Supreme Court justice agrees: First Amendment limits only Congress

Renew America ^ | May 10, 2014 | By Bryan Fischer

[Jim Robinson]

I have argued since I first began writing and speaking on this issue that the First Amendment restrains only the actions of Congress. The first word in the First Amendment, after all, is the word "Congress." "Congress shall make no law..."

The Founders quite intentionally were not imposing restraints on what a state could do in offering prayers before legislative assemblies, or what a city could do in erecting Ten Commandments monuments, or what a school could do in offering prayer and Bible reading over the intercom or at graduation. Congress and Congress alone is bound down by the chains of the First Amendment.

This has enormous implications for public policy, because it means that the only entity in America that can violate the First Amendment is Congress. A state can't, a city can't, and a school official or student most certainly can't. State constitutions may have something to say about what those entities can do, but the federal government, including the judiciary, has precisely zero constitutional or moral authority to intervene in such matters.

That, my friends, is freedom. Freedom for states, cities and schools to decide matters of religious expression for themselves without black-robed tyrants on the other side of the country deciding such things for them.

Thus the recent Supreme Court ruling, allowing cities and, in fact, all government bodies to offer invocations in Jesus' name before meetings is a good ruling. But the matter never even should have been before the Court in the first place. The First Amendment prohibits any kind of federal interference in religious expression whatsoever.

And while in many ways I have been a lone voice crying in the wilderness on this topic, I now find there are two of us crying out in the desert of out-of-control jurisprudence. Clarence Thomas...

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[Islander7]

And while in many ways I have been a lone voice crying in the wilderness ...

There are hundreds of FReepers who have said exactly the same things for many years.

[christx30]

So does that mean that the mayor or city council of my town can pass a city ordinance prohibiting criticism of the city government?
I’d rather the first amendment apply to all levels of government.

[Doctor 2Brains]

for later

[Darksheare]

That’s where the incorporation clause comes in.
States cannot deprive you of your first amendment rights because of it, though some do try.

[House Atreides]

“So does that mean that the mayor or city council of my town can pass a city ordinance prohibiting criticism of the city government?
I’d rather the first amendment apply to all levels of government.”
********************************************************************

I don’t know for sure (and don’t have the time currently to research it) but I would suspect many State constitutions would also have articles prohibiting restraint on freedom of speech.

Perhaps another FReeper knows this off the top of their head.

[PapaNew]

It's nice to see SCOTUS agree with the Constitution once in a while.

The Constitution itself is based on a presumption expressed in the Declaration of Independence - that individuals are born with a God-given right to life, liberty, and pursuits. The presumption is expressed in the 10th Amendment that wherever powers the states did not delegate to the federal government remains a power of the states and the people.

Over the years beginning around 1900, the Fabian Progressive Socialists have inverted this presumption and essentially nullified the 10th Amendment and have instead used a twisted application of the 14th Amendment to justify federal power to restrain states and individuals. But the 14th Amendment only gives the federal government power in one specific area to enforce over the states: forbidding state laws forcing segregation. This original intent was confirmed by SCOTUS in the Slaughterhouse cases in the 1800's.

The Constitution and the first ten amendments are pointed at limiting the federal government, not giving the federal government power to enforce over the states with the one exception in the 14th Amendment. If the feds won't overturn these unconstitutional, precedent-breaking decisions of the 1900's, then state courts should begin nullifying back to the original SCOUTS decisions of the 1800's that kept the Constitution intact and the federal government in its constitutional cage.

[House Atreides]

“That’s where the incorporation clause comes in....”
**********************************************************************

You may have just answered my implied question in post 7 above.

[RIghtwardHo]

I don’t like this ruling at all. The reason is, it will force the recognition of non-Christian prayers (you see those drooling atheists out there?) The ruling made it clear that the prayers was permitted ONLY because it was non-discriminatory.

Having litigated many a Constitutional issue, the First Amendment applies to any government restriction. That was not how this was ruled.

I remember years ago, I taught a Sunday School class about prayer in school. I was, at least at the beginning of the class, the only one against it and was typically known as the most conservative member of the Congregation. In the end, I made it clear that ... rest assured, it will NOT end up being the Prayer you want.

The Constitution thinks long term. That’s it’s genius and inspiration. That’s the “God” in it. This is a short term decision. This can be used to stifle our beliefs.

Be careful what you wish for ...

[Jim Robinson]

It's called federalism.

From the Preamble to The Bill of Rights:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

From the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The tenth amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Hoodat]

First Amendment limits only Congress

Correct! And the Equal Protection of Amendment XIV ensures that this unique protection against Congress is to be applied equally to all citizens. That was the intent in 1787. It was the intent after the War of Secession. And it should ring true today.

[savedbygrace]

Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

(All citizens ought to know the Constitution of the United States of America better than any other document in our lives. Therefore, you ought to know this. Not necessarily have it memorized, but you should know it is a part of the Constitution.)

[PapaNew]

You do NOT want to enlarge the federal government's power by extending their power to enforce the first ten amendments. That was not the original intent of these amendments and would be a disastrous mistake. They were precisely pointed at the federal government, written and passed so the states would feel safer about creating a potentially dangerous central government and would ratify ratify the Constitution.

The Founders believed the states were in the hands of the people of each state and the people of each state would decide accordingly how to run things in their particular state. The only exception would be a clear constitutional violation that could be brought to federal court. The federal court or the Supreme Court are LIMITED to ruling on an INDIVIDUAL case regarding a clear constitutional issue and that's it.

It's good to remember that the federal government is not you friend. It will take anything and everything it can from you including your life if need be. The federal government is a necessary potential evil that can do some good if kept tightly within the limitations of its constitutional cage.

[Jim Robinson]

The text and original intent of the Constitution is what it is. The courts cannot (legally) change it.

All powers not expressly enumerated and specifically delegated by the constitution to the federal government are reserved to the sovereign states and to the people.

[Geoffrey]

When Patrick Henry read how they changed his wording for the 10th amendment, he predicted a bloody civil war.

[gitmo]

That’s where the incorporation clause comes in.
States cannot deprive you of your first amendment rights because of it, though some do try.

——————––-—————————––-—————————––-—————————––————
They sure deprive people of 2nd Amendment rights.

[Theoria]

Demographics. Ebb and flow. No longer will it be Bible readings, but things people might not want.

Just a observation.

[Da Bilge Troll]

"the First Amendment applies to any government restriction. That was not how this was ruled."

That was my impression as a layman as well. Glad to see it confirmed.

I don't see any caveats in the 1st Amendment at all. An establishment requires coercion. If there's no force involved, government can favor, even promote, any religion it wants subject to the next election. It appears to be that cut-and-dried to me!

[PapaNew]

As decided in the Slaughterhouse cases of the 1800's, there was no overarching "incorporation clause" in the 14th Amendment. The original intent of the 14th Amendment, as confirmed by the Slaughterhouse cases, gave the feds ONE SPECIFIC power over the states: to forbid state laws forcing segregation of former slaves, blacks. THAT'S IT. As the Slaughterhouse opinion warned, anything more is not only not the original intent of the post-civil war amendment, but would give the feds carte blanche, destroying the Constitution and its limitations on the federal government.

Such has been the case since the 20th Century SCOTUS has overturned the Slaughterhouse precedent and twisted the 14th Amendment to allow the federal government to run amok.