Can someone give me information on the french constitution of 1791 and or national assembly?
The French tried to copy the USA Constitution, and set up a government that retained the King as the Chief Executive, and the National Assembly would be the Legislative Branch. The following quoted from my reference: >>The National Assembly was the legislative body, the king and royal ministers made up the executive branch and the judiciary was independent of the other two branches. On a local level, the previous feudal geographic divisions were formally abolished, and the territory of the French state was divided into several administrative units, Departments (Départements), but with the principle of centralism.<< It was a short-lived constitution, in part due to rise of Napoleon, who wanted to be Emperor, and of course the people wanted the King and Queen dead, which soon happened. (in part because the King tried to escape, and refused to accept the constitution of 1791)
Do "Second Amendment People" routinely prepare for armed revolution?
There are armed militia groups in the United States that conduct exercises. I guess you would call them {Second Amendment People). Some militia groups hold that the right of rebellion is inherent in the Constitution, should the Constitution be (in their view) compromised. This article describes private militia exercises:The Secret World of Extreme MilitiasThis article provides more information about the 2nd Amendment as it relates to private militias in the United States, expressing the view that as long as there is trial by jury and free elections there is no private right of rebellion:Second Amendment - Private Militias
As a constitutional monarchy, does the sovereignty of the monarch of the United Kingdom come from the constitution or is it a divine right?
As others have pointed out, in theory it is a divine right. The monarch of the U.K. is still crowned in the traditional Christian ceremony, recognition of their God given right to rule. Most other monarchs just have an inauguration like that if the US President.In practice though, well look at Charles I pictured below. He rather ran with the idea and it really didn’t end well.Out movement away from the Catholic Church, the execution of Charles I and the Glorious Revolution decayed the idea of divine right. Its rather a hollow phrase today. The monarch’s power was reduced and they have to take notice of Parliament and the people, with authority being a contract between the sovereign and people.So it’s now a mix of both, in theory the monarch has the divine right to rule and this is often spoke of it displayed in ceremony. In practice they can be removed from power and any real exercise of authority which the people do not like will likely spark a constitutional crisis.
Do you AGREE with SEPARATION OF CHURCH & STATE?
This Nation was founded by Christians for Christians the separation of Church and State was meant to keep the State out of Religion... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or the free exercise there of .... Not Religion out of the State.... As a Christian they follow Gods direction in what they do and say.. That God might Bless what they do ... thus Bless the Nation. They did not make a State Religion because what if the Baptists are no longer are the Christians but the Catholics are ... Catholics are not considered to be Christians by real Christians - man made religion ect... Well the Baptists are still the Real thing.. Note: They throw out the bible out of schools and said don't pray and ask God for Help in understanding anything Well we use to be Number 1 to Number 3 in education to the point that a college degree is not Honored here from other countries... But now we rank 27 below everybody else in the world, and 17 below everybody else in science in the world.. sad shape... Throw God out... He says your on your own... buddy... Do you think the Devil will help you... Not... or your little understanding by yourself...
What is "Separation of church and state"....?
Separation of State was to protect religious people from trying to influence laws that would harm people of different religions - or even different sects of the same religion. Quakers and Puritans, for example, were Christians. But the majority of Christians did not accept them to be "true" Christians. But just because you were a Quaker or a Puritan, didn't mean that anyone had the right to prevent you from attending a school where Protestants went to school. That would go against your rights granted to you by the Constitution: freedom of religion. So you're right in the sense that the government has no right to completely abolish a religion. But the government *Does* have a right to keep religion out of public schools. (Private schools are funded by the parents and founders. Because they are paying for it, they can have religious private schools). I am also fine if someone is praying in public. I respect that and I don't bother them about it too. I'm an atheist. Please do not assume that all atheists disrespect Christianity - I know it's easy to get that vibe off of here. But two of my best friends in the world are Christian. If they pray I wait quietly and say nothing What people have a problem with is an ENFORCED prayer in public schools. You see, it wouldn't be fair if all the public schools were required to make everyone pray. Think about it - say you happened to go to a school where the population was mostly Muslim. And the teachers said "You must pray to Allah now". Well that wouldn't be very fair to you, would it? That's why we have separation of church and state. It's so all religious people have the freedom to worship as they will. If a Muslim starts praying at the beginning of the school day, then I certainly don't mind.