Intellectually dishonest. The Bill of Rights is separately referenced all the time.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump's Bible omits Amendments 11-17.
- Thread starter Evangelicalhumanist
- Start date
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
Most of us know. It's just that the omission seems to be convenient.
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
It's politically dishonest to leave the other 17 out. And convenient.
Intellectually dishonest? Put a constitutional question before the Supreme Court and ask them to just ignore everything after the 10th Amendment. Let me know how that goes.
McBell
Unbound
I have found that it has been since 2001:
In May 2021, to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center in New York, Greenwood published a "God Bless the U.S.A." edition of the Bible. It has the U.S. flag on its leather cover and includes the texts of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution before amendments, the Bill of Rights, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the chorus of Greenwood's song "God Bless the USA" in Greenwood's handwriting.[1][2] The text of the Bible was intended to be the New International Version,[3] but Zondervan, the division of HarperCollins that owns the rights to the New International Version, withheld them after multiple public complaints, and the King James Version was used, which is in the public domain in the United States.[4]
God Bless the U.S.A. Bible - Wikipedia
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
This is of course common sense.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Go back yourself, the point was that amendments 11-27 were not included as part of the constitution. The bill of rights so called is not a seperate document, it is the first 10 amendments to the constitution and by the definition of amendment, part of it.
Can't help but notice that "God Bless the U.S.A." and the Pledge of Allegiance (current version since 1954) make it clear that the First Amendment establishment clause is of no effect.I have found that it has been since 2001:
In May 2021, to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center in New York, Greenwood published a "God Bless the U.S.A." edition of the Bible. It has the U.S. flag on its leather cover and includes the texts of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution before amendments, the Bill of Rights, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the chorus of Greenwood's song "God Bless the USA" in Greenwood's handwriting.[1][2] The text of the Bible was intended to be the New International Version,[3] but Zondervan, the division of HarperCollins that owns the rights to the New International Version, withheld them after multiple public complaints, and the King James Version was used, which is in the public domain in the United States.[4]God Bless the U.S.A. Bible - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
This is a great example of bat TDS crazy thinking. This bible format has been around before Trump and you can buy a bible with the bill of rights only that Trump had nothing to do with.
So let me get this straight, you think Trump purposely said to remove the 11-27 amendments so he could run for a third term based on the constitution in this bible? The Supreme Court will be like, yeah, the constitution in the bible Trump sells does not have term limits so yeah he can be president for life. Really? If he wants to be a dictator why would he keep the freedom of speech, religion, gun ownership, press etc.? This is not objective thinking at all. But a hate on for a version of Trump that does not exist that you have bought for the dems and media.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Are you talking about the current supreme court?
Perhaps you should check your own omissions first. There are 27 Amendments, not 17.
I heard that Bible also doesn't include the Articles of Confederation and the collected Federalist Papers. Gee, what a horror.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Civics classes also include the ones after 10. They don't stop there just because the first ten got a special name.
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
and if you had paid attention in civics class you would know that once an amendment is ratified it is fully part of the Constitution, meaning it holds the same legal weight as the original text of the Constitution itself. the Constitution of the United States is only complete with all of its amendments.
Heyo
Veteran Member
You can't put that on Trump. It may be convenient for him, but it's not his idea. Parts of the GOP, even without MAGA, have tried to rewrite US history for a long time. Especially, southern states have removed slavery from their curricula and textbooks. Attempts to change history, so that the US seems to be a "Christian nation", have been made since the '50s, some successful.
I've never thought of him this way before but i am now considering if he believes he's the next Messiah and he's not making it public yet just in case everyone thinks he's crazy.
Just my random musings.
Just my random musings.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
No southern state has removed slavery from its curriculum.
You're right: this Bible was not carefully crafted by Trump... a man who - AFAICT - has never carefully crafted a thing in his life. This bible shows the hallmarks of the same low effort approach that gave the world Trump University and Trump Steaks.
It's a collection of mostly public domain works, so it's nice and cheap to produce; all they needed to do is slap an American flag and Trump's name on the front and rubes will by it at a ridiculous markup.
On the rights thing, though:
IMO, including the Bill of Rights is mostly virtue signalling. Modern Republicans go to great lengths to brand themselves as the party of "liberty" because if they relied on their track record alone, the impression that they would create is that they're the enemies of liberty.
Also, we have to remember that modern Republicans are approaching the issue of rights with the approach summed up by Wilhoit's Law:
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
It's not like MAGA types think that their opponents have the right to free speech or to petition for a redress of grievances. In their minds, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution more broadly is there to protect, not constrain, MAGA types and constrain, not protect, everyone else. The January 6 putsch is a good example of this thinking in action.
Last thing: do you really think that the Second Amendment is protection against a dictator? Really?
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The 17th Amendment was a mistake, since it allowed the two National Parties to control the election of Senators in any state. The original Constitution had the State Legislatures pick their two Senators. This made each Senator more beholden to their own states. This also limited outsider interference in state elections.
With the 17th Amendment, national political parties get to decide who runs, based on being able to provide extra outside money, making the Senators less beholden to their own States and more beholden to a national agenda, due to the quid pro quo. For example, all but one Democrat Senator rubber stamped the Biden and Harris Administration agenda, even though it was a disaster for their own states.
The old way would have limited the damage by the Federal Government and National Political Party , with state making their own assessment and tell their Senator. The new way was also cheaper since bribing one Senator was cheaper than bribing 51% of each State's Legislature. The amendment added to the Big Government corruption and influence peddling. My guess is some Amendments were made for the wrong reason and should not be near the Bible.
The 17th is really not about the popular vote, since the two parties tend to walk lockstep with their national agenda. This limits, who you can vote for, based on who the party chooses for their own best interests. Sanctuary States was a party vote, and lock step. It was OK until immigrants were shipped to those States, creating state problems their Senator ignored for party favor..
The 16th Amendment or the income tax Amendment was also a rip off and led to corruption. Although we ended slavery, the income tax was a way to add slavery back on a larger scale. You cannot do full time slavery, due the 13th Amendment, but you can do part time slavery. Your tax rate is the percent of time you are a slave to Big Government. Like a slave you have no choice or control over that time; you must pay taxes. If you leave that plantation; do not pay taxes, the IRS will hobble you; old school DNC.
The Constitution says provide of the common defense and promote the general welfare. Provide and promote are two different things. Before the 16th Amendment the only temporary income tax was connected to provide for war and national defense; Civil War.
The citizens are supposed to have public servants in Government, so why are they acting like slave owners instead of servants? Before that amendment, Government was more beholden to the citizens. The Government had to raise revenue from tariffs; foreign source of income, and usage taxes on things they provided; toll roads, bridge. Income tax was limited to war time; 3% on income over $5000. It was more of. tax on and the rich, only when needed to protect their mutual national interests in time of war.
I was listening to an analysis of the 16th Amendment comparing life before and after, the difference was the income tax led to citizen money being sent over seas. Money from the income tax was used to rebuild Europe and many parts of the world after WWI and WWII. This combined with low tariffs on foreign goods, to hep these country get back on their feet, was a second stab in the back to citizens since that sent money overseas and out of the US economy, harming the worker class.
The buzz is the16th Amendment may be addressed, to make it is less like slavery and more like having to to be earned by the public "servants" in Government. We can expect more accountability and more efficiency. Leasing Federal lands for oil can make the Government a provider and instead of parasite and slave owner. I would also discuss the 17th Amendment and change that back; back to states.
Last edited:
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
You said:
Especially, southern states have removed slavery from their curricula and textbooks.
Which states do not teach about slavery?