Replies

If the states are not restricted by this,then is not the Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land? Maybe I don’t understand how this works, but then again, maybe some judge doesn’t understand it.

Originally, the Constitution's first Amendment was directed at Congress (Congress shall make no law...), and didn't affect the States. States were free to endorse their own state religion, restrict certain press or speech, and so on. The rest of the Amendments were, arguably, already incorporated against the States by their wording guarding the rights of the people, not merely confirming Congress can't do something. The Constitution is the supreme law, and it enumerates certain powers that the States do or don;t have, as well as the FedGov. As long as they stay within those boundaries, the States can experiment as they please.

BUT, any of those arguments above are pretty much moot since the the Fourteenth Amendment pretty much guarantees any restrictions on the FedGov powers related to the rights of the people are also restrictions on the States.

States and FedGov are two different entities - they each have different powers, with the mojority of powers left to the States/people. So the States can do things the FedGov can't, but that doesn't make them superior over FedGov, it's just an area where we, the people, haven't given those powers to FedGov, but some (or all) have given those powers to their State. This can get confusing because FedGov has grown WAAAY past it's boundaries and snuck into places they don't have any enumerated powers (or limited ones): (DoEdu, DoEnergy, EPA, ATF, etc etc etc. )

The First Amendment restricts Congress not the states.

If the states are not restricted by this,then is not the Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land?

The Supremacy Clause means that any state law that impedes or infringes on an enumerated federal power, e.g. coining money, is nullified. That in no way contradicts my statement: the First Amendment restricts Congress not the states.