Posted on 01/30/2004 7:59:34 AM PST by presidio9
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:50:59 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
College students often devote considerable energies to raising hell. Marshall University's Seth Murphy has discovered a novel way of doing so.
Mr. Murphy, student vice president at the West Virginia school, instituted opening prayers at Tuesday night senate meetings. He was rewarded with a shower of brimstone and, perhaps worse, he inspired opponents to organize a consciousness-raising session. On the bright side, all parties to the dispute are sharpening skills that will come in handy should they pursue postgraduate careers in culture-war combat.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Allowing people to freely exercise their beliefs is a violation of the free exercise clause...
Makes sense...
He would have been fine if it wasn't for these statements. Kind of arrogant on his part- telling people how to pray.
He isn't Congress, nor were his actions a law.
Let's not get stuck on this point. The Bill of Rights applies to the States and to local government. This is a state university, and he is part of the state university's government. "Law" has been interpreted, in dozens, if not hundreds, of cases to mean "action by a government official in his official capacity."
Mr. Murphy, student vice president at the West Virginia school ....
I'm not sure that makes a difference. It's still a type of government.
This kind of response is why socialism must be fought at every level. Once the government owns everything, religion is banned entirely, especially by those who don't understand the law.
Applying the Bill of Rights to the states was the purpose behind the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
They did bring themselves to say that. 14th Amendment, Section 1 reads, in pertinent part:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
What did you think this section means?
What does it mean? Keep in mind, if we follow your interpretation, there really is no right to bear arms in the Constitution, because States are free to ban gun ownership. A state could ban you from practicing your religion. The list goes on and on.
Okay....which Kerry troll wrote this piece?? "Free Evercise Clause"???
Kudos to you for your understanding. The BoR did not apply to the States - Chief Justice Marshall and the court issued an opinion stating exactly that.
Regarding the bogus assertion that "priveleges & immunities" clause in the 14th Amendment extended the BoR to the states, the Constitution already had such verbage in Article IV § 2 - 'The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.'
It took judicial activists to apply the BoR to the states.
The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. ... The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument.Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention.
But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.
Chief Justice Marshall, Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 7 Pet. (32 US) 243, (1833)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.