no reply to my post. Do you then concede the point Joe that allowing the gov’t to decide WHEN something becomes human it also grants the gov’t the power to decide WHEN something is no longer human. If so, do you still support this amendment and why?
To be fair to Joe I think the response would be that gov’t isn’t assuming the power to declare anything human but is simply recognizing something a human.
Baggi
So from what I understand from what Andrew is saying, Mitt said the constitution was an inspired document. That could mean all sorts of things once you’ve taken off the divine part of inspired.
From what I’ve read this was part of a minor eruption over what appears to be a Mormon doctrine of considering the constitution to be inspired.
Do you have the quote of Romney so that we might judge for ourselves what he has said about the constitution?
Sorry I don’t. I’m sure Google can dig into that quote issue better than I can. If I have time today I’ll try to dig something better up if you really want me to but I’m not sure I will.

AJ-Again, it’s impossible to see how Romney’s Mormonism is relevant to whether one should vote for him. How is this different from the Dems going after Roberts and Alito because of their Catholicism? The evangelical right, I see, still has a little Norman Vincent Peale in it-he led the charge against Kennedy in 1960, based on religion. This is, pure and simple, bigotry.
As Luther said, “I’d rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian.”
So I guess you didn’t understand my sola fide/scriptura reference-I couldn’t possibly care less whether Mike Huckabee is a five point Calvinist, Wesleyan, or anything else. I wouldn’t criticize the solas, except as a matter of their being ahistorical, unbiblical doctrines (read James, for ex., on sola fide-should settle the question for all not wedded to a personal agenda. But private intepreation necessarily leads to such agendas.)
But in any case I don’t care that Guiliani is a lapsed Catholic, that McCain may or not be a Baptist, or that Hillary is a liberal-minded Methodist. For all we know she has the deepest Christian faith of anyone running.
Is Stephen Breyer a rotten Justice because he’s Jewish? Stevens and Souter because they’re Protestants? It does happen that all teh good guys on the Court are Catholic, but that’s a happy accident, unfortunately.
I care about people’s positions on this issues, and about their personal lives only to the extent that their integrity is at issue.
The only Republican candidate I would not consider is Rudy, because of abortion.
Joe’s lapse into bigotry is, one hopes, out of character. If it persists, one hopes he will be removed from any positions he holds in Christian organizations.

“…his dramatic changes on so many issues for convenience sake is consistent with Mormonism in general.”
Really? No state is more consistently conservative, to an excessive degree in fact, than Mormon Utah. Saying Mormons tend to waver in their beliefs is empirically silly, and a thin cover for a bigotted attack.
Lest there be any confusion, my own preferred candidate is John McCain.

Regarding your comments on Romney:
More stupid anti-Mormon bigotry. Where Belz sees wavering on Mormon beliefs on the part of the LDS church leaders is beyond me. Just shows Belz’s weakness in finding fault where there is none, just because he WANTS to find fault. Our country is going to hell in a handbasket, with no help from people like Belz who can unfortunately give all evangelicals a bad name with this kind of attitude, and frankly I’m sick and tired of it, and it causes me to despair over the future of our society. I fear for the future of our country when the conservatives who desperately need to be sticking together fight among themselves over petty prejudiced fault-finding and stupid thick-headed negative tendencies to condemn, accuse and bear false witness against ones neighbors, in this case anything or anyone that has anything to do with Mormonism. Just like the athiests, such as Christopher Hitchens, who condemn and find fault with all religion, especially Christianity, and can see nothing good in it, so do people like Belz find fault with Mormonism, and can see nothing good in it. The attitude is the same. Both put blinders on, so to speak, and are quick to criticize and judge things they don’t understand, and to second-guess people without even once trying to put themselves in their shoes and to understand them. This is probably a waste of time to write this, as most people who frequent this website are probably of the same mind-set as Belz, but it just really pushes my buttons when people attack my faith, one which has made a huge difference in my life, and one which enhances and enlightens my sensitivity to God’s guidance and love for all of His children. We cannot explain everything, and aren’t meant to be able to in this life, but we have enough positive assurances and experiences based on our faith in God. To deny those experiences, just because one can’t always explain everything, would be a fool’s errand, and would be like sacrifice one’s birthright for a “mess of pottage”. God doesn’t give us all the answers for good reason. We have to want to believe in Him, and have to seek after truth, otherwise we won’t appreciate it and won’t learn to be what we truly desire, not what someone else wants us to be. I try to raise my children to be sensitive to God’s guidance, to respect and love others and God, to be good citizens, to be chaste, to be honest, and try to be a good example to them. When someone attacks my faith that teaches these things to me and my children, it bothers me a great deal, and it makes me want to “fix it”, as I am a methodical perfectionist who wants to correct error. This same tendency also makes me want to prove and explain everything in life, but I have learned by experience that it is from our spiritual experiences, answers to prayers, practicing what we believe, that we draw closer to God, and these are the things that really change our hearts and make us better people, in other words wisdom is really what makes us better and more capable people, not knowledge: how we use our knowledge, not knowledge in and of itself.
-Phil

With all due respect Phil, please stop your bellyaching. No one is attacking your faith. While your religion is surely false, it’s really your whining that offends me.
Look, the issue is NOT whether there’s anything good in Mormonism. There certainly is much good in Mormonism – although those good things aren’t exclusively Mormon, so it’s more correlation than causation. The issue is whether Mormonism is true or false. And coming to the conclusion that your faith is false and the organization you belong to is a pseudo-Christian cult, and saying so openly, is not attacking you or the organization you represent. Please drop the persecution complex and start to engage the issues openly and honestly.

Boonton:
It’s the third element where Congress takes away the power of judicial review from the courts so those harmed by unconstitutional wiretaps have no outlet to sue.
It is more interesting than that.
Judge Andrew Napolitano from Fox News:

Not only that, but the Patriot Act makes it a felony for the recipient of a self-written search warrant to reveal it to anyone….This creates a Soviet-style conundrum for the recipient, who can’t even tell his or her lawyer or general counsel about getting the search warrant. You can’t hire outside counsel to challenge it, you can’t mention it to your spouse on the pillow, to your priest in confession—not even to a federal judge in a federal courtroom where all language except perjury should be permitted.

Huckabee is a populist. I don’t like populists.

In all this talk of Ron Paul here, I’m surprised nobody else is troubled by his racist/white supremacist past.

Ron Paul-
“He may be pro-life and pro-marriage, but don’t expect him to do anything if a state like New York or California wants to keep on killing babies — or if a state like Massachusetts or Oregon wants to perform gay marriages or hand out civil unions.”
And rightly so. Are you trying to elect a President or a King?
And Mitt Romney is the new Pete Wilson.

Romney took the same position as Thompson on abortion in March. He flipped again in August.
Vowing to support a ban on embryonic stem cells, voting against late-term abortion and cloning seem strange positions for a pro-choice candidate to take. I’m sure NARAL is all set to endorse him in the Republican primary.

Are we missing something? I know of only two lines of reasoning why anyone would think this…
Wikipedia has the most likely explanation for the Ron Paul = Nazi charge. In 1996 during a tough race it came out that a newsletter he published (the Ron Paul Survival Report) had a lot of ‘problematic’ statements such as a claim that 95% of all black men in DC were either criminals or ‘semi-criminals’. Paul asserted that a ghostwriter had written the newsletter and he did not believe any of the statements but took ‘moral responsibility’ for it. Two magazines, Texas Monthly and the New York Times Magazine, agreed that Paul’s denials were credible since the statements never matched anything in his record as a Congressman.
A more recent accsation has surfaced because one of his numerous internet donators turned out to be a neo-nazi type. Some of his critics have argued that he should return the $500 contribution. I think Andrew Sullivan put it nicely when he said that if Paul should give back a donation that came in off his website then Rudy should renounce the support of Pat Robertson.
Since the writer of the post has declined to tell us what he meant I’m assuming one of these two charges must be what he was thinking about. While I’m not a supporter of Ron Paul I don’t think either charge is sufficient to call him a nazi.

I did not have time tonight to read through all the comments, but I wanted to add something to the discussion.
On Oct. 27th I went to a Ron Paul meeting in the Cloud Room at the Des Moines Airport. The meeting was intended to be with church leaders. It was not well attended. Since there was a small crowd I was able to ask several questions.
I asked Dr. Paul directly in front of these church leaders about the “divinely Inspired” statement.
While I can not quote him verbatim, his answer was in effect as follows. “I do not believe the Constitution is divinely inspired, that was a poor choice of words. I believe the principles in the Constitution are directly dependent upon Biblical principles, and natural law.” ” I have been asked numerous times about that statement and wish I had worded it differently, however to change it was impractical so I simply answer the questions, and explain what I meant when someone asks.”
Two things I liked about his answer to me. First, he admitted it was a mistake, didn’t try to weasel out of it, and second the position he takes is exactly as I believe it should be. The principles of the Constitution are rooted/founded in Scripture and natural law. They have a Biblical foundation.
Joe, where in the Constitution is there any authority for the federal government to be involved in education?? We currently have a president who ignored the Constitution with regards to education, how is Mike H. going to be any different???

“The general welfare clause has become the standard excuse for controlling our lives, and as such, it shows how ignorance and deception have become an important part of today’s America.
James Madison is the Constitution’s acknowledged ‘father,’ and here’s what he had to say: ‘With respect to the two words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.’
Thomas Jefferson echoed similar sentiments, ‘Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.’
Mandated housing expense payroll deductions and exercise were simply hypothetical examples. A congressman, who took his oath of office seriously, would argue a congressional mandate for exercise and payroll deductions for housing expenses are not among those powers ‘specifically enumerated.’ What about mandated payroll deductions for retirement expenses? What about mandated gallons per flush for our toilets? What about prescription drugs for seniors?
In short, what about the thousands of congressional mandates and the three-quarters of the federal budget for which there’s no constitutional authority? You might say, ‘If our Constitution provides no authority for programs near and dear to the hearts of so many Americans, the heck with the Constitution.’
If that’s your perspective, you’re in good company. The Courts, Congress and the White House beat you to it. Long ago they said, ‘The heck with the Constitution.’”
- Dr. Walter Williams, Professor of Economics, George Mason University

By this reasoning there general is so general that it means. Interstate commerce, for example, effects some people a lot and other people very little. Ditto for lots of other policies. Education impacts just about every person in the US since we are almost all students at some point in our lives (unless we got here as adults) or will have kids here who will be or are students.
Jay D’s reasoning would be like saying people who breath oxygen or who have two feet are a special interest. Nice try.
AJ
I’m not sure what you’re talking about with “Mandated housing expense payroll deductions and exercise were simply hypothetical examples”. Did you just happen to cut and paste something from somewhere else without reading it?
While Madison is an important source to consult about the Constitution he is hardly a devine source. Jefferson had to confront the Louis. Purchase and the fact that it would be difficult to find a specifically enumerated power that would either allow him to negotiate it and allow the Congress to pay for it.
Some of the other hypotheticals/real examples you give seem to ignore the demand you would make. For example, “what about mandated gallons per flush for our toilets?”. Well the regulation of interstate commerce is specifically enumerated and banning certain types of toilets from interstate commerce would therefore fit. Perhaps its a silly thing to regulate but then isn’t that a decision for the political process to make through debate and voting?
Sorry, the reading you would have us put on ‘general welfare’ is unworkable and while Madison’s writing on what he meant is important it’s not the same thing as what was actually written. The ratifying states and committee that wrote the Constitution never voted on the text as written, they never voted Madison as King of its meaning.

farmer,
That was a typo on my part, I meant to write “they voted on the text as written, they never voted Madison as King of its meaning”.
Madison is not ‘the writer’. He was an important contributor to the Constitution but it simply tossing about a few quotes from him does not make your case. Jefferson didn’t even take part in writing the Constitution, in fact he argued against its adoption if memory serves me correctly.
The Constitution gives the general welfare as one of the purposes or goals to which Congress it to use its powers. Its powers are to tax and to spend (that’s a top level summary of course). This is how it ‘intervenes’ in education, by spending. What determines the general welfare is a political question decided at the ballot box, by the debate of the legislative and the veto power of the executive.

Boonton, in your reading of the “general welfare” clause in particular and Article I, Section 8, in general, what can’t the federal government do? Also, what would be the point of enumerating certain powers in Article I, Section 8, if your reading of the “general welfare” clause is the correct and most reasonable one?
And I did cut and paste the quote, hence the quotation marks and the name of the person quoted at the end. The point of course is that Congress legislates in areas where they have no authority to legislate.
Now, I don’t dispute the fact that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, i.e., commerce “among the several states.” I also recognize that Congress has used this power, and the Supreme Court has largely allowed it to use this power, to legislate in areas they don’t have the constitutional authority to. Thankfully, the Rehnquist Court began to put Congress in check in this area. Hopefully the Roberts Court will follow suit.

Boonton: “The ‘general welfare’ is the mission statement and the enumerated powers are the tools to accomplish it. What can’t the fed. Gov’t do? Well it can’t use powers it doesn’t have. It can’t violate the Bill of Rights or other amendments. It cannot take powers from the other branches of gov’t, states or individuals etc.”
Great. So back to education for a moment. I have the Constitution in front of me, and I am looking specifically at Article I, Section 8. Where again in Article I, Section 8, does Congress find its authority to regulate and subsidize education?
Boonton: “Unlikely, look what happened with the partial birth abortion ban and medical uses of pot.”
I agree to some extent. Lopez and Morrison were small steps forward, but Raich was certainly a step back. It will probably take a couple of years to see exactly where the Roberts court will go on this issue.

I also forgot, the first line:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
There’s an idea here that the words are all supposed to mean something. It sounds to me like you would have ‘general welfare’ mean everything else in the section except itself…in other words its just some redundant ‘flowerly’ language added for effect.
But that’s not how it was viewed. Those who originally adopted the Constitution understood that it was being vague rather than specific about what Congress could do AND they also were quite familiar with legislatures. They knew the English Parliment enacted a wide array of various ‘social ideas’ as did state legislatures. If they wanted to have a limited Congress rather than a broad based one they could have enacted such restrictions in the Bill of Rights (remember the lack of a Bill of Rights was a major sore point with skeptics of the Constitution).
As far back as 1785 Congress was providing for public schools with the Land Ordinance of 1785. And needless to say it’s pretty hard to see where the Louisanna Purchase could have come from if not ‘general welfare’….unless you’re going to stretch defense to include it, in which case you might as well toss education into that clause as well!

Hopefully everyone has the Constitution in front of them and sees what Boonton is doing.
First, he hits the opening of Article I, Section 8, specifically the “general welfare” clause. Then he completely skips over all of the clauses in this section that expressly enumerate those particular powers delegated to Congress. Finally, he lands on the necessary and proper clause.
His conclusion? Congress can do anything that’s necessary and proper to provide for the general welfare. The problem with this conclusion is that it is textually unsound and it completely destroys the concept of limited government.
“But I thought Boonton said Congress is limited?” you may ask. You would be right, and you would then have to remember that inconsistency is the sure sign of a failed argument.

Trust me. Federal Government education programs do not contribute to my welfare. I do not plan on having any children who will attend government school. Just because I am a minority in that regard doesn’t mean this doesn’t mean Federal Government education programs are “general” (non-specific).
Jay D
That may be true but it is irrelevant. Your standard that gov’t must be ‘non-specific’ is not in the Constitution and would be a very foreign idea to any generation of Americans from the founding all the way up to the present day. I doubt any policy ever adopted by the Fed. gov’t could meet your definition of ‘non-specific’.
AJ
“But I thought Boonton said Congress is limited?” you may ask. You would be right, and you would then have to remember that inconsistency is the sure sign of a failed argument.
The first sentence clearly states “Congress shall have POwer To…” and then “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare”
Every other clause are additions to this list. True some overlap such as the power to raise an army and also a seperate power to maintain a navy but there’s NOTHING to indicate that the two are headings. In other words, there’s nothing to indicate that there’s two groups of powers (general welfare and common defense) and the 17 ‘to’s should all be sorted into one of those two headings. Is congress limited? Sure it is, it can only use the tools provided for it. So it may raise an army but it may not do so with a bill that has a term longer than two years. It may tax and spend but taxes must be ‘uniform’ (as in exposts and imposts).
His conclusion? Congress can do anything that’s necessary and proper to provide for the general welfare. The problem with this conclusion is that it is textually unsound and it completely destroys the concept of limited government.
As I pointed out Congress started providing for education all the way back in 1785. The Lo Purchase is not clearly delinated here except as an expansion of general welfare (or maybe defense). No doubt you can find dozens of other examples of ‘general welfare’ policies that were quickly considered or enacted that likewise cannot be targetted to one of those 17 ‘To’s. Off the top of my head consider land grants, the national banks, Hamilton’s industrial plans, corporations, and so on. The Founders and voters of the time were well aware that legislatures considered and undertook all types of ideas, schemes and policies to ‘promote general welfare’. If they wanted a Congress limited to a just a handful of policy options they had every opportunity to either articulate that specifically in the original Constitution or clarrify that in the Bill of Rights.
It is AJ that actually wants to read the Constitution in a manner that simply destroys some of the language that is in it by reducing it to some type of ‘executive summary’ of what is to follow.

This just in (from over at Slacktivist’s LB blog):
Tim “Rayford Steele” LaHaye has endorsed Huckabee. “A campaign spokesman said Mr. Huckabee had read some of the “Left Behind” novels and enjoyed them.”
(I hope this is just LaHaye bragging and/or plugging his series. Otherwise, we ARE in a South Park episode.)