It was WRITTEN to apply ALL of the BOR's to the states. - Sheesh.
And upon what possible legal ground was incorporation of the first clause of the 1st Amendment actually made? The liberty propounded in the 1st clause of the 1st Amendment is a collective right granted to the people and to the state-
Ahh, comes the dawn. You believe in "collective" rights that are "granted". Who does the 'granting'?
- not an individual liberty as is expressed in the second clause of the same amendment.
Odd, fractionated view of religious rights.
Where did you come up with this 'collective' idea?
This is subtle, so pay close attention!
The first clause protects the state and the people collectively from usurpation of power by the federal government.
The second protects individuals.
As Keyes so eloquently states, they (and you) ignore the distinction between the individual right to free exercise of religion and the right of the people to decide their government's religious stance.
Where does Keyes so state? You are simply avoiding my questions from the post above, -- restating your imaginings, -- then claiming that Keyes imagines the same things.
Bizarro.
From his article above:
The Constitution reflects the view that the choice with respect to governmental expressions of religious belief must respect the will of the majority.
Not so. The will of the majority in a constitutional republic is restricted by the terms of its primary documents. In this case the U.S. Constitution, BOR's & Amendments are the Law of the Land.
Unless, in matters that should be determined by the people, the will of the majority be consulted, there is no consent and therefore no legitimacy, in government.
Though it may be argued that matters of religion ought to be left entirely to individuals for decision, this has the effect of establishing in the public realm a regime of indifference to religion.
Pure, unsupported speculation. No such effect has ever been recorded.
Thus, a choice of establishment is inevitable, and the only question is whether the choice will be made by the will of the people or not.
The 1st amendment says that the 'will of the peoples legislators' "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" , --
The U.S. Constitution, being wholly republican, decides this question in favor of the people, but in light of the pluralism of religious opinions among the people, forbids any attempt to discern the will of the people in the nation as a whole.
Indeed it does. It also guarantees that states shall be "wholly republican" in their form of government.
By leaving the decision to the people in their states,
The decision to establish offical religions is not left to the majority will of the people at any level, whether federal/state/local, of a republican form of government. The basic rights of the minority would be violated by so doing.
and by permitting a complete freedom of movement and migration among the states, the U.S. Constitution offers scope for the geographic expression of this pluralism while assuring that the absence of a formal and legal expression of religious reverence on a national scale does not inadvertently result in the establishment of a national regime of indifference to religion.
When, by their careless and contradictory abuse of the 14th Amendment, the federal judges and justices arrogate to themselves the power which, by the First and 10th Amendments, the Constitution reserves to the states, they deprive the nation of this prudent and logically balanced approach to the issue of religious establishment.
Offical religions in a 'republic' would be the antithesis of religious freedom.
Whether through carelessness or an artful effort to deceive, they ignore the distinction between the individual right to free exercise of religion and the right of the people to decide their government's religious stance.
We decided our governments religious stance in our founding documents. With the exception of no religious tests for office, and the wording in the 1st amendment, they by & large ignore religion.
They have, in consequence, usurped this right of the people, substituting for the republican approach adopted by the Constitution an oligarchic approach that reserves to a handful of un-elected individuals the power to impose on the entire nation a uniform stance on religion at every level of government.
Every level of our various governments 'stances' on religion should be neutral.
Government is not, & never has been empowered to respect the various establishments of a multitude of different religions.
The right to decide the issue of establishment is a fundamental right of the people.
No such 'issue' exists. Free exercise of religion exists.
It is also among the most likely to cause bitter and passionate dissension when the religious conscience of the people is violated or suppressed.
No such 'conscience' is being violated. Free exercise of religion exists.
That may explain why it is the very first right secured from federal violation in the Bill of Rights. When they take this right from the people, the federal judges and justices depart from the republican form of government.
Nohing is being taken. Free exercise of religion exists.
They impose, in religious matters, an oligarchic regime upon the states. They therefore violate, in letter and spirit, Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. This section declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government ..."
The republic still exists, despite the efforts of some to foster sectarian regimes among the states.