Posted on 04/04/2013 12:32:35 PM PDT by SatinDoll
(Following is a brief summary of the article's contents)
Raleigh, North Carolina -
Two North Carolina legislators introduced a state resolution asserting the State of North Carolina can make its own laws regarding the establishment of religion.
[See the article for further details.]
Not quite -- The USSC thrashed the first amendment in 1919 with Schenck v. United States. This decision is the famous "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" case, but that whole argument is actually very tangential to the meat of the case which was initiated due to [violation of] Congress's Espionage Act -- which basically criminalized dissent, or as Infoplease case-history says:
A major effort to promote national unity accompanied America's involvement (1917-1918) in World War I. As a part of this effort, Congress enacted a number of laws severely restricting 1st Amendment freedoms to curb antiwar dissent. In 1917, Congress passed the Espionage Act, which set stiff penalties for uttering and circulating “false” statements intended to interfere with the war effort.
In the end the USSC decided it was better to justify Congress's actions than to adhere to the Constitution.
“clearly the founders saw no problem with a State Church . . .”
That is patently false. Madison argued against it. Jefferson argued against it. Many of the founders argued against it. They argued against it at the STATE level. The fact that they weren’t unconstitutional at the federal level at the time does *not* mean they did not violate individual, God-given rights.
There are NO questions about whether or not the 14th Ammendment applies. The Supremes have ruled time and time again that it does, beginning with Everson. Are you people really this thick? Are you such backwards libtards that the only difference between you and Obama is in what you’ll ban and fund?
Untrue; there are legal rights which are certainly alienable (that's actually how power of attorney works).
The first-amendment explicitly states "congress", so since most states don't have congresses [assemblies or the more general "legislature"]; so unless you want to give the courts the incredible power of magically translating text from what is written I wouldn't push that line of reasoning.
“If my state wants to establish Islam as a state religion, then they can do so. I wouldn’t like it, but my only option would be to move to a different state. That is the very nature of our federal republic.”
First off, no they can’t. See Everson v. Board of Education. Second, no they can’t. See people like me who won’t let it happen.
You also disagree with the principles on which this nation was founded, as discussed by men such as William Walwyn, John Lilburne, Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc. etc. This nation was founded, to a great extent, by religious minorities who wanted to be left alone to practice their faiths without fear of oppression by the tyranny of the majority.
This isn’t England 1649 and the England of 1649 was precisely what MOST of the founders were trying to avoid.
Tell you what, I’ll go ahead and stay a free-born man with my God-given rights, and you can go somewhere else and give yours up. Have fun.
If you think you can force people like me to pay to ANY church because you or they are a majority and you think it’s a cute 10th Ammendment trick, you’re in for a very unpleasant surprise.
The 10th Ammendment is there for many reasons. Using state power to crush individual liberty is not one of them. This whole discussion is a disgrace to FR.
And if the founders, i.e. the men who ratified the Constitution and established our government, had been opposed to it across the board, then that would not have happened. You can argue about this person's views or that person's views, but it was Constitutional.
The 14th amendment has been used to assert rights of individuals that were originally held only in the U.S. Constitution, but the restrictions of privileges afforded to States being constrained by the 14th amendment doesn't have as clear of a history. That's why I said there were “questions”. If there were not “questions”, then the Supreme Court would not take up cases dealing with the subject on occasion.
Didn’t they try to do this right after 9/11? I remember something about NC wanting to become a religious State.
That would be up to the individual states' constitutions.
“Untrue; there are legal rights which are certainly alienable (that’s actually how power of attorney works).”
Wrong.
All Women are people
You are a man.
Therefore, you are not a person.
Deductive fallacy 101.
There are inalienable, natural rights. See Hobbes, Locke, Pain, Jefferson, Lilburn, Walwyn, Williams . . . or maybe you missed those authors.
Obviously not all rights are natural rights. That does NOT mean all rights are alienable.
“Are you people really this thick?”
Settle down, pal. You’re bitin’ off way more than you can chew.
I’m not concerned about that. The majority of people in any US state would never allow Islam to become the state religion
What you are arguing is that the Bill of Rights still does not apply to the states. This includes things such as, oh, I don’t know, the 2nd Ammendment. There have been far fewer cases related to the 2nd Ammendment than state establishment cases. Or does your “logic” only apply when you like the outcomes?
“I was just pointing out that until 1833 we DID have States in our union that had State Churches.”
And we had legalized slavery. Are you saying slavery wasn’t a violation of individuals’ natural rights because the framers didn’t state that to be the case in the Federal Constitution?
I understand that the 14th Ammendment has been abused. Abuse of the 10th Ammendment does nothing to rectify the problem. Moving tyranny from one group of politicians to another is not the answer. Make no mistake, if your logic had any chance of winning it would be the end of America as the Land of the Free.
Simply put, each state has within its authority the creation of a state church.
That this is inconcevable in our current environment is manifest. However, it is not difficult to postulate a radical shift in societal attitudes that would encourage the establishment of traditional morality.
“Settle down, pal. You’re bitin’ off way more than you can chew.”
I’m from Texas. We can bite off a lot more than you Yankees think.
Which is what I said -- illustrating that there are alienable rights with legal rights. (IE The existence of alienable rights.)
And when your state violates your Fourth Ammendment right to seize what you bought with your Second Ammendment right, imprisons you in violation of your Fifth and Sixth Ammendment rights and they use your home in violation of your Third Ammendment rights, will you still hold that your state is not subject to the Federal Bill of Rights?
“Which is what I said — illustrating that there are alienable rights with legal rights. (IE The existence of alienable rights.)”
Then, in what freakish reality is the right to choose to worship God in the way you choose, without interference by the state, NOT an inalienable right?
Except its not true.
North Carolina is not seeking to establish an official State Religion. They are just making a lying clown of the leftist press.
Let us look at the text of both the first and second amendments:
1st 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.
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Let's examine the first phrase of the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law
Read that again. Congress shall make no law. Note the word “Congress” not also the word “shall”. Both are important. This is an absolute (shall) restriction on the Federal Government (Congress).
The second amendment does not restrict the Federal government, however. It goes beyond that. It says:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Again note the strong word “shall”. Note also that the language is not restrictive. It is permissive. The amendment is not about restraining the powers of the government at any level. It is about providing full rights to “the people” without any infringement.
Now lets go to the meat of the matter, the 14th amendment, Section 1:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The portion that is important for this discussion is the phrase:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
Would the second amendment be affected by this phrase? No. The rights established in the second Amendment are the rights of the individual, not under any threat by State law to begin with.
What about the first amendment? The first amendment restricts the Federal government, so it could be argued that any restriction placed upon the Federal government is now placed upon the State. But is the establishment of a State Church by an individual State a “law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens”?
I would say it is, but I can also see where others might disagree. That is why we have the Supreme Court to decide disputes between States and the Federal Government.
Now to deal with the rest of this crap.
First you say: What you are arguing is that the Bill of Rights still does not apply to the states.
That is a lie. No where did I argue that.
Second you ask: Are you saying slavery wasn’t a violation of individuals’ natural rights because the framers didn’t state that to be the case in the Federal Constitution?
No I am not. The implication you try to assert is that if I agree with one, I must agree with the other.
Finally you say: Make no mistake, if your logic had any chance of winning it would be the end of America as the Land of the Free.
I am not “winning” or even attempting to. The fact that there were State churches in existence from 1789 to 1833 is relevant to the charge that the entire idea of a State church is Unconstitutional.
Section 1 of the 14th amendment does not repeal the 1st amendment nor does it apply that amendment to the States. This is what the authors said, and this is what the Federal supreme court ruled twice before suddenly discovering arbitrary incorporation 50 years after the amendment was written.
Once again the Federal court found arbitrary incorporation in the 14th amendment where there be no text, history, or precedence to support their assertion. An idea not once but twice rejected by the same court in the intervening 50 years as a rout to boundless power.
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.