North Carolina bill: The Constitution doesn’t bar us from making laws about religion

posted at 8:01 pm on April 3, 2013 by Allahpundit

Perfect flame-war bait for a slow news day.

The bill itself doesn’t mention a “state religion,” although that power is implicit. The language is precise, and for a reason:

The bill reads:

SECTION 1. The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

SECTION 2. The North Carolina General Assembly does not recognize federal court rulings which prohibit and otherwise regulate the State of North Carolina, its public schools, or any political subdivisions of the State from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

North Carolina wants to establish an official state religion? No, not really. (I think.) The GOP legislators who are floating this are needling the ACLU, which is suing a local board of commissioners for opening their meetings with Christian prayers. Can’t have the state officially sanctioning a particular faith, right? Sure you can, says the NC bill: The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause applies only to the federal government, not to the states. Which is true, or was — Doug Mataconis is right that the Supreme Court has applied the Establishment Clause to state governments too (via the Fourteenth Amendment) for more than 60 years now. Unless SCOTUS is prepared to do something very unexpected to the constitutional doctrine of “incorporation,” the bill would be laughed out of court if it became law, which it almost certainly won’t. The bill’s sponsors are, I take it, mainly interested in making a symbolic point about federal encroachment, especially from the judiciary, on state sovereignty per the Tenth Amendment. And if you’re going to do that, prayer/religion is a smart choice of subject matter. Prayer in public schools has always polled well, and if the Supremes turn around and legalize gay marriage later this summer, this sort of Tenth Amendment argument will be popular among opponents.

Question: Has anyone seen numbers from major nonpartisan pollsters like Gallup on the separation of church and state? Polls have been conducted by advocacy groups but I’d prefer a less partial source. And I’d also prefer a narrower question. “Separation of church and state” is a gassy concept compared to asking specifically whether a state should be permitted to establish an official religion. This YouGov poll is interesting in showing a partisan split on whether separation should be “absolute,” but that’s not the precise issue here. The reason I ask is because when I saw the North Carolina story, I thought it looked like the sort of thing that Democrats would eagerly use as a wedge issue against the GOP (if, that is, the bill went anywhere). But a wedge only works if the majority’s on their side and I don’t know for a fact that it is because I can’t find a poll on point. Anyone seen one? If not, I assume we’ll get one next week thanks to Carolina.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

And they keep denying there’s Christian Sharia in this country while babbling about imaginary Muslim rule.

lester on April 3, 2013 at 8:05 PM

And they keep denying there’s Christian Sharia in this country while babbling about imaginary Muslim rule.

lester on April 3, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Comparing this, which is going nowhere and is making a political statement, to Sharia law is futile. C’mon, man.

MikeknaJ on April 3, 2013 at 8:09 PM

And they keep denying there’s Christian Sharia in this country while babbling about imaginary Muslim rule.

lester on April 3, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Maybe you should actually read the article before posting your idiocy.

HumpBot Salvation on April 3, 2013 at 8:10 PM

You can’t pick and choose what sections of the First Amendment are incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment. If you want to say the First Amendment only prevents the federal government from establishing a religion than you also have to say that states can pass laws restricting free speech, free press, etc.

Mark1971 on April 3, 2013 at 8:10 PM

And they keep denying there’s Christian Sharia in this country while babbling about imaginary Muslim rule.

lester on April 3, 2013 at 8:05 PM

It shouldn’t be too difficult for an intelligent patriot like yourself to list the christian sharia you live under.

Thanks in advance.

tom daschle concerned on April 3, 2013 at 8:10 PM

I tip my hat to the NC GOP. Well-played!

Stoic Patriot on April 3, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Maybe you should actually read the article before posting your idiocy.
HumpBot Salvation on April 3, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Hotair is slow, this was morning news and I read it long before you. You’re mistaking Allah’s analysis of the story with the actual story.

lester on April 3, 2013 at 8:13 PM

evangelical sharia

Capitalist Hog on April 3, 2013 at 8:16 PM

It shouldn’t be too difficult for an intelligent patriot like yourself to list the christian sharia you live under.
Thanks in advance.

tom daschle concerned on April 3, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Tell that to the gays who can’t get married because god considers marriage between a man a woman and the man’s Argentinian girlfriend. Also have a chat with women in half a dozen red states who have lost access to abortion clinics because of a verse in a 2000 year old fairy tale.

And soon tell that to NC residents who can will have state mandated religion.

lester on April 3, 2013 at 8:17 PM

A. Don’t think NC GOP, or any other significant political group, truly want to establish a state religion (as you note).

B. Yes, the SCOTUS has used “incorporation” to ensure federal & state congruence for decades, & would almost certainly do so if (A) is proven wrong.

C. However, historically, states can establish religion if they so choose. See, for example, Connecticut during Jefferson’s presidency. His “Danbury letter” mentioning a “wall of separation” was penned over a decade after the U.S. Constitution was in effect, to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut- which had an established state religion (Congregational) for almost 2 more decades after the letter was written (disestablished in 1818).

It’s hard to argue that the state of affairs while the Constitution was ratified and during this postal correspondence is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! But, I’m sure the libs/progressives will certainly try…

(and no, this Evangelical doesn’t think state religions are necessary or good things.)

cs89 on April 3, 2013 at 8:19 PM

And they keep denying there’s Christian Sharia in this country while babbling about imaginary Muslim rule.

lester on April 3, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Christianity rocks. I’ve never been offended by Jesus.

Evangelical-extremists are another story. There is no difference between zealots other than their religions.

Extreme-evangelicals regularly welcome violence upon those with whom they disagree.

Capitalist Hog on April 3, 2013 at 8:19 PM

sodomy and abortion.

predictable.

tom daschle concerned on April 3, 2013 at 8:21 PM

And they keep denying there’s Christian Sharia in this country while babbling about imaginary Muslim rule.

lester on April 3, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Let’s change a few words, then, more to your liberal liking.

The bill reads:

SECTION 1. The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion orthodoxy.

SECTION 2. The North Carolina General Assembly does not recognize federal court rulings which prohibit and otherwise regulate the State of North Carolina, its public schools, or any political subdivisions of the State from making laws respecting an establishment of religion orthodoxy, its tenets to include, but not restricted to, the sanctity of abortion; the beauty of homosexual marriage; the abrogation of any and all rights to those who object to same; and the authority of said orthodoxy to declare as criminal anything and anyone who does oppose.

Feel better?

Liam on April 3, 2013 at 8:22 PM

They would have been right — if we were in 1867.

But the 14th Amendment now exists, and it obligates the United States to enforce the 1st Amendment at the state level.

So, while Congress can make no law regarding an establishment of religion — it certainly can make laws preventing the states from also establishing a religion. In fact, it’s almost obligatory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

n/a; some state legislatures required all citizens in those states to be members of a church, and some had official churches, such as Congregationalism in some New England states such as Massachusetts. This eventually ended in 1833 when Massachusetts was the last state to disestablish its church.

unclesmrgol on April 3, 2013 at 8:22 PM

lester on April 3, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Heh heh heh. Just the fact that this has your knickers in a such a tight bunch is satisfaction enough for me.

Cleombrotus on April 3, 2013 at 8:23 PM

Tell that to the gays who can’t get married because god considers marriage between a man a woman and the man’s Argentinian girlfriend. Also have a chat with women in half a dozen red states who have lost access to abortion clinics because of a verse in a 2000 year old fairy tale.

And soon tell that to NC residents who can will have state mandated religion.

God isn’t the one who considers marriage between a man and a woman… Biology is… PeePee Don’t go in the PooPoo Hole. It causes disease. It doesn’t make babies…

Abortion is legal in all 50 states. You just can’t force anyone to perform them. Liar..

http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_law/

Kaptain Amerika on April 3, 2013 at 8:24 PM

maybe states are finally gearing up to fight.
about time, only 60 yrs too late though.

dmacleo on April 3, 2013 at 8:25 PM

As the left pushes a more extreme agenda expect a stronger and stronger push back from the pro freedom states….

devan95 on April 3, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Evangelical sharia?
Ken Cuccinelli wants to outlaw oral-sex.

What extremism? Which one of you TP studs would be an outlaw in VA?

Virginia is for lovers…of vanilla sex.

Capitalist Hog on April 3, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Dear Mr. Lester,
women are restricted from having abortions not because of some “2000 year old fairy tale” but rather because abortion kills a baby. Ask Dr. Gosnell. He’ll be happy to enlighten you.

IdrilofGondolin on April 3, 2013 at 8:27 PM

while babbling about imaginary Muslim rule.

lester on April 3, 2013 at 8:05 PM

…the babbler bloviating about babbling?

KOOLAID2 on April 3, 2013 at 8:29 PM

re: lester

What — another hit-and-run troll?

Liam on April 3, 2013 at 8:29 PM

SECTION 1. The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

Might have been true pre-Incorporation Doctrine, but is it true today?

I believe this case would be relevant reading material.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 3, 2013 at 8:30 PM

Virginia is for lovers…of vanilla sex.

Capitalist Hog on April 3, 2013 at 8:25 PM

What, no mention of any famous starlets who have had the pleasure of bestowing a glottal massage to your royal scepter?

Your namedropper cred is in dire jeopardy, CH. :)

Good Solid B-Plus on April 3, 2013 at 8:33 PM

I wonder what the people who wrote this bill think of McDonald v. Chicago.

Mark1971 on April 3, 2013 at 8:34 PM

Christianity rocks. I’ve never been offended by Jesus.

Evangelical-extremists are another story. There is no difference between zealots other than their religions.

Extreme-evangelicals regularly welcome violence upon those with whom they disagree.

Capitalist Hog on April 3, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Dude, I’ll admit to officially being impressed.

Your stories of rubbing elbows with Wooden and Ingraham smacked of impotent self-aggrandizement, but if you actually hung out with the J-Man himself, I’ve gotta give you props.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 3, 2013 at 8:34 PM

Dude? indeed.

alchemist19 on April 3, 2013 at 8:35 PM

sodomy and abortion.

predictable.

tom daschle concerned on April 3, 2013 at 8:21 PM

That’s pretty much it when it comes to what they hold most dear.

Sad individuals.. sad indeed.

ShadowsPawn on April 3, 2013 at 8:35 PM

And they keep denying there’s Christian Sharia in this country while babbling about imaginary Muslim rule.

lester on April 3, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Where is this ‘Christian Sharia’ of which you speak?

As an atheist, I have yet to see it.

BTW, les, when do you think the “wall of separation between church and state” was erected under the law?

What was the animus of the writer of the majority opinion in the case?

To which infamous organisation did he once belong and what is one of the things that it was well-known for in the latter part of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th?

Oh, and can you name the last state in the United States that had an official religion and the year it ended?

Has the Supreme Court ever acknowledged that many states, and indeed, the country were founded as ‘Christian nations’? If so, have you ever read the astounding opinion?

Hint: Thomas Jefferson was already dead and a famous Democrat Senator shared the Justice’s animus.

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 8:37 PM

Your namedropper cred is in dire jeopardy, CH. :)

Good Solid B-Plus on April 3, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Awww, sad face.

Nothing is more obvious than those fazed by fame.

Every person who has complained about anybody I may have known, met, worked for or been sued by stands out to me as precisely this type of person.

Capitalist Hog on April 3, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Why take the mo-lester seriously, folks? He’s just a baby troll living off his parents until his prince charming enters his life – or so he fantasizes in his wet dreams!

honsy on April 3, 2013 at 8:39 PM

I wasn’t aware of any fairies in the gospels.

John the Libertarian on April 3, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 8:37 PM

You really need to stop being right so much. You hurt tender liberal feelings that way, you know. ;-)

Liam on April 3, 2013 at 8:42 PM

You can’t pick and choose what sections of the First Amendment are incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment. If you want to say the First Amendment only prevents the federal government from establishing a religion than you also have to say that states can pass laws restricting free speech, free press, etc.

Mark1971 on April 3, 2013 at 8:10 PM

In a strictly technical sense, states could pass such laws, as the “Congress shall make no law” part applies to, um, Congress.

massrighty on April 3, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Every person who has complained about anybody I may have known, met, worked for or been sued by stands out to me as precisely this type of person.

Capitalist Hog on April 3, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Fazed? I might be fazed if you were actually famous, but you’re not. You’re just a namedropping bore.

That don’t faze me, bro.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 3, 2013 at 8:44 PM

re: lester

What — another hit-and-run troll?

Liam on April 3, 2013 at 8:29 PM

…he always drools a little…then runs off to wipe his mouth.
I’ve become suspicious lately though…it is taking too long for ‘actual drool’ to hit the floor…I think it may be another…thicker substance that sort of looks like drool!

KOOLAID2 on April 3, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Also have a chat with women in half a dozen red states who have lost access to abortion clinics because of a verse in a 2000 year old fairy tale.

lester on April 3, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Proof, with citation from a reputable source, please?

massrighty on April 3, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Fazed? I might be fazed if you were actually famous, but you’re not. You’re just a namedropping bore.

That don’t faze me, bro.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 3, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Hopefully, I will never be famous.

Capitalist Hog on April 3, 2013 at 8:47 PM

Evangelical sharia?
Ken Cuccinelli wants to outlaw oral-sex.

What extremism? Which one of you TP studs would be an outlaw in VA?

Virginia is for lovers…of vanilla sex.

Capitalist Hog

And liberalism is for liars….like you.

xblade on April 3, 2013 at 8:47 PM

So if the SCOTUS is so hot with Amendment I incorporation arguments, why do they get all weak-kneed when it comes to Amendment II incorporation arguments?

ajacksonian on April 3, 2013 at 8:47 PM

Notice how countering my replies is more important than VA trying to subvert the First Amendment.

Capitalist Hog on April 3, 2013 at 8:48 PM

…he always drools a little…then runs off to wipe his mouth.
I’ve become suspicious lately though…it is taking too long for ‘actual drool’ to hit the floor…I think it may be another…thicker substance that sort of looks like drool!

KOOLAID2 on April 3, 2013 at 8:44 PM

I really rather avoid those details, while away from my Porcelain Goddess.

But I am noticing a recent trend from our trolls: They jump in, talk what they know is trash, then bail right quick. Liberals are seeming aware all is not right with the world, but they’re having a hard time coping with the fact it’s all their fault. Theirs, and their precious Obama.

Liam on April 3, 2013 at 8:48 PM

because of a verse in a 2000 year old fairy tale

You’d think anything that involves fairies would please the mo-lester!

honsy on April 3, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Oh, and can you name the last state in the United States that had an official religion and the year it ended?

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 8:37 PM

I’m going from memory – wasn’t it Connecticut, in the 1920′s?

massrighty on April 3, 2013 at 8:50 PM

And liberalism is for liars….like you.

xblade on April 3, 2013 at 8:47 PM

Prove yourself or shut-up.

What lie? Check VA’s laws. Get back to me when you’re not failing.

Capitalist Hog on April 3, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Notice how countering my replies is more important than VA trying to subvert the First Amendment.

Capitalist Hog on April 3, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Did you even read the post? They’re just blowing a raspberry at the ACLU. There’s absolutely no way this bill stands up to a court challenge because it explicitly violates the 1A which, as AP noted, has been incorporated to the states since 1947.

Hopefully, I will never be famous.

Capitalist Hog on April 3, 2013 at 8:47 PM

See, we do agree on some things. :)

Good Solid B-Plus on April 3, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Tell that to the gays who can’t get married because god considers marriage between a man a woman and the man’s Argentinian girlfriend. Also have a chat with women in half a dozen red states who have lost access to abortion clinics because of a verse in a 2000 year old fairy tale.

Do these imaginary beings live in the same place as bigfoot?

xblade on April 3, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Oh, and can you name the last state in the United States that had an official religion and the year it ended?

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 8:37 PM

Massachusetts, circa 1833 IIRC.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 3, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Tell that to the gays who can’t get married because god considers marriage between a man a woman and the man’s Argentinian girlfriend.

lester on April 3, 2013 at 8:17 PM

.
The abnormality of homosexuality IS SELF EVIDENT. The Christian Bible is not a requisite, to grasp or understand that.
.

Also have a chat with women in half a dozen red states who have lost access to abortion clinics because of a verse in a 2000 year old fairy tale.

lester on April 3, 2013 at 8:17 PM

.
The abnormality, and immorality of abortion is also “self evident.”
.

And soon tell that to NC residents who can will have state mandated religion.

lester on April 3, 2013 at 8:17 PM

.
Even when Christianity was “just normal”, and prayers used to be invoked before ALL civil and political related gatherings, there was no “mandated religion” on any level, within the U.S.

At worst, North Carolina will allow leaders of civil or political meetings to invoke a prayer at the beginning of such events. “Allowing” is NOT requiring.

listens2glenn on April 3, 2013 at 8:54 PM

I’m evolving on this.

Buddahpundit on April 3, 2013 at 8:56 PM

I’m going from memory – wasn’t it Connecticut, in the 1920′s?

massrighty on April 3, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Uh, that’s the year women were granted franchise rights.

Aside from that…

Capitalist Hog on April 3, 2013 at 8:56 PM

Oh, and can you name the last state in the United States that had an official religion and the year it ended?

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 8:37 PM

.
Massachusetts, circa 1833 IIRC.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 3, 2013 at 8:53 PM

.
Did Massachusetts mandate that all practice of Christianity within it’s borders conform to that “official state religion”?

listens2glenn on April 3, 2013 at 8:58 PM

See, we do agree on some things. :)

Good Solid B-Plus on April 3, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Fame destroys the privilege of anonymity. No matter how small your chest of gold, hide it from prying eyes. They will want it.

Capitalist Hog on April 3, 2013 at 8:58 PM

“Allowing” is NOT requiring.

listens2glenn on April 3, 2013 at 8:54 PM

You need to adjust your libspeak there.

According to liberals, if they ‘allow’ you a 16oz soda as the maximum, it is required you not be allowed anything bigger.

See how that works?

You are ‘allowed’ free speech, but it is required you keep silent if you oppose homosexual ‘marriage’.

Liam on April 3, 2013 at 8:58 PM

As a Jew, I do have a problem with opening thing in prayers ‘In Jesus name’-but I recognize that as a Jew-I’m a minority. As such, it would be unfair tp expect the majority to have to change just because it makes me feel ‘uncomfortable. I feel uncomfortable-so what?
Most of the Lubbock GOP stuff opens with a Jesus Prayer- and during it I stand there respectfully with my eyes open and head unbowed. No harm-no foul.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 3, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Prove yourself or shut-up.

What lie? Check VA’s laws. Get back to me when you’re not failing.

Capitalist Hog

Liar got his panties in a knot when called on it, lol. It’s ok liar, I don’t care if you wear women’s panties. But you’re still a liar, liar, and you know what you lied about. Actually though, I shouldn’t make assumptions. You may be too stupid to know your claim was bogus.

xblade on April 3, 2013 at 9:00 PM

I’ve been saying for years the republican endgame was creating a theocracy, and here’s your damn proof.

triple on April 3, 2013 at 9:03 PM

Fame destroys the privilege of anonymity. No matter how small your chest of gold, hide it from prying eyes. They will want it.

Capitalist Hog on April 3, 2013 at 8:58 PM

We agree on the perks of anonymity.

Yeah, everyone wants my Jew Gold, but they’ll never get it. I keep it close to where my heart used to be.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 3, 2013 at 9:04 PM

triple on April 3, 2013 at 9:03 PM

My mother was spouting the same bullsh*t in the last months of her life.
I’m Jewish and I don’t believe that. This nation has been a haven for religious minorities.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 3, 2013 at 9:05 PM

I’ve been saying for years the republican endgame was creating a theocracy, and here’s your damn proof.

triple on April 3, 2013 at 9:03 PM

Darn, you caught us. And it was such a masterfully-crafted, intricate conspiracy. :(

Good Solid B-Plus on April 3, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Personally, I don’t want to ever hear about how much republicans care about the us constitution ever again.

You can’t trot around the 2nd amendment while ignoring the first.

triple on April 3, 2013 at 9:05 PM

I’ve been saying for years the republican endgame was creating a theocracy, and here’s your damn proof.

triple

You’ve been saying lot’s of stupid sh*t for years. Nothing has changed I see.

xblade on April 3, 2013 at 9:05 PM

I’ve been saying for years the republican endgame was creating a theocracy, and here’s your damn proof.

triple on April 3, 2013 at 9:03 PM

But no one likes Republicans, you libs keep saying. So, how could it possibly happen? Explain that, would you?

Liam on April 3, 2013 at 9:06 PM

You can’t trot around the 2nd amendment while ignoring the first.

triple on April 3, 2013 at 9:05 PM

We don’t ignore the first. Nobody thinks this bill will actually stand up to scrutiny.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 3, 2013 at 9:07 PM

I’ve been saying for years the republican endgame was creating a theocracy, and here’s your damn proof.

triple on April 3, 2013 at 9:03 PM

The same with the Tea Party. They’re a tiny but vocal minority that no one listens to, yet they’re so huge that they are a threat to be vilified, then removed.

Liberals are a dime a dozen. At that, they’re still overpriced.

Liam on April 3, 2013 at 9:08 PM

And they keep denying there’s Christian Sharia in this country while babbling about imaginary Muslim rule.

lester on April 3, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Goodbye, credibility. You’re a clown. You also show contempt for women living under actual Sharia.

rrpjr on April 3, 2013 at 9:08 PM

The “legitimate rape/forced transvaginal ultrasound” crowd shows tons of respect for women by contrast

triple on April 3, 2013 at 9:10 PM

triple

I guess we can put tics next to your name in the abortion and sodomy columns.

So advanced. So intelligent. So nuanced.

tom daschle concerned on April 3, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Are you a minority?

Are you a teenager or young adult?

Do you live in Phoenix?

Would you like to be a lifeguard…ability to swim is not required?

If so, does the Aquatics Programme in Phoenix have a job for you!!!

The A$$hattery of Affirmative Action: The ‘Would You Like To Be A Lifeguard? Minority Status Required. Ability To Swim? Not So Much.

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 9:14 PM

I’m evolving on this.

Buddahpundit on April 3, 2013 at 8:56 PM

Heh.

Mimzey on April 3, 2013 at 9:15 PM

I’ve been saying for years the republican endgame was creating a theocracy, and here’s your damn proof.

triple on April 3, 2013 at 9:03 PM

Rep. Harry Warren, one of the resolution’s sponsors, said in a statement Wednesday the resolution was a way to support county commissioners to open their meetings in prayer.

“The resolution is not an effort to establish a state religion and should not be interpreted as such,” said Warren.

Feel better now?

lynncgb on April 3, 2013 at 9:18 PM

This bill would actually be a good thing for federalism as a whole. They aren’t just attacking the establishment of religion being incorporated (which is a hard argument to make really, since the 14th wasn’t intended for that and the 1st specifically identifies Congress.)

They are attacking Marbury v Madison itself:

Whereas, the Constitution of the United States does not grant the federal government and does not grant the federal courts the power to determine what is or is not constitutional; therefore, by virtue of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the power to determine constitutionality and the proper interpretation and proper application of the Constitution is reserved to the states and to the people

This would be a huge step. They may just be doing it for show, but the argument is sound. There is no evidence in the text that the Supreme Court (or any other federal court) has the power of judicial review, nor can I remember that power being mentioned in any of the Federalist or Anti-Federalist writings.

The references to being laughed out of court rely on them not standing their ground. What I’d like to see is for them to be sued in federal court over it and simply announcing that they don’t recognize the court’s jurisdiction over the issue and will not be complying with the ruling. Honestly, this may be the best step for conservatives, having the states say that they will no longer abide by unconstitutional legislation and refusing to enforce it, regardless of what the courts say.

FlareCorran on April 3, 2013 at 9:20 PM

Massachusetts, circa 1833 IIRC.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 3, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Very good.

.

Did Massachusetts mandate that all practice of Christianity within it’s borders conform to that “official state religion”?

listens2glenn on April 3, 2013 at 8:58 PM

It mandated attendance at church unless an individual was exempt as a result of one of the few exclusions (such as being Jewish).

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 9:25 PM

And they keep denying there’s Christian Sharia in this country while babbling about imaginary Muslim rule.

lester on April 3, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Christianity rocks. I’ve never been offended by Jesus.

Evangelical-extremists are another story. There is no difference between zealots other than their religions.

Extreme-evangelicals regularly welcome violence upon those with whom they disagree.

Capitalist Hog on April 3, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Congratulations. I didn’t think anybody could top the stupidity of lester’s comment, but you rose to the occasion.

So tell me, are you in hiding now from the roving Amish death squads?

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 3, 2013 at 9:25 PM

lester on April 3, 2013 at 8:17 PM

So, one can assume, then, that you believe that the 1st Amendment means exactly what it says as written. Is that correct?

Can one further assume that you also believe that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says as written?

Or do you – as do most leftists – pick and choose which amendments to honor?

Solaratov on April 3, 2013 at 9:26 PM

I’ve been saying for years the republican endgame was creating a theocracy, and here’s your damn proof.

triple on April 3, 2013 at 9:03 PM

Republicans can’t tie their own shoes and now they’re engineering a theocracy in 21st century America? That’s called projection, dear fellow.

rrpjr on April 3, 2013 at 9:27 PM

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 9:25 PM

I try to have my facts straight for when I argue with dullards like SK about “creeping theocracy.”

I wish he would give me the same courtesy. :(

Good Solid B-Plus on April 3, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Extreme-evangelicals regularly welcome violence upon those with whom they disagree.

Capitalist Hog on April 3, 2013 at 8:19 PM

My mother-in-law is an ‘extreme evangelical’. She claims that the reason that the Shoah happened was because G-d was punishing those who rejected his ‘son’. She’s not aware yet that I’ve returned to Judaism. Are there going to be words between us? Yes. Do I think that her views are somewhat anti-Jewish and highly irrational? Yes.
Is she violent? Of course not.
Don’t be an asp.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 3, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Personally, I don’t want to ever hear about how much republicans care about the us constitution ever again.

You can’t trot around the 2nd amendment while ignoring the first.

triple on April 3, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Thought experiment: let’s try rearranging just a couple of words:

You can’t trot around the 1st amendment while ignoring the second.

Still a statement you agree with? Or are you a hypocrite?

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 3, 2013 at 9:31 PM

re: lester

What — another hit-and-run troll?

Liam on April 3, 2013 at 8:29 PM

As hysterical as its last post sounded, the poor lil troll was probably overcome by outrage and indignation, swooned…and is now recovering (mommy came down to the basement with a couple of Hot Pockets for it).

Solaratov on April 3, 2013 at 9:33 PM

major nonpartisan pollsters like Gallup

ROFLMAO……you can’t be serious…..Gallup is nonpartisan? LOL…..No wonder the GOP is losing everywhere. Anyone that thinks Gallup is nonpartisan isn’t paying attention….

at least since 1988. The orinal nonpartisian Gallup died and his heirs sold the company to SRI who simply placed the Gallup name on their polls to give them a nonpartisan brand.

unseen on April 3, 2013 at 9:36 PM

I’ve been saying for years the republican endgame was creating a theocracy, and here’s your damn proof.

triple on April 3, 2013 at 9:03 PM

I think it’s a good poke. Actually its kind of Alinsky. “Make them live up to every dot of their statutes”.
Push it. What exactly does the Establishment Clause allow or prevent?

Congress shall make no law establishing a religion.
What law is Congress making that establishes an official religion? Can anyone point to the statute or bill?

Mimzey on April 3, 2013 at 9:37 PM

Extreme-evangelicals regularly welcome violence upon those with whom they disagree.

Capitalist Hog on April 3, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Thats your claim, what is your evidence?
Can you give a couple of examples?
What percentage of the population would you guess the faction makes up?
Thanks.

Mimzey on April 3, 2013 at 9:40 PM

So if one day enough Muslims live in North Carolina, dominate the legislature, and decide to start legislative sessions with prayers on rugs facing Mecca these people would be okay with that, right?

farsighted on April 3, 2013 at 9:40 PM

Hotair is slow, this was morning news and I read it long before you. You’re mistaking Allah’s analysis of the story with the actual story.

lester on April 3, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Actually you didn’t. And I don’t consider media matters/think progress/ huffington post/ daily kos as a place for serious analysis. You are simply regurgitating like the good little parrot that you are..and not actually analyzing anything.

And if you want to do a compare and contrast of sharia and Christianity…I’ll spring for your airfare to Afghanistan,Pakistan, Iran or Yemen..your choice. I’ll help you make the “Mohammed had Two Dads” signs as well. Let us know how it turns out.

HumpBot Salvation on April 3, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Extreme-evangelicals regularly welcome violence upon those with whom they disagree.

Capitalist Hog on April 3, 2013 at 8:19 PM

You’re pretty much an idiot.

HumpBot Salvation on April 3, 2013 at 9:44 PM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Hmmm isn’t Obamacare a law prohibiting the free exercise of relgion?

the state isn’t congress but I think the Fourteenth Amendment would incorp the 1st. I mean I doubt if the State said it was legal to stop and frisk anyone they wanted that the SCOTUS would say the 4th wouldn’t be incorp. Or if the State said the press needed to be regulated I think the SCOUTs would incorp that. so I would imagine that it wouldn’t hold up…..yet bloomberg uses stop and frisk at will on the streets of NY. So I guess The old saying better to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission works for NYC so I don’t see why it shouldn’t work for NC.

Hell Bloomberg said that its the governments job to infringe on our freedoms. …..

unseen on April 3, 2013 at 9:44 PM

Extreme-evangelicals regularly welcome violence upon those with whom they disagree.

Capitalist Hog on April 3, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Cite one example. Would it be like the death threats the 15 year old girls who testified against gay marriage have been receiving from the Left. And the death threats business owners in California received by Leftists for supporting Prop 8? Like the death threats Ben Carson gets from the Left. And the death threats Sarah Palin gets from the Left. And the death threats her daughters receive from the Left. And the attack on the Famile Research Council by a crazed Leftist fueled by the Leftist SPLC? Like the routine death threats by the Left on twitter against conservatives who speak out in the culture? “Welcoming violence upon those with whom the disagree” is stock and trade Leftism on livid display each and every day.

rrpjr on April 3, 2013 at 9:46 PM

This would be a huge step. They may just be doing it for show, but the argument is sound. There is no evidence in the text that the Supreme Court (or any other federal court) has the power of judicial review, nor can I remember that power being mentioned in any of the Federalist or Anti-Federalist writings.

The references to being laughed out of court rely on them not standing their ground. What I’d like to see is for them to be sued in federal court over it and simply announcing that they don’t recognize the court’s jurisdiction over the issue and will not be complying with the ruling. Honestly, this may be the best step for conservatives, having the states say that they will no longer abide by unconstitutional legislation and refusing to enforce it, regardless of what the courts say.

FlareCorran on April 3, 2013 at 9:20 PM

Exactly.

Mimzey on April 3, 2013 at 9:46 PM

So if one day enough Muslims live in North Carolina, dominate the legislature, and decide to start legislative sessions with prayers on rugs facing Mecca these people would be okay with that, right?

farsighted on April 3, 2013 at 9:40 PM

Do the muslims allow the free worship of christ in North Carolina? or any other religion, freedom to worship? If so I don’t think it would be a major problem if the legislature conformed to the majority of the citizens. North Carolina allows all houses of worship in the State.

unseen on April 3, 2013 at 9:49 PM

Extreme-evangelicals regularly welcome violence upon those with whom they disagree.

Capitalist Hog on April 3, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Translation: you’ve made such an asstard of yourself for so long that someone has threatened you with a well-earned beating.

MelonCollie on April 3, 2013 at 9:49 PM

What I’d like to see is for them to be sued in federal court over it and simply announcing that they don’t recognize the court’s jurisdiction over the issue and will not be complying with the ruling. Honestly, this may be the best step for conservatives, having the states say that they will no longer abide by unconstitutional legislation and refusing to enforce it, regardless of what the courts say.

FlareCorran on April 3, 2013 at 9:20 PM

you do understand the southern States tried that route in 1860 right?

unseen on April 3, 2013 at 9:50 PM

Answers:

BTW, les, when do you think the “wall of separation between church and state” was erected under the law?

Everson v Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

What was the animus of the writer of the majority opinion in the case?

Justice Hugo Black HATED Catholicism and this hatred, according to his own son, was the driver behind the Everson decision. Black believed that the Catholic Church took advantage of the poor, demanded allegiance to Rome over the United States, was too wealthy and benefited from tax-exempt status, among other things. Everson was his way of getting back at the Catholic Church.

To which infamous organisation did he once belong and what is one of the things that it was well-known for in the latter part of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th?

Justice Black was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. FYI, he was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Oh, and can you name the last state in the United States that had an official religion and the year it ended?

Has been answered, but again: Massachusetts was the last state with an official religion and ended its state church in 1833 BEFORE THE RATIFICATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE ADOPTION OF THE INCORPORATION DOCTRINE IN JURISPRUDENCE. It was not court-ordered.

Has the Supreme Court ever acknowledged that many states, and indeed, the country were founded as ‘Christian nations’? If so, have you ever read the astounding opinion?

Yes, a couple of decisions off the top of my head:

Vidal v Girard’s Executors, 43 U. S. 127 (1844), in which the Court said:

“The Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.”

Church of the Holy Trinity v United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892), in which the Supreme Court declared that Pennsylvania was founded as a “Christian nation.”

The Court said:

“If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every Constitution of every one of the forty-four states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the wellbeing of the community.”

“There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Com., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, ‘Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.”

“We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.”

Church of the Holy Trinity v United States has not been overturned. In Public Citizen v Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989), Justice Kennedy, concurring with the majority, opined on the case and wrote:

“H]ere the language of a statute is clear in its application, the normal rule is that we are bound by it. There is, of course, a legitimate exception to this rule, which the Court invokes, see ante at 491 U. S. 453-454, citing Church of the Holy Trinity v United States, 143 U. S. 457, 143 U. S. 459 (1892), and with which I have no quarrel.”

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 9:51 PM

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 9:51 PM

thanks for the info.

unseen on April 3, 2013 at 9:54 PM

you do understand the southern States tried that route in 1860 right?

unseen on April 3, 2013 at 9:50 PM

Possibly a different goal?
Challenge the interpretation of the premise.

Mimzey on April 3, 2013 at 10:03 PM

Extreme-evangelicals regularly welcome violence upon those with whom they disagree.

Capitalist Hog on April 3, 2013 at 8:19 PM

So much violence. /

You’re a dishonest puke.

CW on April 3, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Translation: you’ve made such an asstard of yourself for so long that someone has threatened you with a well-earned beating.

MelonCollie on April 3, 2013 at 9:49 PM

You’ve admitted to finding an apt solution in violence.

Capitalist Hog on April 3, 2013 at 10:11 PM

You’ve admitted to finding an apt solution in violence.

Capitalist Hog on April 3, 2013 at 10:11 PM

One more example: the violence of Occupy vs. the civil non-violence of the Tea Party. Leftism is synonymous with violence — its threat, its imminence and its reality.

rrpjr on April 3, 2013 at 10:17 PM

thanks for the info.

unseen on April 3, 2013 at 9:54 PM

You’re welcome. The lack of knowledge and understanding of American history, the Constitution, and Constitutional law on the part of many people, especially those on the Left, always amuse and astonish me.

The “wall separating church and state” was not erected in the law until 1947 and the reliance of a few on Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists, usually misunderstood, is so ridiculous. Not only was the letter written to insure the Danbury Baptists that the state would not intrude upon the church – not the other way around – it was NOT the law. It amounts to ‘sound and fury signifying nothing’ when cited by the Left in religious liberty cases or debates.

Resist We Much on April 3, 2013 at 10:20 PM

Unless SCOTUS is prepared to do something very unexpected to the constitutional doctrine of “incorporation,” the bill would be laughed out of court if it became law, which it almost certainly won’t. The bill’s sponsors are, I take it, mainly interested in making a symbolic point about federal encroachment, especially from the judiciary, on state sovereignty per the Tenth Amendment. And if you’re going to do that, prayer/religion is a smart choice of subject matter.

Given the First Amendment, as written as article three of the Bill of Rights, is virtually unique among the 10 articles of the Bill of Rights adopted in 1791 as expressly applying to the federal government (specifically, Congress), it is a ripe area to push back against irrational incorporation. The Second through Ninth Amendments have no such construct limiting their scope to the federal government. Indeed, the Sixth Amendment requirement for a speedy and impartial jury trial of criminal prosecutions was specifically targeted at the states. The Tenth was another limitation on the federal government.

So, what do I mean by “irrational incorporation”? It’s a system where the First Amendment, specifically targeting only Congress, is applied to the states, while the Fifth Amendment requirement of a grand jury, not specifically targeting only the federal government, and only that part of the Fifth Amendment, is not applied to the states.

Steve Eggleston on April 3, 2013 at 10:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4