Stringsinger replied to my last post thusly, in part:

"Take quote number 1.   ***

"The intent of the Constitution historically is that the "tyranny of the minority" was an important issue in its construction."

Ahh, but there's the rub, "intent". The Constitution is objective in its prescriptions for the shape of government in the United States, and that is binding. The framers' intent or desires are not. As a matter of fact, I think you and I are in agreement that that was much of the framers' desire, and they tried to set up rules, procedures, governmental standards which would minimize any tendency toward tyranny of the majority which might be expressed through the government; and further we can I think agree that that concern and that effort were well justified. But their reasons and motivations are not the Constitution.

I said, "Quote number 2. Contrary to popular usage, the Constitution doesn't provide freedom of religion as a general societal matter. The Constitution controls what Congress may or may not do with its legislative powers, on the subject of religious practice."

You said, "Yes, but this does impinge on the rights of freedom of religion."

The Constitution does not grant "freedom of religion" as a right; it prohibits certain types of actions by the government it was setting up, with a motivation toward making the choice and the practice of religion open and fluid. But the framers' motivations, hopes, and preferences are not the Constitution, and are not enforceable legally. Whereas the specifics of the Constitution are.

"And you see that today that this Constitutional injunction is being violated which then vitiates your argument. For example, the enforced "National Day of Prayer".

Two comments about that: What "enforced 'National Day of Prayer'" is that? I know of no such thing. I have heard that expression, but who is forced to observe such a day? And who enforces it? Second comment: The fact, (even if it is a fact, which I dispute) that the Constitutional provision is (if it is) violated doesn't affect what the Constitution provides. It only demonstrates that officials and citizens don't allow themselves to be guided by the clear language set out in the Constitution. If I rob a bank (even if I'm not caught and prosecuted), does that somehow vitiate the anti-bank-robbery laws? No, it doesn't.

This whole conversation we're having deals with the different meanings of the word "law". There are scientific or physical laws, of course, which are merely better or worse descriptions of how the world is thought to operate. Then there are what might be called moral or ethical laws, giving rise to moral or ethical "rights", which are not legally enforceable. And then there are statutory laws, which set out standards of privilege and prohibition for persons, corporations, etc., enforceable in a court of law. And at the top of the heap, legally, is the Constitution, which sets out standards of privilege and prohibition for the Government.

The activities of that crowd or mob at the site of the proposed Islamic Center and "anti-GZ-mosque pressure" may be seen as reprehensible and against what we see as "the intent" or spirit we like to see as consistent with the motivations of the Constitution's framers, but are not in themselves covered by anything in the Constitution, unless there is governmental action taken. THAT ACTION, if taken, would probably be unconstitutional. But the actions and statements of members of the public are not so covered.

Dave Oesterreich