Thread by @JMHendersonSr

Some ignorant clown attempts to steer in my wheelhouse. Then, when I turn to instruct them so that they may abandon their folly, they block me.

They lack the tools of my trade? Okay. We all have fields with which we are unfamiliar.

@pillownaut

Why be so committed to current ignorance as to block folks that might lift its burden?

Fearful of being bested in a contest of ideas? Well, shit, @pillownaut, if your idea can get the stuffing knocked out of it, maybe it's better to know that sooner rather than later.

So no, to the precise question of the Biblical foundation of the American legal system.

During the eight years that I taught Advanced Constitutional Law at an ABA accredited law school, one case we always covered was Rector Holy Trinity Church vs. United States.

Trinity brought a dispute to #SCOTUS over the interpretation and application of a federal law limiting the import of foreign labor. Trinity had sought to acquire the service of an English cleric as the pastor of Holy Trinity Church.

The dispute came to #SCOTUS as a matter of statutory construction: did the Alien Contract Labor Act operate to invalidate Holy Trinity Church's contract of employment with the English cleric?

Had Congress intentionally omitted ministers from a small selection of excepted professions to which the Alien Contract Labor Act did not apply?

#SCOTUS concluded that the Act did not apply to prohibit the contract between the church and the Rector, and that the labor importation statute did not exclude the Rector from entry to the United States.

The "mountain of evidence" on which the Court relied to reach its conclusion is set out in full in the opinion for the Court by Justice David Brewer. His opinion is a cornucopia of anecdotal refutations of the possibility of irreligious intent in any congressional enactment.

In her #safespace of #blocking after #attacking, @pillownaut won't have to worry about exposure to contrary ideas. She can #MarkHerselfSafe from #knowledge and #understanding.