Posted on 07/11/2006 4:03:24 PM PDT by tpaine
Yeah, and burning jet fuel didn't really bring down the WTC.
Incorporation of the First Amendment OUGHT to have aimed to protect the free exercise of religion, since the State establishments no longer existed. How the court decided that the language served to abolish those same establishments that it was intended to protect is hard to understand. I don't get much help from the court cases, since they are all over the place. My concclusion that the judges had it in their minds to federalize the public schools and the best way to do this was to secularize them. This way you could pretend that there are no real differences between students in Massachusetts and students in Mississippi.
I'm reminded of the dime-store Mythbuster DUmmie from the link I posted above -- he doesn't explicitly endorse goofball conspiracy theories about the WTC attack, but clearly does so by implication.
This was BEFORE the 14th came along. What you appeared to be saying was that before the 14th, the BoR didn't apply. That is wrong.
The 14th came along as this basic principle was being ignored and bad court rulings had further obfuscated the issue. To futher screw things up, some idiot judge came up with the absolute LIE that there was some "selective incorperation" doctrine in play. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about an Amendment not being valid law, throughout the US, until after some judge rules it to be so. Once the Congress, and the States, ratify it, it applies every where in the US. Just like laws do.
An Amendment, by definition, would only be "illegal" if it violated some other portion of the Constitution. No mere law has more power than the Constitution that gives that law its authority to exist in the first place.
22,000 gun laws on the books and 99.99% of them are "illegal" laws as they are unConstitutional on their face. Regardless of the 14th, but doubly so because of it.
I made the counterpoint:
-- State sponsored religions were sort of 'grandfathered in' for the original States. -- But look at the trouble Utah had trying to enter the Union while 'respecting' the Mormon religion. Took Utah 40 years to gain statehood.
Utah didn't really have any serious prospects of entering the Union until after the Fourteenth Amendment had been ratified ---, so that example is beside the point.
Well, the Mormons were serious about entering the Union as a religious State:
"-- They applied for statehood in 1849, 1856, 1862, 1872, 1882, and 1887, without success.
The major prohibiting issue was the Mormon practice of polygamy. The political future of Utah became tied to the polygamy issue when the Republicans inserted in their 1856 platform the promise to eliminate in the territories the "twin relics of barbarism" — slavery and polygamy.
There would be no statehood for Utah as long as polygamy was practiced. --"
The opportunity for the Court to use Jefferson's letter (to the Danbury Baptists) arose in 1878 (Reynolds vs. United States, 1878, USSC) when the Mormons claimed that the First Amendment's 'free exercise' promise and the 'separation of church and state' principle should keep the United States government from making laws prohibiting their 'religious' exercise of polygamy. Using Jefferson's letter, the Court showed that while the government was not free to interfere with opinions on religion, which is what frequently distinguishes one denomination from another, it was responsible to enforce civil laws according to general Christian standards. In other words, separation of church and state pertained to denomination differences, not to basic Christian principles. ["Myth of Separation" by David Barton, p.43]
ping
I made the counterpoint:
-- State sponsored religions were sort of 'grandfathered in' for the original States. -- But look at the trouble Utah had trying to enter the Union while 'respecting' the Mormon religion. Took Utah 40 years to gain statehood.
--- the Mormons were serious about entering the Union as a religious State:
"-- They applied for statehood in 1849, 1856, 1862, 1872, 1882, and 1887, without success. The major prohibiting issue was the Mormon practice of polygamy. The political future of Utah became tied to the polygamy issue when the Republicans inserted in their 1856 platform the promise to eliminate in the territories the "twin relics of barbarism" — slavery and polygamy. There would be no statehood for Utah as long as polygamy was practiced. --"
The opportunity for the Court to use Jefferson's letter (to the Danbury Baptists) arose in 1878 (Reynolds vs. United States, 1878, USSC) when the Mormons claimed that the First Amendment's 'free exercise' promise and the 'separation of church and state' principle should keep the United States government from making laws prohibiting their 'religious' exercise of polygamy.
Using Jefferson's letter, the Court showed that while the government was not free to interfere with opinions on religion, which is what frequently distinguishes one denomination from another, it was responsible to enforce civil laws ---
Yep, just as Congress is responsible for admitting States to the Union that have a "Republican Form of Government. --- Utah would not guarantee that for more than forty years.
How can I hate something that helped GWB defeat Algore, by requiring equal protection (uniform recounts) for all the voters in FL? Please re-read my explanation of how I feel about it. Thanks.
How is polygamy related to a NON Republican Form of Government?
Weren't slave states admitted to the union before and in accordance with the Missouri Compromise? If one "twin relic of barbarism" (polygamy) resulted in a NON Republican Form of government, wouldn't the other (slavery) have done the same? Was the Congress remiss in its Constitutional responsibility?
Wrong.
Here is the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
Grammatically, tpaine, all those clauses apply to Congress. There is no period in the middle of this amendment, where a new sentence begins, that could possibly suggest that anything more than Congress is being referred to. Congress, and only Congress, is what all those prohibitions after the word "or" apply to. Congress is the first word in this amendment and it overshadows the entire amendment.
So true!
Why do you suppose one of the first ten amendments singles out Congress, and prohibits only Congress' actions, and others (2 thru 8) are written without specifically applying to Congress?
How is polygamy related to a NON Republican Form of Government?
Utah's proposed constitutions [which sanctioned/supported Mormonism/polygamy] -- were not acceptable to Congress. - They were denied statehood.
Weren't slave states admitted to the union before and in accordance with the Missouri Compromise? If one "twin relic of barbarism" (polygamy) resulted in a NON Republican Form of government, wouldn't the other (slavery) have done the same?
Was the Congress remiss in its Constitutional responsibility?
Congress was fighting to save the Union by admitting slave states. They could stand on principle about admitting a state with a sanctioned religion.
The fact that Congress is expressly forbidden in the 1st from "respecting an establishment of religion" does not allow State or local government [legislative] officials to violate their own oaths to "-- support this Constitution --" by writing laws "respecting an establishment of religion".
----- Just as they can't write valid laws infringing on our right to keep and bear arms.
This same principle applies to all levels of gov't in the USA. -- None of them can write infringements on our supreme Law of the Land.
Wrong.
Here is the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
Grammatically, tpaine, all those clauses apply to Congress.
Poor grammar. -- Why would only ~Congress~ be stopped from prohibiting religion; or peoples freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition for a redress of grievances?
Nope, no other fed/state/local officials were authorized to prohibit our freedoms - either.
There is no period in the middle of this amendment, where a new sentence begins, that could possibly suggest that anything more than Congress is being referred to. Congress, and only Congress, is what all those prohibitions after the word "or" apply to. Congress is the first word in this amendment and it overshadows the entire amendment.
Yep, that poor wording in effect helped lead to our civil war. - It allowed authoritarians in the south to claim that States had the "right" to ignore important parts of our Constitution.
Why do you suppose one of the first ten amendments singles out Congress, and prohibits only Congress' actions, and others (2 thru 8) are written without specifically applying to Congress?
Because in the 1790/91 ratification debates, the States that still sanctioned religions wanted it made clear that Congress could not write laws to prohibit them. -- Well, - they 'won'; and created a fine mess in doing so.
nunn_v_state.txt
Address:http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nunn_v_state.txt
in the case of the People vs. Goodwin, (16 John. Rep. 200) and Chief Justice Spencer, who delivered its opinion, says:
"The defendant's counsel rely principally on the fifth article of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which contains this provision "Nor, shall any person be subject, for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."
It has been urged by the prisoner's counsel, that this constitutional provision operates upon State courts--proprio vigore. This has been denied on the other side. I am inclined to the opinion, that the article in question does extend to all judicial tribunals whether constituted by the Congress of the United States or the States individually.
The provision is general in its nature and unrestricted in its terms; and the sixth article of the Constitution declares, that the constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary not withstanding.
These general and comprehensive expressions extend the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, to every article which is not confined by the subject matter to the national government, and is equally applicable to the States.
Be this as it may, the principle is undeniable, that no person can be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offence."
The language of the second amendment is broad enough to
embrace both Federal and State governments -- nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning.
The preamble which was prefixed to these amendments shows, that they originated in the fear that the powers of the general government were not sufficiently limited. Several of the States in their act of ratification recommended that further restrictive clauses should he added. And in the first session of the first Congress, ten of these amendments having been agreed to by that body, and afterwards sanctioned by three-fourths of the States, became a part of the Constitution.
But admitting all this, does it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments?
Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an inalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government?
We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures.
This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature.
What does citizenship [at any level] have to do with whether the BOR's are part of our supreme Law, - which all officials in the USA are sworn to honor, "notwithstanding" State constitutions or laws?
I posted it plainly in my last post. The BOR was a further limitation on the central government's power. This is so much acknowledged in writings and court cases before the civil war that I don't know how to answer you.
Do you have any cases before the war where one of the Bill of Rights was applied to a state?
I'll say again. There were once state citizens and US citizens implied in that. Now there are federal citizens only, residing in a state. The 14th is clear on that by its wording.
The power to make citizens is the power to chose what group or groups can fill federal jobs and hold federal office. For instance, how does citizenship status keep Schwarzenegger from being elected president? This gives you a sense of how important citizenship is.
Citizenship determines who the electors are. The "anchor baby" is an example. At the state level, it would not happen because the child born of illegal aliens would not qualify for citizenship at state level, and if it did, it would be a lot easier to amend the state constitution where it would not. Compare at the federal level.
The power to make citizenship is a very big thing in law.
It's not that you don't understand, I think; it's that you may not want to understand. I can't see why not.
I posted it plainly in my last post. The BOR was a further limitation on the central government's power.
It was also a limitation, under Art VI, on the States powers.
This is so much acknowledged in writings and court cases before the civil war that I don't know how to answer you. Do you have any cases before the war where one of the Bill of Rights was applied to a state?
nunn_v_georgia 1846
Address:http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nunn_v_state.txt
Cites: -- The case of the People vs. Goodwin, (16 John. Rep. 200)
Both acknowledge the BOR's apply to States.
I'll say again. There were once state citizens and US citizens implied in that. Now there are federal citizens only, residing in a state. The 14th is clear on that by its wording.
Not so, as the 14th clearly says that we are all "-- citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside --"
The power to make citizens is the power to chose what group or groups can fill federal jobs and hold federal office.
The constitution only specifies that congressmen & the president be citizens. Whats wrong with that?
For instance, how does citizenship status keep Schwarzenegger from being elected president?
You want a foreign born citizen as president? Why is this important?
This gives you a sense of how important citizenship is. Citizenship determines who the electors are.
Not true, the 14th says electors cannot have been insurrectionists. -- Big deal, the civil war is over.
The "anchor baby" is an example. At the state level, it would not happen because the child born of illegal aliens would not qualify for citizenship at state level, and if it did, it would be a lot easier to amend the state constitution where it would not. Compare at the federal level. The power to make citizenship is a very big thing in law.
You make it a 'big thing', and I wonder why.
You've also ignored my question:
--- If before the 14th, "-- citizenship was only conveyed at the state level --", how did Congressmen and Presidents prior to 1868 gain US citizenship?
I agree with the inalienable rights approach. I respect the judge's opinion in Peoples and agree with him in this sense:
Proprio vigore. Lat. By its own force; by its intrinsic meaning.
It doesn't matter where a truth is written it is truth. If the ten amendments hadn't been made and the principle is carved on a tree, the tree will be cited.
The judge in the state court can have his opinions. I don't doubt there were centrists in those years, who later supported the 14th amendment.
Georgia constitution 1798 was used and it had a BOR including a right to keep and bear arms. The decision was clearly made using that clause. There was no need to cite the 2nd amendment of the US constitution except that the plaintiffs raised it as a count. And except as a further discussion of the inherent and inalienable rights of person in America, which the judge took great pains to do, not just limiting it to the 2nd amendment. The judge is merely giving his opinion and all it seems to be dicta.
I would agree that in any state not having a arms provision in their constitutions use the federal, not as a matter of law and implication that the federal BOR applied to the states by design and having article 6 section 2 powers, but as a matter of proprio vigore.
This state judge can have his opinion, which was novel at the time and not the prevailing law. I don't think the US BOR was actually the foundation of his ruling, but the Georgia BOR for reasons stated.
The problem is that today, we have a wickedly distorted high court interpretation of the 1st amendment and it is being applied to the states as prevailing over what they have to the contrary. Ask Judge Spencer about that.
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.