Utterly ignoring the mere fact that the Constitution is written in plain language, meant to be read and understood by the common people — complex and "magic" legalese has no place there. — Even way back in Marbury v. Madison it's recognized that the general population established the government via the Constitution:
The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.It makes little sense, therefore; to assume that they used legalese as a code, but rather common languages with the intent that it should be readily understood — the length of the Constitution [a mere 4 pages] contrasts greatly with the example of legalese ObamaCare [many more than 10,000 pages] illustrates the difference nicely.
That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.
This original and supreme will organizes the government and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
The Government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited [p177] and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; How does the underlined (which I assume you are referring to) confer to the general citizenry anything but the continued security of religious-/press-/association-freedom against CONGRESS, which is specifically named?
It is when we're talking about the incorporation of the First Amendment, like we were:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.How does applying this to the states suddenly make the legislatures [not Congress] of said states bound?
But how would it confer continued security of religion/press/etc against Congress? Congress is already banned from doing those things, that's what the original privileges/immunities do. There's no reason to tell Congress that it can't do what you already say it can't do. That would be redundant.
Sure it does — Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution says: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
&mdsh; Given this, the clause you specifically cite is redundant. (If the States may abridge Privileges and Immunities, then the citizens of each state cannot be said to be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities, can they?)
>> Especially given the university is not a government entity.
> > Per Wikipedia:
"The University of New Mexico was founded on February 28, 1889, with the passage of House Bill No. 186 by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of New Mexico; stipulating that "Said institution is hereby located at or near the town of Albuquerque, in the county of Bernalillo within two miles north of railroad avenue in said town, upon a tract of good high and dry land, of not less than twenty acres suitable for the purposes of such institution," and that it would be the state university when New Mexico became a state."
Ok, so it's instituted by the state — How does prohibitions against the legislative portion of the government apply to this non-legislative body?
>> Just because it's a public institution doesn't necessarily mean it's government — or do you wish to claim that Churches aren't public institutions?
>
> You're right, churches aren't public institutions. They're private. At least all the ones I know of are, unless you're posting from Great Britain? In which case I could understand how you have such a fundamental misunderstanding here, since the Church of England actually is a public church. Public doesn't mean that anyone can use it. It refers to the ownership, does the citizenry as a whole own it (through the government)? Or a single individual/small group?
So, you're saying that no township (or general citizenship thereof) in the US ever decided to build a church for the town?
Are you from some alternate reality?