• Tyfud@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    It literally couldn’t be any clearer. I guess he’s the shittiest constitutional lawyer ever. But nobody will care. They eat up his arguing from authority fallacy bullshit

    • CountryBreakfast@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s an easy game to play actually. Strict contructionists will only recognize discourse that can be understood in 1790, or whichever relevant time. They use dictionaries from that time and the writings of the amerikan founders to make their points. You won’t easily find anything from that era that implies “religion” is anything other than Christianity and it’s various sects. To assert otherwise would be to legislate without congress. So they can argue that excluding non-Christians and non-Protestants is in line with the intentions of the authors regardless of article 6.

      Is it a perfect line of thinking without contradictions? Of course not, but neither is the counter idea that America was designed to accommodate non-Christians.