All I'm saying is there is no "wall of separation" language in the Constitution itself. That term was Thomas Jefferson's, in a letter to a Jewish congregation in Rhode Island, during the ratification period. Rhode Island has a very long and noble history of religious toleration; the Jews evidently had been wondering whether their lot in life would be any better in a United States under a federal constitution. So TJ -- a champion of religious freedom and toleration and, thus, of the separation of church and state necessary to preserve them -- wrote back, with assurances that the proposed Constitution guarantees equal protection of Jews and freedom of religious conscience. He used the term "wall of separation" to make his point. But that seems to be a rather severe and highly simplified reduction of his full position WRT these matters.
We had this exchange:
Me: The Framers were very wise and very judicious in the reconciliation they thus achieved -- freedom for religious belief without any meddling or favoritism WRT religious matters by the [fed/state/local] government. This was the understanding that they deliberately enshrined in the Constitution.With all due respect for your prodigious knowledge of the Constitution, tpaine, and your keen meditation of it, I'm not sure I can accept your "'bold' addition," if by it you mean that the federal Constitution also applies to the state and local governments on religious matters. I think that's still an open question. I guess the answer depends on the reach of the 14th Amendment. But after all this time, that is still unclear: At least it seems Supreme Court justices have been very choosey about what federally-recognized constitutional rights to "incorporate" under the 14th amendment for application to the States.You: We can agree, if you accept my 'bold' addition.
What is clear, however, is the federal Constitution envisions and, under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, gives primacy to federal constitutional law; while at the same time, the Constitution also envisions a separation and balance of power between the federal government and the States'. It seems to me if the feds were to become overwhelmingly dominant in this sphere of power relations, then we'd probably have a totalitarian dictatorship on our hands. FWIW.
Plus recall that the religion clauses of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights were primarily designed to be assurances to the States that the feds would not transgress the States' own prerogatives, customs, and liberties in this regard.
It's an interesting, unresolved tension. Maybe it shouldn't ever be "finally resolved" for the above reason. In any case, attitudes of religious toleration have been widespread and customary in our society at all levels.
At least until very recent times.... When thanks to the popularity of "progressive ideas," religion itself is increasingly becoming what cannot be tolerated.
Your thoughts, dear tpaine?
Thank you so much for writing!
All I'm saying is there is no "wall of separation" language in the Constitution itself.
My original point above was that the establishment clause, and the no religious test clause, -- clearly show that the founders did want such a separation. I thought you agreed.
We had this exchange:
Me: The Framers were very wise and very judicious in the reconciliation they thus achieved -- freedom for religious belief without any meddling or favoritism WRT religious matters by the [fed/state/local] government. This was the understanding that they deliberately enshrined in the Constitution.
You: We can agree, if you accept my 'bold' addition.
With all due respect for your prodigious knowledge of the Constitution, tpaine, and your keen meditation of it, I'm not sure I can accept your "'bold' addition," if by it you mean that the federal Constitution also applies to the state and local governments on religious matters.
I think its clear that our Law of the Land applies to State/local governments. -- Read Art VI on State constitutions & laws.
I think that's still an open question. I guess the answer depends on the reach of the 14th Amendment.
The 14th was enacted to clarify the erroneous 'states rights' insistence that Art VI did not apply to the States. It failed.
But after all this time, that is still unclear: At least it seems Supreme Court justices have been very choosey about what federally-recognized constitutional rights to "incorporate" under the 14th amendment for application to the States.
Yep, its clear that their whole 'incorporation' house of cards will fail if the 2nd is applied to States. --- Why conservatives -want- states to have the power to prohibit guns is sure unclear to me.
What is clear, however, is the federal Constitution envisions and, under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, gives primacy to federal constitutional law; while at the same time, the Constitution also envisions a separation and balance of power between the federal government and the States'.
We agree again. Are you surprised?
It seems to me if the feds were to become overwhelmingly dominant in this sphere of power relations, then we'd probably have a totalitarian dictatorship on our hands. FWIW.
The feds are just as bound as state/local governments. It's up to 'we the people' to keep ALL gov'ts obeying the Constitution.
Plus recall that the religion clauses of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights were primarily designed to be assurances to the States that the feds would not transgress the States' own prerogatives, customs, and liberties in this regard.
And it worked, -- the feds didn't transgress, and the existing State religions withered away. -- By 1848, when the Mormons tried to enshrine a state religion in Utah's new Constitution, the concept was rejected. - Only republican forms of government were approved for admission to the Union.
It's an interesting, unresolved tension. Maybe it shouldn't ever be "finally resolved" for the above reason.
States have enormous powers to reject federal transgressions.
They do not do so for political reasons, not constitutional ones. -- Can you agree on this specific point?
Thank you for your outstanding essay-post and thank you for keeping me in the loop!