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...
And we've dealt with that before.
Only applies to Fed Gov. At time of ratification several states had official state religions.
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.
The document says nothing about establishing a state religion.
As much as I enjoy baiting liberals, does anyone REALLY think this is a good idea?
Up until 1833, there were individual States that still had official State churches. So the idea isn’t illegal under the Constitution at the time. Questions about the 14th amendment cause questions about the Constitutionality of the idea today, but clearly the founders saw no problem with a State Church under the 1st amendment during the first four decades of our nation.
How about Massachusetts passing a law banning homophobic speech since everybody knows about the free speech clause of same amendment; prohibition on Congress.
As someone else posted you seem to ignore the 14th amendment which applies the constraints of the Bill of Rights on the states as well.
I wonder if it’ll be ChristIslamUdism?
Didn’t they try to do this right after 9/11? I remember something about NC wanting to become a religious State.
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.
Good. Let all of the troublemakers- the liberals, anti-Christians and welfare recipients, move OUT of North Carolina. If they won’t leave on their own- push them out. Let them to go NJ or ILL.
“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.”
Actually, in a strict constructionist sense the position of those proposing the law in North Carolina would not be going against the U.S. Constitution.
The prohibition against THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT concerning an establishment of religion WAS againts the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, NOT THE STATES, as at the time the Constitution was ratified some states did have an established religion by their state constitution. If it was not contrary to the U.S. constitution when the constitution was ratified, how can it be counter to the U.S. constitution now.
Full disclosure: I would not support such a change, in any state. However, to say the change is prohibited by the U.S. constitution is wrong I believe.