A quick argument: If the United States Constitution, Amendment 1, states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." and you take that to mean there should be a seperation of church and state, and you consider President Bush's proposal that marriage should be defined as a relationship between a Man and a Woman because it is sacred, does that mean that his argument is not only stupid but unconstitutional?
And I think everyone knows where I stand on matters constitutional.
Or, more structured:
1. The U.S. Constitution (The highest law of this nation) states that there shall be no federal law that interferes with religion.
2. The U.S. President is trying to pass a bill that defines a type of religious institution.
Therefore, The U.S. President is attempting to enact a law that is unconstitutional.
Or, in Standard/Syllogistic form:
1. All U.S. Constitutions prohibit laws that govern religion.
2. All U.S. Presidents that are G.W.Bush are trying to pass a law that governs a religious institution.
3. Therefore, All U.S. Presidents that are G.W. Bush are trying to violate the Constitution.
1. All C are not R
2. All P are R
.'. All P are not C
Then, since Premise #1 and the Conclusion are not valid, we must obvert them:
1. No C are R
2. All P are R
.'. No P are C
As you can see from the Venn Diagram below, my Conclusion is Valid. Bush's proposed Marriage Act violates the Constitution. Booyah. It feels good to know that maybe I am actually getting some use from my education.
And I think everyone knows where I stand on matters constitutional.
Or, more structured:
1. The U.S. Constitution (The highest law of this nation) states that there shall be no federal law that interferes with religion.
2. The U.S. President is trying to pass a bill that defines a type of religious institution.
Therefore, The U.S. President is attempting to enact a law that is unconstitutional.
Or, in Standard/Syllogistic form:
1. All U.S. Constitutions prohibit laws that govern religion.
2. All U.S. Presidents that are G.W.Bush are trying to pass a law that governs a religious institution.
3. Therefore, All U.S. Presidents that are G.W. Bush are trying to violate the Constitution.
1. All C are not R
2. All P are R
.'. All P are not C
Then, since Premise #1 and the Conclusion are not valid, we must obvert them:
1. No C are R
2. All P are R
.'. No P are C
As you can see from the Venn Diagram below, my Conclusion is Valid. Bush's proposed Marriage Act violates the Constitution. Booyah. It feels good to know that maybe I am actually getting some use from my education.
