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.]
Don't miss reading the article or the accompanying comments.
Everyone knows what the U.S.Constitution states about the establishment of religion. This flies right in the face of that, and liberals are, ahem, upset.
I suspect it is being done to purposely goad the BHO2 administration, which has flagrantly violated the Constitution.
Agree, my thoughts also.
May as well start the real wars with the liberals, because - like Muslims - they’ll concede to nothing but unstoppable force.
Agree, my thoughts also.
May as well start the real wars with the liberals, because - like Muslims - they’ll concede to nothing but unstoppable force.
Doesn’t the law against the establishment of religion only apply to the nation as a whole? Has it been decided that it applies to state governments? This will be interesting.
Just give BHO an in, and he’ll establish shariah...
The US Constitution says that CONGRESS cannot establish a state religion. It is silent on the individual states’ choice in that regard. Well, other than the “all other rights are reserved to the states or the people”...
By the federal government. The whole intent was to allow the sovereign states the ability to make their own state religions without it being dictated from the federal government.
However, the 14th Amendment is generally construed to mean that anything specifically prohibited to the federal government is also prohibited to government at all levels. (Of course, they always try to avoid applying anything to a true 2nd Amendment test.)
This is not a federal Constitutional issue. The right to establish a state religion is left specifically up to the state. There is nothing in the federal Constitution that precludes states from establishing a state church.
Not as long as it's islam, communism or some other anti-American religion...
Using your reasoning, there would be nothing to stop the establishment of Islamic domination in several states.
Do you really like that idea?
And we've dealt with that before.
Yes, that’s my thinking as well.
I wasn’t reasoning, I was just wondering if this had come up before. You’re right though.
You want to live in a state that has Islam as the state religion? Shariah, anyone?
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.
Only applies to Fed Gov. At time of ratification several states had official state religions.
Not my reasoning, it’s the way the document is written.
And how many of them still have official state religions? How about Utah, do they have the Church of LDS as an official state religion?
Common error. It says all other 'powers', not rights (ie, there is no such thing a State's Rights, but instead, State's Powers). Rights are considered inalienable. This has long been an internal conflict both on the right and left in terms of how they view rights and powers. Are rights something that can be infringed upon by any level of government or are they inalienable to the individual. Traditionally Conservatives have been on the side of the latter with only extreme 'States Rights(sic)' type folks (those who think States have the rights to do anything, period). States having the power to trump individual rights is the side the left has often fallen on. A good example is the Heller decision where they argued that States (or in this case DC) had the right to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights.
Generally as a rule though, Conservatives always should come down on the side of rights as being inalienable to the individual and not to be trampled upon by any governmental authority, be it Federal, State, or Local.
I think this may be a tactical move to cause a SCOTUS decision confirming the Bill of Rights means what it says.
Of course, librals will find the action anathema. (Pun intended.)
Long-term (several years) this could serve to strengthen the Bill of Rights.
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.