I didn’t take gcruse’s comment to speak to a constitutional dimension...but that dichotomy certainly is an active ingredient in political and social discourse.
Galahad: To bring this wide-ranging speculation back on topic :-) I think Heinlein would join me in being very much in the freedom to camp!
I think Heinlein would join the Constitutional 'camp', -- which specifies we have freedom of religion, - and, -- a freedom from legislators making laws that respect specific religions.
Thus, -- there is no constitutional dichotomy.
-- that dichotomy certainly is an active ingredient in political and social discourse.
TrueKnightGalahad
No doubt that there is controversy. -- But the Constitution is clear; - "Congress shall make no law" does not give State legislators the power to 'respect' specific religions in the making of law; -- they too must use due process of law in legislating.
gcruse:
I think the Constitution contains the dichotomy.
The BOR limits Congress as a freedom 'from'; with "Congress shall make no law." Everything else is freedom 'to' as far as the feds are concerned. That is, 'to' is not enumerated.
You lost me. The BOR's applies to State legislators, as well as to Congress. -- We see this principle in Utah's fight for Statehood, wherein Utah was prevented from entering the Union as a State that was 'respecting' a specific religion.
Unfortunately, beginning at least with FDR's 1935 decision that a farmer growing and consuming his own food affected interstate commerce, federalism has been killed off and freedom 'to' dies a little more each day.
I've been arguing that the feds are forbidden from enacting prohibitions on commerce for the last 9 years on FR. -- We agree.