Coincidentally a constitutional scholar happened to contact me separately last night by e-mail asking, “..how is it going here in Fairfield?” He is an academic who reads all the Supreme Court opinions and edits for law review journals. He happens also to have a scholarly interest in historic spiritual communal groups like ours in Fairfield, Iowa. The guy teaches at the graduate level and is someone who I have met out at conferences who has kept in contact about the 'historic' story evolving here in Fairfield.
I'll go back a few posts in to this 'TM Originalists as strict preservationists v evolving and progressive practitioners in the movement' by 'Originalism' analogy thread and send him some links. He'll appreciate it and likely send some thoughts along. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6...@yahoo.com> wrote : Original intent was that the federal government would be very limited. The states would have all power not granted to the federal government by virtue of the tenth amendment. That way, each state would be it's own laboratory of freedom. States would be able to *borrow* what worked from each other and discard that which didn't. If individuals didn't like the laws of their state, then they could move to a state that they liked. My tenth great grandfather came from London in 1640 and settled in James Virginia. He stayed a while but later felt discriminated against since he was a Quaker and the rest of the community was Presbyterian or Episcopalian. He and some other Quakers petitioned Lord Baltimore in Maryland to resettle there and were welcomed. A lot of laws in each colony were based on the will of the community, which had it's roots in their religious preference. Maryland tended to be more Catholic who were more tolerant of those *weird* Quakers. Each state had majority and minority religions. Of course, majority ruled. The *separation of church and state* issue that evolved was not intended to create a secular society but to keep one religion from dominating the whole country as was the custom in Europe. The federal government would not establish a state religion/church that could interfere with the will of the people in each state. From: "s3raph...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 10:16 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM Originalists v Progressive Practitioners, The TM Movement Community Re "Leave it to the individual states to decide" : My view also. And one of the most attractive features of the US federal structure. Here in the UK you can foul the atmosphere in a pub by asking if someone is for or against fox hunting/the ban on handguns/the smoking ban/ . . . I always say: "What? Little old me rule on such a complex issue?" I hold that individual local authorities should be left to decide what laws apply in their area. True diversity! And ultimately it comes down to local democracy. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : No Steve, the *originalist* view of gay marriage would be,* leave it to the individual states to decide*. That is an issue of the tenth amendment. At what point the Federal government then imposes it upon the other states, I'm not sure. Could be >50% or 2/3rds or 3/4s or none. The original intent of the founding fathers gave states much more power over such matters than the federal government. The feds would step in when there was conflict between states. From: "steve.sundur@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 9:26 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM Originalists v Progressive Practitioners, The TM Movement Community Okay, take one example. Gay marriage. Strictly interpreted constitution-wise, ala Originalism, the verdict would be "no". But allowing for changing attitudes, with a slightly more liberal interpretation, the answer would be "yes" Issues seem easier to resolve in theory than in practice. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote : "Originalism" sounds like what I would call common sense. If you don't approve of what the original constitution lays down then get your elected representatives to amend the constitution by due process. How hard can it be? The idea that a bunch of lawyers - who I've never voted for - can "interpret" the original wording in a way more in line with their own prejudices and clearly at odds with the obvious reading doesn't bode well.
