Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: stinkypew
Related question: From where do the feds derive power to prohibit church/state entanglement? The First Amendment says that "Congress" shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. It says nothing about the states. And it is well known that Mass. had an established religion (congregationalism, I think) well into the 19th century.

The answer is not that the 14th Amendment grafted the federal bill of rights onto the states, because that would simply mean that the states were protected from "Congress" making any law respecting religion - a right they already had. It may have something to do with the privileges and immunities clause, but I don't know.

When one sees the First (and Second) Amendments as protecting the rights of individuals in addition to the states, then the effect of the "grafting" makes sense. Individuals were protected from the effects of Establishment. As supporters of freedom, I'd think we'd support these interpretations, especially if we live in Massachussetts or Alabama.

One point to note is that many state constitutions have their own Bills of Rights. An interesting side note to the Santa Fe ISD v. Doe case is the fact that part of the dispute was whether or not a governmental preference of one religion or another constitutes "Establishment". The Texas Constitution specifically forbids religious preference by government.

-Eric

81 posted on 07/23/2002 11:20:27 AM PDT by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]


To: E Rocc
E Rocc:

The First and Second Amendments are different in this important respect: The First only circumscribes action by "Congress," whereas the Second contains no such limitation. In fact, the First Amendment is one of the very few - perhaps only - amendment which specifically limits action by "Congress." Thus, all the amendments which do not limit themselves by specifically applying only to "Congress" created real, additional rights when they were grafted onto the states by the 14th Amendment. Conversely, grafting the First Amendment onto the states did nothing. Before the 14th, Congress was prohibited from making any law respecting the establishment of religion. After the 14th, Congress was still prohibited from making any law respecting the establishment of religion. The 14th could not have limited each individual state's power to establish a religion because the underlying First Amendment applies only to "Congress."

I still think the answer must have something to do with the privileges and immunities clause, if a satisfactory answer exists.

95 posted on 07/23/2002 11:40:23 AM PDT by stinkypew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson