A refreshed ocularity as per the US Constitution as a purposed dedication as a spectacle of & for the New Testament Senator Rand Paul is sightable for standing tall on the original spectacle o‘ such and not efforts since to cloud - to cloud our First Amendment barring of Congress from a “re-specting” per the original humble spectacle o’ the founders in their unanimaty.
Our First is that it is not “Congress may pass no law abridging freedom of religion” but is what it is as a referencing to the spectacular bold establishment in the New Testament with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”.
It is an odd turn o‘ law for citation siting and sighting since it seems for all the other ways it could have been written to be, as it has been recently suggested to be, o’ meaning, it fits only with the above attempt o’ sharing that a re-establishment has become popular - more popular than the attempts to a popular post-Constitu- tionalism convenient to a new marching for secular socialism.
It seems popular now that it is re-established that the First Amendment is phrased just so to survive the phases o’ distrust and assaults with “respecting” critical only if a “spectacle” existent already in an establishment o’ religion.
It is a well - well set odd phrase so o’ the “do ordain and establish” o’ o’ the humble “subscribing” under God so that “Year of our Lord” o’ our Founders’ Christianity and its calender as o’ else could they have barred Congress from infringing o’ o’ the struggle in America for freedoms to be o’ the type o’ Christians - Christians so many were trying to be?
For the oddity of the First to work o’ o’ not a useless o’ random wordiness it seems there both has to be - be o’ o’ an ‘establishment of religion’ already and it as a “spectacle” o’ o’ “spectacular” (boldness?) for there to be “respecting” bar for Congress to be to any law o’ o’ “re-specting.”
So it seems our Founders established o’ o’ humbly under God in that Year o’ o’ their Lord o’ o’ that our Constitution is a spectacle o’ o’ an establishment in the New Testament and the establishments there o’ o’ in of “marriage” “creation” and all therefore of man and women.
So technically we may not - may not have freedom - Freedom from religion O’ o’ but such that local jurisdictions may render o’ of. Hmmm?
J.P. Hogan [Rejustified Facebook.com/jpeterhogan status posting - (more) poetic of 25th March of 2013]
[note: What to do with popular attempt long of suggesting we could just say we are now in a post-Constitutional new world order and like President Obama with his 2nd Inaugural can be legally of such spectacle of his of orating like: I just swore the oath - BUT!!! I won’t feel beholden to it or our Constitution…?]