5 ms·

> Did you post that link to the 1776 NJ Constitution under the assumption that nobody would actually read it? The link I posted doesn't contain the original co

by maratd 14y ago

> Did you post that link to the 1776 NJ Constitution under the assumption that nobody would actually read it? The link I posted doesn't contain the original constitution. Here is the link to it: http://www.state.nj.us/njfacts/njdoc10a.htm http://www.state.nj.us/njfacts/njdoc10a.htm > It contains no bill of rights Neither does the federal one. The bill of rights are actually amendments, which are not included in the main body of text. > It explicitly leaves intact the law of England You mean common law? What's your point? > It concerns itself primarily with officeholding So did the federal one? Did you even bother reading the US federal constitution? > It establishes a freedom of religion only for Protestants This is a blatant falsehood. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you can't understand the text, then keep your mouth shut, instead of spreading nonsense. Here is the only paragraph that makes a reference to Protestants: That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects. It's fairly plain and obvious, but clearly I have to explain it to you. Protestants were heavily discriminated against in the Old World. That's why they left in large numbers. This passage makes clear that they shall not be discriminated against and "freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others" ...

tptacek 14y ago
That is what I assumed to have been the case too; cursory research suggests, no, it means what it says. All persons professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect shall be capable of being elected. The NC Constitution, ratified contemporaneously, is even more explicit. So, while I am of course willing to be wrong (I'm an Illinoisan and wasn't taught the NJ Constitution in grade school as I assume you were), I'm not with you yet. The rest: if you're suggesting the Bill of Rights isn't an important and defining feature of the Constitutional protections 'rayiner is talking about, I strongly disagree. Obviously, they were amendments, but amendments that were ratified within months of the ratification of the Constitution itself. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the 1776 NJ Constitution sucked compared to the Federal Constitution. The idea that NJ independently provided protections comparable to that of the US Constitution as of 1791 is false.

by maratd 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

That is what I assumed to have been the case too; cursory research suggests, no, it means what it says. All persons professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect shall be capable of being elected. The NC Constitution, ratified contemporaneously, is even more explicit. So, while I am of course willing to be wrong (I'm an Illinoisan and wasn't taught the NJ Constitution in grade school as I assume you were), I'm not with you yet. The rest: if you're suggesting the Bill of Rights isn't an important and defining feature of the Constitutional protections 'rayiner is talking about, I strongly disagree. Obviously, they were amendments, but amendments that were ratified within months of the ratification of the Constitution itself. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the 1776 NJ Constitution sucked compared to the Federal Constitution. The idea that NJ independently provided protections comparable to that of the US Constitution as of 1791 is false.