No, I meant that your statement, "State rights are limited in the framework of the federal system - the core of my argument and the core of our federal constitutional system, thus constructionist", is nonsensical gobbledegook.
Minor?
"We need to move all this case law from the halls to the landfills."
"The federal judiciary claimed it did when it usurped power from the states."
"precedent is a dangerous tool in the hands of a tyrannical judiciary."
"the opinion of another judge(s) who is likely to be corrupt."
"the corrupt U.S. Supreme Court"
It was your central point, as you agreed in #584. For the history of the nation and before, judges are nasty, bad corrupt people and shouldn't be listened to in terms of constitutional law - especially the Supreme Court.
That is exactly right. And I was much kinder to those jack-asses than Jefferson, who wrote in 1820, "The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone . . . Having found, from experience, that impeachment is an impracticable thing, a mere scare-crow, they consider themselves secure for life; they sculk from responsibility to public opinion, the only remaining hold on them, under a practice first introduced into England by Lord Mansfield. An opinion is huddled up in conclave, perhaps by a majority of one, delivered as if unanimous, and with the silent acquiescence of lazy or timid associates, by a crafty chief judge, who sophisticates the law to his mind, by the turn of his own reasoning. A judiciary law was once reported by the Attorney General to Congress, requiring each judge to deliver his opinion _seriatim_ and openly, and then to give it in writing to the clerk to be entered in the record. A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government."
As the Federal Constitution applies to the state, the state must follow. Thus, a state may not establish a religion.
You must be reading a different constitution than either I or Thomas Jefferson read. I posted his understanding on the matter in a previous post, but you ignored it (you mis-named it as the Danbury letter so I assume you did not read it). Read it this time: "I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." -- 1808
... if as you argue, a state can invalidate the First Amendment, it can invalidate any part under the guise of 'states' rights.'
I cannot believe you are having this much trouble understanding. Where did you go to school? Berkeley? One final time: the First Amendment applies only to the Congress. It reads, "Congress shall make no law...". Read the interpretation by Jefferson (above) over and over until you understand.
The you are reneging on your statement?: Post #475 - I am not opposed to the teaching of evolution, and I never have been.
Huh? You wrote: The position of a state government requiring creationism in school is an usurpation. You have since backed off of that position . . .. I wrote, "No, I did not". I have never stated that if a state government requires creationism it is a usurpation, so a clearer response would have been, "I never held that position". I apologize for confusing you.
The rest of your post is more of the same insistence that the Constitution does not apply to the states...
That is stupid beyond belief. I never said the Constitution does not apply to the states. Anyone with half-a-brain knows that the Constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government (well, it did at one time), and the constitution prohibits the states from certain activities, such as Bills of Attainder (well, it did at one time), ex post facto laws (well, it did at one time), and it prohibits slavery (okay on that one, so far). What I said was the 1st Amendment did not apply to the states. Thomas Jefferson agreed with me, so I don't care whether you and other big-government leftists do, or not.
The closure from Washington to which you quoted "Religion and morality are indispensable supports" is true - but those supports are in the private sector. They have a purpose there - but not in state law.
That is a typical leftist argument used to undermine our social mores and replace them with Marxist doctrines.
Of course since the rest of the organization of human authority in this country has determined that the Constitution and its guarantees applies to all governments in the the borders of the US.
I cannot believe you are having this much trouble understanding. Where did you go to school? Berkeley? One final time: the First Amendment applies only to the Congress. It reads, "Congress shall make no law...". Read the interpretation by Jefferson (above) over and over until you understand.
No schooling was here in the Midwest, at private religious universities.
The problem with your argument is that you have rejected my sources because they are evil judges - that is it, nothing else despite part of their job on the Supreme Court is to be Constitutional experts - and you have responded with one quote from Jefferson in the last year of his presidency. A quote which you yourself only understand that the federal government has no place in religion.
You are not accepting that the entire Constitution applies to all of the states. States can not violate the 4th if they wanted to, nor the 1st.
Anyone with half-a-brain knows that the Constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government (well, it did at one time), and the constitution prohibits the states from certain activities, such as Bills of Attainder (well, it did at one time), ex post facto laws (well, it did at one time), and it prohibits slavery (okay on that one, so far). What I said was the 1st Amendment did not apply to the states. Thomas Jefferson agreed with me, so I don't care whether you and other big-government leftists do, or not.
Obviously you are lacking that half a brain if the 13th and 14th apply to the states but the 1st doesn't....just because one speech of Jefferson led you to believe so. That statement completely destroy you own arguments. One amendment apllies but not the other.
BTW - the constitutionalist position does not make a left wing position....unless it gets in the way of your blessed theocracy of course.
Small, non-invasive government is a cornerstone of the conservative position. One that is overlooked by far-right, big government advocates like yourself - where big government is great when it furthers far right social principles.
The rest of us Conservatives want small, limited government at all levels because we trust the people to make their own decisions about their own life. They don't need the State as Big Preacher.
That is a typical leftist argument used to undermine our social mores and replace them with Marxist doctrines.
Not at all, it advocates that religion is the purview and responsibility of the individual not the state.
I realize this is an idea hard for a theocrat to understand that Conservatives have that problem with government being Big Brother, the Mommy of the nanny state, and Big Preacher of the Bible State.