My claims are supported by Supreme Court rulings. You are the one begging the question by claiming that the BOR applied to the states outlawing "new" establishments of state religions, a claim that is completely unsupportable by either the plain language of the Constitution or any court ruling or legal opinions. You can provide no source to back up your specious claims because there are none.
Who said it did?
You said the Constitution "more than suggests, it rules out sectarian forms." It does not. This is another of your baseless and unsupported claims you just made up. You're a fraud who knows nothing of the law except commie lies.
State supported religions are not Constitutional under a Republican form of government.
If that's so, then why didn't the ratification of the Constitution abolish those state churches which already existed? You cannot answer this because you have tripped yourself up with your web of lies.
The truth is that the First amendment was meant to protect sectarianism and allow each state to decide for itself its own position on establishment, an arrangement rooted in Federalism which an ultra-nationalist such as yourself can only view with hostility.
They were trying to establish polygamy as a religious 'right' under a sectarian form of government.
You base your entire argument that new establishments were prohibited on the case of Utah, and when I point out that Utah did not even attempt to establish a state religion you call it nit-picking? It's not nit-picking, it's demolishing your unsupportable argument.
I call you a liar and a commie because you are one. You are also a coward and a sissy always crying about "take it to the back room."
I'll say what I have to say right here where everyone can see.
Ping me when you find any constitutional opinions or legal rulings at all that support your positions. I won't hold my breath.
My claims are supported by Supreme Court rulings.
Mine are supported by our Constitution.
You are the one begging the question by claiming that the BOR applied to the states outlawing "new" establishments of state religions, a claim that is completely unsupportable by either the plain language of the Constitution or any court ruling or legal opinions. You can provide no source to back up your specious claims because there are none.
Amusing charge, considering that ~is~ indeed the issue. You are begging that issue, joe, not arguing it.
The word sectarian appears nowhere in the Constitution.
Who said it did? Another silly distractive comment, which only shows your inability to address the facts. -- State supported religions are not Constitutional under a Republican form of government.
You said the Constitution "more than suggests, it rules out sectarian forms." It does not.
Another of your baseless and unsupported claims, joe. The people of all States are quaranteed a Republican Form of Government. This rules out sectarian, like Utah tried to form.
This is another of your baseless and unsupported claims you just made up. You're a fraud who knows nothing of the law except commie lies.
You're getting comical in your desperation joe. -- Have you no honor, 'sir'?
_____________________________________
State supported religions are not Constitutional under a Republican form of government.
If that's so, then why didn't the ratification of the Constitution abolish those state churches which already existed? You cannot answer this because you have tripped yourself up with your web of lies.
Not so. I answered that very question back on an earlier post. Try to keep up.
The truth is that the First amendment was meant to protect sectarianism and allow each state to decide for itself its own position on establishment, an arrangement rooted in Federalism which an ultra-nationalist such as yourself can only view with hostility.
States cannot establish religions, joe. We fought for freedom from such old world concepts.
___________________________________
They [Utahs Mormons] were trying to establish polygamy as a religious 'right' under a sectarian form of government.
You base your entire argument that new establishments were prohibited on the case of Utah, and when I point out that Utah did not even attempt to establish a state religion you call it nit-picking? It's not nit-picking, it's demolishing your unsupportable argument.
The historical record of Utahs fight for statehood is available for anyone to read. It supports my argument, not yours, joe.
I call you a liar and a commie because you are one. You are also a coward and a sissy always crying about "take it to the back room."
JR has told me to do exactly that, -- or get banned, -- in no uncertain terms, more than once. You might think about that, hotshot.
I'll say what I have to say right here where everyone can see.
Fine. -- Keep it up and you will pay the price. - But I don't intend to get banned over a flame war with a clown like you.
Ping me when you find any constitutional opinions or legal rulings at all that support your positions.
I won't hold my breath.
Actually, thats exactly what you need to do. Try to get a grip on your emotions.