Replies

Stick to the science anguish, it was a nice try but your statement had more holes than a Swiss Cheese. :-}

Take my word for it, the ruling will be overturned. 14A jurisprudence in the 20th century did incorporate certain of the BOR's including 1A but this is not a 1A case. No religion is established and in America the Creator is stl Constitutional. You see we teach our students that our rights are granted by the Creator. That is no more an establishment of religion than the disclaimer in the science book.

Ergo, the fedgov has no power and, as usual, is medding where it has no business meddling.

You see we teach our students that our rights are granted by the Creator. That is no more an establishment of religion than the disclaimer in the science book.

If that were true, then why is there no prayer in schools?

I won't argue with you that the courts are way out of line with how they interpret the First Amendment. The 14th amendment, if I remember correct, a reaction to some southern states who were attempting to say the BOR only applied to the federal government.

But the argument is moot because the First Amendment was specifically a restriction on what laws the Federal Congress could write. The First Amendment is not a "right" per-se. Yes it says we have a right of free speech, but that right had to be cloned by the states in order to insure that the state could not abridge speech either.

In reading the BOR, it appears as if the amendments were extensions of the First amendment, as if the First was some kind of preamble to the rest. As if the words "Congress shall make no law" were extended to the other amendments.

But what we call the "First Amendment", I believe was not the first actual amendment passed out of the Congress. It was merely the first Amendment RATIFIED by the states, that considered the amendments separately

I could go on and on. Basically, I agree with your actual litteral interpretation of the Constitution. But let's be real, the courts have ruled entirely differently, and this ruling will stand. Easily.

Stick to the science anguish, it was a nice try but your statement had more holes than a Swiss Cheese. :-}

Anguish has it right - I'm actually pretty impressed that a Swede would know more about constitutional law than 99% of Americans. Most Americans have no idea that the Bill of Rights, as written, only applies to the federal government and rights that we see as fundamental such as the freedom of speech or religion could have been negated by state or local governments prior to the 14th Amendment and subsequent SCOTUS rulings.

jwalsh, you may not agree with the SCOTUS rulings but Anguish and Narby did provide you with the judicial realities of the situation.