Gratuitous Common Sense

You Can’t Get Stoned in Massachusetts

9 Responses to “You Can’t Get Stoned in Massachusetts”

• 1

  Thomas Says:
  August 15th, 2007 at 3:42 pm

  If this law (and others like them) was on the books during the ratification of the Constitution, then the people had a vastly different opinion, on the meaning of the 1st Amendment, than present-day judicial activists.

• 2

  Chris Says:
  August 15th, 2007 at 7:51 pm

  It’s hard to tell, which is why I left it out of the original post. Some sources say this particular law was enacted in 1835, and some say it’s as early as 1641.

  But there is no doubt that there was a vastly different opinion during the framing of the Constitution than there is today. I don’t think anyone should need a timeline of a law like this to be aware of that fact.

  The Framers didn’t even agree about whether the First Amendment applied to subsequent punishments, or just to prior restraints. The First amendment is by no means cut and dry, it’s rather ambiguous as far as “laws” go and (perhaps purposefully) left up to the judges of the time to interpret. This is also one reason why precedent plays such a large role in judicial decisions, so we don’t get isolated and completely relative interpretations of constitutional law.

• 3

  Ben Abbott Says:
  August 16th, 2007 at 6:51 am

  Thomas, there were laws on the books during the revolutionary period that were never enforced … just as there are today. I have no knowledge of such religious laws were enforced during that period, anyone else.

  However, it does not matter. You are correct. The constitution meant something very different then, than it does today. The constitution did not respect the governance of the states. It respected the federal government.

  It wasn’t until the 14th amendment that the bill of rights respected state and local government. With regards to religious freedom, the founders/framers of the bill of rights intended that document to be respected by the nation’s governments. It was the framers of the 14th who intended these protections of liberty to be extended to the state and local governments.

  Hope that helps.

• 4

  Ben Abbott Says:
  August 16th, 2007 at 7:03 am

  Chris,

  Here’s a site with some material that may be of interest.

  http://candst.tripod.com/toc.htm

  Respecting original state constitutions and their religious portions …

  Original and Early State Constitutions
  http://candst.tripod.com/cnstntro.htm

  You’ll notice that many of the state constitutions what included portions that conflict with religious freedom, simultaneously included portions that protected religious freedom … it would appear that the nature of politics hasn’t changed much in 200 yrs

  In any event, here are a list of links including excepts respecting religion. If you come across something missing, please email it to Jim Allison at the sited.

  Constitutions for the 13 colonies (13 1st states)
  http://candst.tripod.com/cnst_cn.htm
  http://candst.tripod.com/cnst_de.htm
  http://candst.tripod.com/cnst_ga.htm
  http://candst.tripod.com/cnst_ma.htm
  http://candst.tripod.com/cnst_md.htm
  http://candst.tripod.com/cnst_nc.htm
  http://candst.tripod.com/cnst_ny.htm
  http://candst.tripod.com/cnst_nh.htm
  http://candst.tripod.com/cnst_nj.htm
  http://candst.tripod.com/cnst_pa.htm
  http://candst.tripod.com/cnst_ri.htm
  http://candst.tripod.com/cnst_sc.htm
  http://candst.tripod.com/cnst_va.htm

• 5

  Ben Abbott Says:
  August 16th, 2007 at 5:17 pm

  Chris,

  You may find this site of interest: Separation of Church & State Homepage.

  Respecting your present post, it contains a page on Original and Early State Constitutions.

  As well as excerpts respecting the religious content of the early state constitutions; Conneticut,
  Deleware, Georgia, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Virginia.

  The Maryland version is quite humorous … it says that you may worship as you please, but the law only ensures to protect that liberty if you’re a Christian
  

  Maryland Constitutions 1776; 1851; 1864; 1867
  Article XXXIII in the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of 1776 provided: That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to Protection in their religious liberty;

• 6

  Jens Says:
  March 10th, 2008 at 10:02 am

  I need some help here. I live in Germany and I’ve heard of those silly laws, but I don’t understand how real they are. Are they just on the paper without any meaning, just because somebody forgot to erase them or is it still possible to make use of these laws? I don’t get it, why does nobody change this stupidity? The rest of the world is laughing their asses off while looking to these old american laws.

• 7

  Ben Abbott Says:
  March 10th, 2008 at 12:00 pm

  Jens: “I don’t get it, why does nobody change this stupidity?”

  In part the reason such laws remain in written form is due to the nature of our government. The separation of powers in the US, means the legislature writes law, the executive enforces law, and the judicial interprets law. These laws in question have been rendered moot by the judiciary. Since the judiciary is not permitted to write or amend law, the laws remain until the legislature decides to do something about it, and since the laws are no longer in effect, the motive to do something is low.

• 8

  Chris Says:
  March 18th, 2008 at 11:21 pm

  That is, unless/until you run into a devout Christian judge with a general disdain for atheists, or anyone who “blasphemes the holy name of [his] god”.

• 9

  Ben Abbott Says:
  March 20th, 2008 at 5:49 pm

  Actually, the problem isn’t that you’ve blasphemed anyone’s god, its that you’ve blasphemed his feigned belief delusion … you’d get the same treatment from the “emperor” if you pointed out his nakedness while he pretends to strut around in his “new clothes”

Speak Your Mind