The U.S. Constitution does not make mention of the “Lord,” or “God.”

I want to take a moment to address readers & voters.:

You will likely have times in debates where people feel strongly about the subject you are debating, which has the potential for confrontation in the comments.
Avoid these at all costs. It will derail the debate and could influence voters against you. Especially if you end up giving away the arguments you intend to use for later rounds.
That's as good as showing your hand of cards. Do not do this.

Con only had one way to win, which relied on successfully executing the trap. By using the technique that I did in Round 1, I've already won. As Con here has already played all his cards, whereas I still have an entire deck to use.
Now there's no way for Con to win, as this debate was a double-edged sword. By flipping the other side of the coin, the Con position is basically self-sabotage.

Parody my arse. Yes, I know parody.
When you quote, quote, do not transliterate by whim of parody. That is the glaring mistake that claptrap House member from House 30 Calif, Adam Schiff made is his "parody" of Trump in that House Rules violating !st Impeachment so poorly overseen by Pelosi. Can't keep her own Rules [IX, X, XI], and allowed her managers the same poor keeping of congressional rules. Get it? Yet? Hell, even theives have some honor.
And, all your "parodies" make the wrong assumptions. Lke I said, stay in your own head; you don't know mine. Not a clue, my friend.
Hint: Yes, university coursework in Egyptian hieroglyphs. What the bio does not say is an additional personal study of the last 50 years. Get it? Nope.

Re: Your #26

Have you ever heard of parody? You're acting like I forged a statement to congress or something.
But because you sent a truly hilarious response, so comes more parody.

"Must break my own rule of commentary during debate...."
Translation: "I swore I wouldn't speak, but this affront to my legacy has forced my hand" further translation "How dare you disrupt the sanctity of my digital constitutional convention with parody"

"I never wrote those words, If I did, cite it, please, or I demand a retraction"
Translation: "Please respect the constitutional sanctity of my DebateArt comment section"

"That amounts to personal attack, and that is a losing argument, always"
Translation: "I am above this, but also deeply wounded by it"

ITS PARODY!
You're responding like I forged the Magna Carta and stapled it to my resume. You can write all the fictional books about candy, mint shortages, shortages of letters (Manufactured a supply chain issue for a children's book?), and Constitutional angels, but I can't write a fake quote?

I did a quick google of your book, evidently I found other books too. I am less than impressed. Your Bio rang like a founding fathers, a true intellect, someone who James Madison would quote if he were still alive, but I must say I was disappointed to see that all your books were...... self published...... i.e. its a hobby, not a job.

Because I can't critique every part of the bios under your books, I will just critique your bio on here.

"Freelance writer and illustrator"
Translation: "I'm not just a thinker, I produce culture" should just write renaissance man.
"Business and personal experience in over 30 countries"
Translation: "You can't debate me, I've been everywhere" not enough elaboration either.
"Fluent in English, French, Italian, and Egyptian Hieroglyphs"
Translation: "I'm not just well-read - I can decode dead languages" (It's funny you label here that your fluent, but elsewhere you state it was just a university course.
"Enjoy gourmet cooking, gardening, woodworking, greeting card fabrication with original illustrations and verse"
Translation: " I am not bound by your narrow concepts of expertise"
"Two Phd's, History and English Lit"
Translation: "You better come correct - I'm academically untouchable" (Also, you have a double Phd, but working in what is essentially Quality Control in an industrial setting?)
"Fauxlaw is the title of......"
Translation: "The Supreme Court, the president, congress, and the American people, are all wrong, I alone see the truth"
"Although I am monetarily affluent, my true wealth... is the knowledge I've gained"
Translation: "Yes, I have money, but I'm enlightened- not materialistic. So much so, that I need to showboat on an online debating forum"
"I approach that subject [Debate].....
Translation: "I am the wise elder, and even your naive rebuttals have value to me"

For a double Phd. you write like an undergrad.

I appreciate your help!

The Pro position on this is definitely a great opportunity for a free-win, but I may not necessarily be the guy to pull it off.
It's less of a debate of skill at this point and more about whose trap is superior.

This debate is a trap, but I have a counter-move to play that I believe is a better reverse trap.
It depends on successful execution.

must break my own rule of commentary during debate due to this absurdity in your post #25 in these comments.

"detractors note, I will now not answer any comments with pseudo-intellectual rubbish, for fears that my clear and obvious inability to confront your points, and sidestepping/deflecting are becoming much too obvious".

You allege to quote me. If you are going to quote me, then. quote me, do not use your own interpretation as a quote from me. I never wrote those words. If
I did, cite it, please, or I demand a retraction. I will not be quoted incorrectly. That amounts to personal attack, and that is a losing argument, always. Stay in your own head.

You are right, perhaps what I said was harsh, however I would like to point out that what I wrote was only done after Con repeatedly sidestepped any calls for clarification or proof. Now as you have seen he has gone shy and stepped off the stage. "detractors note, I will now not answer any comments with pseudo-intellectual rubbish, for fears that my clear and obvious inability to confront your points, and sidestepping/deflecting are becoming much too obvious".

In any case, if you, Lancelot, want any good points, I'd be happy to help, though you seem to got this well and handled. I'll be back to vote, unless Plato comes back to feed some more nonsense.

Thank you. This will be a fun debate.

Assuming playing cards correctly:

Aye, there's the rub. looking forward to your R1, and the rest. Good hunting.

That is actually a clever strategy IMO.

All too often, debates can get derailed a lot of times in the comments. For the record, I don't object to your methods. I see it as a clever ruse, but I do believe the strategy is entirely exploitable by Pro. That is, assuming that Pro plays his cards correctly.

Thank you, Barney.

I'll post the link in my Round 1.

You are completely right about the setup and the Con position.

But I can't help but feel that the criticism towards fauxlaw comes off a little too aggressively.

It is true that a debate like this is intended as a trap, but the site culture normalizes and encourages tactics like these. If all debaters were to fight fairly, then lesser experienced contenders would be unprepared to defend themselves whenever the instigator decides to fight dirty.

I have, on occasion, on. this site, taken a position in debate with which I personally disagree, all for the effort of research for personal enlightenment, but also to challenge wider consideration of personal opinion, so, to detractors of my methods, take note. I will, other than by specific posting of debate rounds, avoid commentary within this comments field for the duration of this debate, and I often make that choice to not engage commentary during debate. So, see you in the rounds, only. unless absolutely necessary, which is often not.

Barney, relative to your comment on a link to my R1, note that though instigator, I am Con, not Pro.

Someone remind me at the end, and I’ll make a wiki page in this, in large part to put the arguments into proper order.

Oh and Lancealot, not required by any means, but to make things easier on readers, the link to pro’s R1 is https://www.debateart.com/debates/6075/comments/63600

What a pathetic response. Your position is not defendable. Either you concede your entire argument is predicated on one mention of the lord being "In the year of our lord", or you continue to look like a pseudo-intellectual, whose shallow comments and clear attempt at wit (though failing), and acumen in debating continue to do you no good. The choice is yours.... now cue another long-winded labyrinth of mumbled nonsense. People usually go to sites like these to learn the ropes of debate, not frame a debate to work entirely in their favor, and not only not debate anything meaningful, but basically act as a word nazi, deflecting any such jab at the clearly flawed basis for this so called debate. As said previously, you will not concede because you have written on this topic, and miraculously been published to-boot, so one cannot expect you to throw that all away. One must at least ask why someone who writes on the topic, would then attempt a debate? It seems to me that the purpose of this is to merely reaffirm what you already believe. What strikes me is, how can someone write a whole book on such a topic. I am published as well, but I don't debate on public forums the things I have been published on, no, I debate in public, where the rules are not made by me.

Strong first round 1 from Con.
I look forward to the rest

Round 1
I Argument: Due process: an invention of God or man?

I.a The Fifth Amendment gives us the Constitution’s first mention of “due process of law:” saying to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”[4]

1.b The XIVth Amendment does, as well: “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”[5]

I.c The Magna Carta, from 1215, without using the specific words, gives us the same sense: “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in anyway, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”[6]

1.d The concept is older, still, from “The Egyptian Book of the Dead,” but known anciently by another name: “Spells of Coming Forth by Day” from about 1400 B.C.E, “I have driven away for thee wickedness. I have not done iniquity to mankind. Not have I done harm to animals. Not have I done wickedness in the place of Maàt. Not have I known evil. Not have I done what is abominable to God…”[7] These spells had the purpose of preparing the dead, not the living, to encounter God in supplication for their eternal soul by a commitment of right-doing during mortal life; a “due process” process, that is obviously a God-centered process, not merely secular.

1.e But we were introduced to the idea of due process earlier still, from Genesis, from Eden, at creation: “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat…”[8] but there were consequences. Due process is a process of obedience and consequence for legal obedience or disobedience. There is the source of due process: God.

II Argument: Words mean things
II.a Contrary to conventional wisdom, Con contends that the Lord God is mentioned within the text of the U.S. Constitution. The argument is simple, and cited from the Constitution, itself, even if the citation is couched within the typical context of official documents of the 18th century to acknowledge God even in the mundane necessity of dating the document:

II.b “…done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,”[9]

II.c It is granted that this commentary is not a legislated philosophy or legality of the United States by the present Constitution, but, the matter of the Resolution does not require the language therein to have a specified purpose above and beyond being the “…supreme law of the land…”[10] but merely mention for the same of convention, as the Description describes.

III Conclusion: A warning

III.1 It is further contended that as the U.S. Constitution is “…the supreme law of the land…” it stands as a beacon, like a lighthouse, which warns of malfeasance, but does not register the the ships that sail safely through the warned waters of treacherous result for lack of careful sailing. The results of careful “sailing,” by abiding by the caring words of due process, are marked in the words of the Constitution’s Preamble: “…in order to form a more perfect union.”[11] Is there anything that is not god-like that is associated with perfection? Therefore, to what purpose is the Constitution if not that, according to our author of these words, James Madison. No, God may not be otherwise mentioned constitutionally but in Article VII, but Madison intended by the Preamble that God be part and parcel of the Constitution.

III.2 Note the argument of I.a, above. It is not so much that the the Ist Amendment warns that Religion must not impose itself on Government, and thereby the infamous, “separation wall,” as alleged to Tommy Jefferson, but he happened to have been away from both church and state at the time, in France, and so never signed the U.S. Constitution, or its Ist Amendment. No, but the matter was that Government not impose itself on Religion, and thereby avoid its own violations of due process of law.

III.3 It is, therefore, proposed that the Resolution is defeated by these arguments. It is a matter of simple adherence to law; namely, due process of law; both man’s, and God’s.

Thank you for your attention. To pro for R1.

Sources:
[4] U.S. Constitution, Vth Amendment
[5] U.S. Constitution, XIVth Amendment, Section 1
[6] Magna Carta, Clause 39
[7] E.A. Wallis Budge, “The Egyptian Book of the Dead,” Plate XXIX-Appendix, pg 194
[8] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 2: 16
[9] U.S. Constitution, Article VII
[10] U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 2
[11] U.S. Constitution, Preamble

Notice: Heretofore recent technical difficulties with DA prohibit Con [fauxlaw] from entering argument rounds within the debate argument fields of DA; whereas, the Forum fields, and the Comments fields within Debate are available for entry by fauxlaw. To accept this debate, Pro, as well as voters and commenters must agree that Con’s arguments and source references of each round will be allowed loading in the DA Comments fields. This notice is null and void should Con find that he can enter arguments appropriately in the field rounds as intended, however, in another debate proposed bye another member was engaged by me a few days ago and I attempted to enter my 1st round argument last night and could not, so I suppose this debate will not be accepted in the argument field, either, though I will make the attempt. We will all see the result together. This will only be known upon launch of the debate.
By accepting this debate, Sir Lancelot, per the Description, has accepted to have my arguments posted in these comments fields. Further, readers amid voters are asked to ignore the otherwise automatic forfeit notices of each round since they will be evident in each round of the site refuses my entry of arguments as should be allowed, but may not be. I will be making the attempt today or tonight.

Your #11: "The only remotely relevant reference — “in the Year of our Lord” — is a standard 18th-century dating convention, not a theological or doctrinal inclusion. "

And who insists that God is only to be discussed in those terms; "theological" or "doctrinal?" I do not think of him elusively in those terms. I call him "Dad," on occasion in addressing him, and have those kinds of conversations. It is a personal reelationshbp. Shouldn't it be?

Re: Your #12:
You hee not yet consulted https://allthingsliberty.com. suggested on my #5, have you? Do so, you may have a better understanding of my perspective in launching this debater. Also, consider that I am currently wresting a sequel to mat previous volume re: the Constitution, proposing that the Document may be considered holy writ. Being perfectly serious.

You’ve clearly established a debate which — yes — in its framing makes it difficult to win from the Pro side. As Sir.Lancelot correctly notes, Pro isn’t unwinnable, but fauxlaw is focused entirely on plain textual observation rather than contextual interpretation or implied meaning. This debate is not about whether the Constitution is implicitly secular or religious — no amount of historical comparison or appeals to other documents will matter here. What Con cares about is isolated words, and words alone. And that highlights a larger issue with self-authored debates: they can be framed however the instigator wants. Given that Con has written on this topic professionally, it makes sense he would construct a resolution tilted toward his own strengths. In a more balanced, open-ended debate — one not designed by him — he would have a harder time convincing anyone with sound judgment and no financial stake in the matter. Because to most reasonable people, the Constitution is clearly not a religious document, and “in the Year of our Lord” is no more an invocation than “Thursday” is a tribute to Thor. The rhetorical flourishes and pseudo-intellectual framing are just that — a mirage of depth, obscuring a debate that ultimately lacks substance.

The Constitution of the United States does not mention “the Lord” or “God” in any legal, structural, or substantive way. The only remotely relevant reference — “in the Year of our Lord” — is a standard 18th-century dating convention, not a theological or doctrinal inclusion. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, Magna Carta, or Mayflower Compact — all of which openly invoke God — the Constitution was deliberately drafted without religious language. That was a conscious choice made by the framers, most notably James Madison, to ensure neutrality and protect both government and religion from mutual interference. The lack of a religious test in Article VI and the First Amendment further reinforce this secular character. Appeals to other documents, personal faith of the founders, or historical tradition are irrelevant to the legal text of the Constitution itself, which speaks clearly through its silence on the matter. It’s also worth noting that you (Con), who has written about this topic professionally, may have an understandable but entrenched reluctance to concede the plain meaning of the text — one shaped more by commitment to a viewpoint than by what the Constitution actually says.

Perhaps that was Con's intention, but the Pro position is definitely winnable.

No, you're right.
Labeling this a bait&switch isn't fair because the setup makes the case very straightforward. It's not a trick.

I wouldn't say the description is hidden though. And obviously it helps set the parameters of the debate, or there would be no point in including it.

"Did I offer conditions for the debate in my Resolution, or description?"

Yes, when you say "For purposes of this debate..."

You claim from post #4 "Debate is designed to make 'the year of our Lord' win this for Con."

You have implied a "hidden agenda" by your claim of "designed." i.e. "to win the debate" No, I claim the Resolution, as worded, will not win the debate as a burden of proof for Pro. That's not a "design;" that's in- your-face obvious, isn't it?

I didn't say the agenda was hidden...

All threes of you have demonstrated the point of my resolution, when attempting to poke holes in it, yet substantiated it, regardless, making the debate totally unnecessary. Thank you. You might find the following website interesting: https://allthingsliberty.com. It is the origin of the "Journal of the American Revolution," which shares your "godless Constitution." The real problem with your shared position is that the Constitution does not warn against an illegitimate incursion of God into U.S. politics, but, rather, prohibits the illegitimate incursion of politics into religion. There is your "wall," gentlemen. Consider that at the time, Tommy Jefferson, for example, during the calculated composition of the Constitution, was separated from both church and state, being located in France as our first minister there [that was his curious title, then, when we now call them ambassadors, so, how separated is that?] and not in the Constitutional Convention. He never signed the Document.

Sir.Lance: What bait and switch? My every word in the negation of the Resolution stands with merit. I made no remark, nor any conditional illusion in the Resolution that is true. The Constitution does "make mention" of the Lord, when no less of a puffed-pastry institution than the website noted above spends a good deal of cyberspace proudly claiming the Constitution is unconditionally Godless.

Clause: " Yet we see no quote from the Constitution itself to substantiate this." You want my entire argument presented in the Description? Pray tell, what are following arguments for? So you can prematurely efactulate all over them?Just clean up, please.

Savant; Did I offer conditions for the debate in my Resolution, or description? No. Take them at face value. You seem to think I have a hidden agenda. when the agenda is there to see at face value, religious, or not. It truly does not matter.

Perfect!

It’s good to know Con isn’t debating the Constitution — just proofreading it for bonus points.

Debate is designed to make "the year of our Lord" win this for Con.

i.e. "This debate is not construed to represent a Christian-only limited condition, considering the title-not-name of “Lord,” or “God,” so there will be no need to argue that any religion is included or excluded from consideration."

It arguably does have religious significance, but Con doesn't even need to argue that.

The core claim of the Con position is that “the Lord” is mentioned in the Constitution. Yet we see no quote from the Constitution itself to substantiate this — because no such quote exists. The only possible reference is a dating convention in the closing line: “in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven.” That phrase is ceremonial, not theological. It has no legal or religious significance, nor does it reflect divine authority behind the Constitution.

Con instead leans on other documents — the Declaration of Independence, Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact — none of which are the U.S. Constitution, and none of which have binding constitutional authority. The absence of any direct citation proves the point: the Constitution is intentionally secular. The authors knew how to invoke God if they wished — as they did in other writings — and they chose not to.

I knew you were Con before I even clicked this.
I knew it was a bait and switch