What did "ordain" signify, during the era of the writing of the U.S. Constitution, as written in the Preamble, "...do ordain and establish...," and as written in Section 1 of Article 3, "...ordain and establish?" Did use of that term signify a belief in, and/or deference to, a higher power, a belief that the origins of the newly written law were in part attributed to a conscious higher than humanity? Is "ordain" presently used in writing any legislation? Are there examples in the history of U.S. law where the use of ordain was commonplace or more commonplace than now? Was there a moment in time when the use of "ordain" was considered inappropriate for use in further legislation and dropped from the language? Is the document exceedingly inclusionary, i.e., with the use of "ordain and establish," can it not be interpreted to equally serve, on choice of electees, those of religious faith and those not of religious faith? Likewise in the Presidential Oath, is the electee given the two-sided choice to "...swear (or affirm)...," to concur with his/her Personal Constitution? The First Amendment says there can be no national religion, but that it also protects the right of any and all to be religious or not, does it not protect the right of electees then, to fulfill their duties in a manner consistent with their Personal Constitution? Would legislation not then have the influence of a majority, and would it not be legal, constitutionally protected, for legislation to be crafted with a bias, be it Christian or Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu, or whatever reflects the majority of Congress, the Executive, and Judicial, or even perhaps a melded bias in one or more branches? Is not the U.S. Constitution written to affirm my right to consider it a sacred document, sacred to my faith, should I be an electee of such faith, as long as I do not attempt to establish the Joe Starck Holy Hut of Nuts, and only the Joe Starck Holy Hut of Nuts, as law for all?

You're reading too much into it.
ordain
Main Entry: or·dain : \ȯr-ˈdān\ Function: verb Etymology: Middle English ordeinen, from Anglo-French ordener, ordeiner, from Late Latin ordinare, from Latin, to put in order, appoint, from ordin-, ordo order Date: 14th century transitive verb1: to invest officially (as by the laying on of hands) with ministerial or priestly authority 2 a: to establish or order by appointment, decree, or law : enact <we></we>

read up on the Constitution and the Separation of powers. The power of the court is to recognize when the 'majority' may be wrong in respect to the law. If we were 'majority rule' without 'monority rights' folks of different races in many areas would still not be able to marry. Folks of different races would still have 'separate but equal (BS)' services.

as for keeping church and state separate, just spend some time with Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.

and every President brings their own morals into their office. But again, I guess you missed the point where it is Congress that is supposed to make the laws not the executive.

see if you would have known me when you were out here I could have taken you to one. Instead of going to the Indian reservations to gamble you could have gone to pray and be cleansed.
ho

but it also brings up a point. most religious people are die hard atheists thinking every God is just a silly fable, except theirs

Both Live Steam and ATPJunkie did not allow me the courtesy to consider my query of subtlety, my query of reality, my specific requests about the history of the use of "ordain" in writing law. Live Steam's dictionary citation. Duh. ATP's incomplete perpetual echo of executive action. Duh. "You're reading to much into it" and "you missed the point" are typical alibis of intellectual inadequacy inherent in both Live Steam and ATPJunkie.

see if you would have known me when you were out here I could have taken you to one. Instead of going to the Indian reservations to gamble you could have gone to pray and be cleansed.
ho

but it also brings up a point. most religious people are die hard atheists thinking every God is just a silly fable, except theirs

Maybe prayin', sweatin,' and gettin' clean at the green felt is somethin' you are clueless about, ATP, so go jump in a lake.

Maybe prayin', sweatin,' and gettin' clean at the green felt is somethin' you are clueless about, ATP, so go jump in a lake.

I could tell ya about the time I went on a 53 minute run at the craps table

you mean you want us to allow you the folly of chasing your personal (and sadly nothing more than hopeful) misinterpretation of the text

sure Joe , it means whatever you mean it to be in your own fantabulous mind

I could tell ya about the time I went on a 53 minute run at the craps table

When you came face to face with...: http://imagecache2.allposters.com/IMAGES/RSPOD/RS749.jpg

you mean you want us to allow you the folly of chasing your personal (and sadly nothing more than hopeful) misinterpretation of the text

sure Joe , it means whatever you mean it to be in your own fantabulous mind

I have nothing to disagree with here (that is less than six syllables), ATP. Cheers!

Ordain, as used in the Constitution, has no religious meaning. None, nada. It means just what Steam posted, to enact. You may find the rest of your questions about ordain to be interesting and, in the right context they may be, but in the context of the Constitution they aren't particularly meaningful.

As far as the presidential oath is concerned there is no option regarding which Constitution the president elect is swearing or affirming to uphold. That constitution is THE Constitution of the United States. It's as plain an unequivocal as it can be.

As far as your last point. I'm afraid you're going to have to explain yourself a bit better because I don't understand what you're getting at.

As an attorney, I think I can help.

(1) Lawyers tend to use numerous synonyms together when writing. For example, in the Constitution, they said "ordain and establish." Similarly, lots of court orders say that the court "finds, determines, concludes, and orders . . " Deeds and contracts also frequently say things like, the seller "transfers, sells, conveys, grants . . ." You get the idea. this is done mainly to cover all possible readings and potential misreadings.

Therefore, I really don't hink that the use of "ordain" means a whole lot of anything. Moreover, I haven't read anything in any case making such an implication.

(2) Be careful when talking about Indian tribes, e.g., sweat loidges. Indian tribes are sovereign nations and, I beleive, are different religious laws.

Ordain, as used in the Constitution, has no religious meaning. None, nada. It means just what Steam posted, to enact. You may find the rest of your questions about ordain to be interesting and, in the right context they may be, but in the context of the Constitution they aren't particularly meaningful.

As far as the presidential oath is concerned there is no option regarding which Constitution the president elect is swearing or affirming to uphold. That constitution is THE Constitution of the United States. It's as plain an unequivocal as it can be.



There was a time when the use of the word "ordain" was restricted for use only for religious purposes, yes or no?

Given the addition of the First Amendment, I do think it is very curious that the word-choice of "ordain" remained in the U.S. Constitution in two sites, in the Preamble and in the Judicial Article. It would have been so easy to edit with the lone "establish," as that verb form is used elsewhere singularly in the document.

During what time-frame of U.S. Judicial history has it been the practice for witnesses in court to swear on the Bible, in taking the oath to tell the three truths? Has there always been the option to "affrim," without the Bible. What is the present procedure? Two-sided option, or not?

Of the Presidential Oath, of the phrase "...swear (or affirm)," I can't recall, but on Inauguration Day, do the freshly elected recite both or do they choose one of the two: "I do solemnly swear..." or "I do solemnly affirm..." or "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) nyuk, nyuk...?" What's on the record?

As an attorney, I think I can help.

(1) Lawyers tend to use numerous synonyms together when writing. For example, in the Constitution, they said "ordain and establish." Similarly, lots of court orders say that the court "finds, determines, concludes, and orders . . " Deeds and contracts also frequently say things like, the seller "transfers, sells, conveys, grants . . ." You get the idea. this is done mainly to cover all possible readings and potential misreadings.

Pablo,
Do you mean the four verbs would be strung together separated only by commas like you wrote above? Or would change-ups occur in different sentences?

Is this practice of using "numerous synonyms" common to religious documents? Four verb forms of, for example, (heh, heh) ordain? "Done (heh, heh, again) mainly to cover all possible readings and potential misreadings?"

Ya dig (my snowdrift) ?

Pablo,
Do you mean the four verbs would be strung together separated only by commas like you wrote above? Or would change-ups occur in different sentences?

Is this practice of using "numerous synonyms" common to religious documents? Four verb forms of, for example, (heh, heh) ordain? "Done (heh, heh, again) mainly to cover all possible readings and potential misreadings?"

Ya dig (my snowdrift) ?
Use of numerous synonyms is not very consistent, so it might change. They might be strung together with commas or not, but it really doesn't matter. That's the point. The idea is that the author is obviously just trying to say that, for example, the court decides, or the grantor grants. It's a way, I guess, to provoke the reader's common sense and avoid overly narrow and technical readings.

I don't know anything about religious documents. To the extent that religious documents were written by hyper-rationalists, or attorneys, and to the extent that thw writting styles overlapped in time and place, I guess it might be common. So, I would hypothesize, legal and religious doucments from the Vatican would be similar, just like legal and religious documents from pre-C.E. Israel would be similar.

I guess I don't get your drift at all.

he already has an answer

he is bound and determined to fit the facts into

if you counter it with things that make sense you'll be pooh pooh

see my earlier post

There was a time when the use of the word "ordain" was restricted for use only for religious purposes, yes or no?

Perhaps, but that was in the 1200's. The etymological origin of ordain is believed to have come from Old French, ordener, and Latin, ordinaire, both meaning "to put in order, arrange, dispose, appoint". One of it's earliest uses was around 1290 and it meant "to appoint or admit to the ministry of the church". However, around 1297, it was also known to mean "to decree, enact". So, very early on it started to mean both. In the 1700's it definitely had more than one definition and, in the context of the Constitution, it did not have a religious meaning.

I don't know when or how swearing on the bible came about in a court of law.

Presidents always had the option to swear or affirm. Most chose to swear on a bible but some chose to affirm and didn't use the bible or used some other tome.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink, but you can drown him!

read up on the Constitution and the Separation of powers. The power of the court is to recognize when the 'majority' may be wrong in respect to the law. If we were 'majority rule' without 'monority rights' folks of different races in many areas would still not be able to marry. Folks of different races would still have 'separate but equal (BS)' services.

as for keeping church and state separate, just spend some time with Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.

and every President brings their own morals into their office. But again, I guess you missed the point where it is Congress that is supposed to make the laws not the executive.

If it's OK for you to call the U.S. Secretary of State a "phucktard" on RBR, surely it is then OK for me to call you the same, ATP, a "phucktard," for this post of yours?

I'm exploring the idea of the U.S. Constitution written as an inclusionary document, as a document some have a constitutional right to deem it a sacred document, even a religious document. You responded with "may be wrong in respect to the law" because you think law can have no taint of a religion?

Legislation can hold a religious bias and can also hold constitutionally. It's been going on since ratification to the present. It's a matter of degree. Be it an undetected degree or a deemed insignificant degree. Or a compromise. You claim to be a master of "simple constructs," then how can you not admit of a simple construct of law that satisfies both a religious bias and a non-religious bias?

If it's OK for you to call the U.S. Secretary of State a "phucktard" on RBR, surely it is then OK for me to call you the same, ATP, a "phucktard," for this post of yours?

No, it is not. Until condi signs up for an account she is fair game.

Until condi signs up for an account she is fair game.

That hooey from yoo, hoo, the nickname for her and the wishful arena of the hunt for her within your immoderate edict above, O Mistermoderator, is a perspective opposite to the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, it's the perspective of a sore loser.

In the 1700's it definitely had more than one definition and, in the context of the Constitution, it did not have a religious meaning.

Coulda said "do enact and establish" instead of "do ordain and establish."

Now, in the Preamble, what about the "blessings" in "the blessings of liberty?"

If it's OK for you to call the U.S. Secretary of State a "phucktard" on RBR, surely it is then OK for me to call you the same, ATP, a "phucktard," for this post of yours?

I'm exploring the idea of the U.S. Constitution written as an inclusionary document, as a document some have a constitutional right to deem it a sacred document, even a religious document. You responded with "may be wrong in respect to the law" because you think law can have no taint of a religion?

Legislation can hold a religious bias and can also hold constitutionally. It's been going on since ratification to the present. It's a matter of degree. Be it an undetected degree or a deemed insignificant degree. Or a compromise. You claim to be a master of "simple constructs," then how can you not admit of a simple construct of law that satisfies both a religious bias and a non-religious bias?

clearly your reading comprehension suffers

I clearly state that every President (thus every person elected) brings their own morals (which would include those derived through their personal religions) into the process. So I am well aware of legislation having some of itself derived from religion.
That is a far cry from Legislation being wholly religious. I clearly have no qualms with this but not all laws will satisfy all religions. Should we ban meat eating on Fridays? How about Pork altogether? Heck let's satisfy the Hindus and ban meat outright. Thus we can have laws that derive from religious morality and still be a secular Republic. It is when the religious bias steps over the line and infringes on other people's rights that we see the beauty in our system. The minority group's rights freedoms are protected by the law. If the US Constitution were wholly based upon a single religions POV well that would make it non-inclusionary now wouldn't it? Being wholly biased to one theology would make it exclusionary to all the other religions. Surely that is a simple construct you can wrap your mind around. The Dogma of most religions is a Dogma of exclusion, sad but true.

So I've already agreed that laws have a 'taint' of religion, and that is fine and well. You think me anti-religious which I am not, you clearly don't get me. I only have issues when the laws start becoming biased to any single faith or intrude upon the rights and freedoms of people of different or no faith.

lastly the Constitution is 'sacred' but not religious. I mean sacred in a wholly secular way in that it is the framework for the most wondrous system of govt ever. Funny that it is the so-called 'morals' folks who have no issue with stomping upon it. Religion and our formn of Govt. were separated for the benefit of both. If you haven't noticed how certain factions of religion have become profaned by involving themselves too much in the process well, then, you aren't paying attention. Go RUDY!

clearly your reading comprehension suffers

I clearly state that every President (thus every person elected) brings their own morals (which would include those derived through their personal religions) into the process. So I am well aware of legislation having some of itself derived from religion.
That is a far cry from Legislation being wholly religious. I clearly have no qualms with this but not all laws will satisfy all religions. Should we ban meat eating on Fridays? How about Pork altogether? Heck let's satisfy the Hindus and ban meat outright. Thus we can have laws that derive from religious morality and still be a secular Republic. It is when the religious bias steps over the line and infringes on other people's rights that we see the beauty in our system. The minority group's rights freedoms are protected by the law. If the US Constitution were wholly based upon a single religions POV well that would make it non-inclusionary now wouldn't it? Being wholly biased to one theology would make it exclusionary to all the other religions. Surely that is a simple construct you can wrap your mind around. The Dogma of most religions is a Dogma of exclusion, sad but true.

So I've already agreed that laws have a 'taint' of religion, and that is fine and well. You think me anti-religious which I am not, you clearly don't get me. I only have issues when the laws start becoming biased to any single faith or intrude upon the rights and freedoms of people of different or no faith.

lastly the Constitution is 'sacred' but not religious. I mean sacred in a wholly secular way in that it is the framework for the most wondrous system of govt ever. Funny that it is the so-called 'morals' folks who have no issue with stomping upon it. Religion and our formn of Govt. were separated for the benefit of both. If you haven't noticed how certain factions of religion have become profaned by involving themselves too much in the process well, then, you aren't paying attention. Go RUDY!

You take this bacon from out of my
COLD DEAD HANDS!!!