[JeffAtlanta]

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.

[jwalsh07]

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.

No doubt anguish is one smart Swede but he is wrong on the "Constitution being apllied to the states" as a general statement and wrong in this particular case as are you. All state constitutions enumerated speech and religion rights prior to 20th Century incorporation of certain of the BOR's to the states.

The 14A is a club used by federal courts to put their noses in where they don't belong and anti-thetical in that regard to the original intent of the founders.

The anti federalists feared an overly strong central government lording iver the states and they were exactly right. Nothing in the Constitution, the 14A, the 1A or Constitutional jurisprudence prohibits an acknowldgement of a Creator. Not that the CC BOEd even metnioned such.

What the judge accomplishes, and you seemingly support, is a further poisoning of the well and stoking the flames of the culture war. Culture wars persist because unelected judges make rulings such as these and use the power of the fedgov to enforce them. Issues such as this are best left to be debated in the public square of the localities and states. The remedies are simple; elections, recalls or voting with your feet.

You can have a Constitutional Republic or you can have oligarchy. One leads to freedom, the other to fascism.

And this judge will be overturned. His holding and justification for same is inept. jwalsh, you may not agree with the SCOTUS rulings but Anguish and Narby did provide you with the judicial realities of the situation.