I'm not sure why anyone would care. A book that addresses a tangential subject is Serving the Word: Literalism in America from the Pulpit to the Bench by Vincent Crapanzano. Crapanzano is an anthroplogist and a literature professor, and he is not concerned with whether the Constitution was influenced by religious dogma. Instead, he compares Fundamentalist Christianity to the legal approach called "Literalism". It's a fascinating book (I read it a couple of decades ago, and I skimmed the parts on Fundamentalism). My memory is that legal "literalism" can be contrasted with "intentionalism". In other words, should judges consider the literal meaning of the written laws, or the intentions of their authors, or both?GE Morton wrote: ↑February 19th, 2022, 1:28 pm
Well, so so claimed earlier, to which I responded that no provision of the US Constitution has any religious source or basis. If you wish to persist with that claim you'll need to cite the provision you claim has a religious basis and then the religious documents you claim "inspired" it.
I vaguely remember the late Judge Scalia wrote some decisions that were well argued (I may not have agreed with Scalia politically, but he was an excellent writer). In one case, a defendant was appealling a long mandatory sentence he had been given because a law required such a sentence if the offender used a firearm during the commission of a drug related felony. The defendant had traded guns for hard drugs -- which had been construed as "using a firearm", but which may not have been consistent with the intent of the lawmakers. I think you would like the book, GE.