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

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

Mimzey on April 3, 2013 at 10:03 PM

doesn’t matter the end result will be the same. It’s nulification in a nut shell and if a state goes there then the federal gov will have to make a decision like Lincoln had to make in 1860 do they use force to save the union or let the states go their seperate ways.

unseen on April 3, 2013 at 11:02 PM

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

i guess the old saying about the victors writting the history books doesn’t just apply to victorious armies.

unseen on April 3, 2013 at 11:04 PM

It’s nulification in a nut shell and if a state goes there then the federal gov will have to make a decision like Lincoln had to make in 1860 do they use force to save the union or let the states go their seperate ways.

unseen on April 3, 2013 at 11:02 PM

Agreed. Nullification was a question answered in blood, and the answer was “NO”. To change that answer will require a lot MORE blood. No 2 ways about it.

And much like in 1860 if the sitting POTUS lets states just walk away – even if it is for a GOOD reason this time – the Union will totally fall apart. The remaining states will be hideously destabilized and the idea of a Union at all will basically be void. So Ozero will be backed into a corner, coward that he is.

MelonCollie on April 3, 2013 at 11:13 PM

i guess the old saying about the victors writting the history books doesn’t just apply to victorious armies.

unseen on April 3, 2013 at 11:04 PM

Absolutely. And leftist-written history books are nothing short of repulsive.

MelonCollie on April 3, 2013 at 11:15 PM

Look, this is totally Alinsky:

1.“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

We can’t allow Islam in the USA because it is a violent, metastasizing political ideology that looks like a religion. We also can’t allow tribal headhunting or Indian burning of relatives when the father dies, and murder for Voodoo is right out.

This Country was founded as a Christian nation with laws and customs rooted in English tradition. I love every aspect of it, but I am the first to admit that the whole “egalitarian” thing is way out of hand. You can have civilization or you can have the worlds toilet of religion run by the most aggressive and violent.

This is the riddle of Steel

Doom explains to him, “Steel isn’t strong, boy. Flesh is stronger. Look around you.” Thulsa motions to some of the thousands of followers surrounding his mountain who worship him as the mouthpiece of God. He points up to the top of a cliff, “There, on the rocks, that beautiful girl.” He motions to the girl, “Come to me, my child.” The girl steps off the cliff and falls to her death. “That is strength, boy. That is power: the strength and power of flesh. What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?”

Evil fanatics will use Islam to do to the USA what every other Country has had to do, Convert or Die.

Bulletchaser on April 3, 2013 at 11:16 PM

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

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

Violence has been an apt solution since before your daddy fell out of a tree, piggy, well up until the time that duels of honor weren’t banned by pansies and well-meaning Christians.

MelonCollie on April 3, 2013 at 11:17 PM

doesn’t matter the end result will be the same. It’s nulification in a nut shell and if a state goes there then the federal gov will have to make a decision like Lincoln had to make in 1860 do they use force to save the union or let the states go their seperate ways.

unseen on April 3, 2013 at 11:02 PM

Why is that?
It’s more like questioning a past ruling and interpretation than re-arguing an old position.

Mimzey on April 3, 2013 at 11:17 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

.
That’s militant, anti-theist paranoia talking.

Dittos what rrpjr said.

listens2glenn on April 3, 2013 at 11:25 PM

They are correct. It restricts the federal government from doing so. What’s the issue.

14th Amendment does not nullify the 9th and 10th Amendments no matter how much you wish it so.

njrob on April 3, 2013 at 11:52 PM

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

They chose to end the State religion on their own. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t keep it.

njrob on April 3, 2013 at 11:55 PM

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

That case is no different than Plessy v. Ferguson. Both were decided incorrectly. By your remarks, you think Plessy shouldn’t never been overturned.

njrob on April 3, 2013 at 11:57 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

Because no one is restricting freedom in the cast of the former.

njrob on April 3, 2013 at 11:59 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

And I still say it’s been incorporated incorrectly by a leftist court.

njrob on April 4, 2013 at 12:00 AM

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

Thank you for these citations as I’ve used Justice Black’s biases to explain the Emerson decision to others.

I appreciate the acknowledgement of Christian faith cases. Very useful.

njrob on April 4, 2013 at 12:09 AM

They chose to end the State religion on their own. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t keep it.

njrob on April 3, 2013 at 11:55 PM

Again, there’s that pesky 14th Amendment, passed in 1867. The states are no longer the guarantor of our rights — the federal government is.

Can you imagine Massachusetts going back to a constitution which mandates that all taxpayers pay for the maintenance of either of the modern day versions of the Unitarians or the Trinitarians? They realized the rat’s nest they’d gotten themselves into within just a couple of years of that constitution. The coolest reading of it are the portions dealing with Harvard. Just amazing.

unclesmrgol on April 4, 2013 at 1:16 AM

They are correct. It restricts the federal government from doing so. What’s the issue.

14th Amendment does not nullify the 9th and 10th Amendments no matter how much you wish it so.

njrob on April 3, 2013 at 11:52 PM

It doesn’t — so far as the 9th and 10th are used in ways which are not counter to the Bill of Rights. That’s what the 14th guarantees can’t happen.

Equal protection means that my religion is as much a state religion as your religion is, and that an atheist has as much a state religion as my Catholicism. Any establishment of religion, at whatever level — from city to nation — will find itself coming up against the 14th, regardless of what the 9th and 10th say.

unclesmrgol on April 4, 2013 at 1:21 AM

doesn’t matter the end result will be the same. It’s nulification in a nut shell and if a state goes there then the federal gov will have to make a decision like Lincoln had to make in 1860 do they use force to save the union or let the states go their seperate ways.

unseen on April 3, 2013 at 11:02 PM

The crucial difference between this and nullification is that it isn’t saying that federal laws they don’t like are illegal, but rather that federal courts don’t have the authority to overturn state laws. The laws that were being nullified pre-1860 were primarily things on foreign trade and other issues explicitly permitted.

Really, judicial review by federal court is one of the worst possible ways to determine constitutionality of any law. For state laws, it doesn’t seem that there would be much of an issue, certainly not one where citizens would be suing their own state. As for federal laws, looking at the circumstances, it appears the founders assumed that either A: the state legislatures wouldn’t send people to the Senate who would vote for unconstitutional laws or B: the country would just fall apart when it happened.

A better system would be repealing the 17th amendment and allowing any federal law to be annulled by resolution of 26 state legislatures.

FlareCorran on April 4, 2013 at 2:20 AM

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.

True, but incorporation of the 1st amendment is not, strictly speaking, necessary to prevent states from abridging free speech. The amendment simply articulates rights that were already there. Or rather, the free speech part does. And the same goes for the free exercise clause, freedom of association, etc.

The establishment clause, on the other hand, does not say anything about the rights of individuals. It concerns the power of the federal government. Strictly speaking, it should follow anyway from the 10th amendment, but someone must have anticipated shenanigans involving the interstate commerce clause.

Rand Paul talked about this in his filibuster – one of the main reasons a lot of people opposed the bill of rights was that it might be used to suggest that governments had every power that wasn’t explicitly forbidden. This is false.

No government, whether federal or state or local, may abridge the right to free speech, and that would still be true even if somehow a constitutional amendment eliminated the 1st amendment completely.

(Lurking in the background of this entire discussion, of course, is the meaning of the word “may”.)

RINO in Name Only on April 4, 2013 at 3:56 AM

The establishment clause, on the other hand, does not say anything about the rights of individuals. It concerns the power of the federal government. Strictly speaking, it should follow anyway from the 10th amendment, but someone must have anticipated shenanigans involving the interstate commerce clause.

Of course, any kind of compulsion of an individual to participate in religion, period, is a violation of an individual right. But plainly things like putting “in God we Trust” on currency, prayer at football games, etc are not.

RINO in Name Only on April 4, 2013 at 4:03 AM

I thank God the Constitution prohibits laws respecting an establishment of religion, nor the free exercise thereof.

It’s why the ACLU HAS. NO. STANDING. concerning prayers at open public meetings.

locomotivebreath1901 on April 4, 2013 at 5:58 AM

A couple of Tennessee Republican lawmakers thought a Muslim foot-washing station had been installed in the state Capitol.

Turns out it’s a mop sink.

Top THAT North Carolina!

chumpThreads on April 4, 2013 at 7:19 AM

A couple of Tennessee Republican lawmakers thought a Muslim foot-washing station had been installed in the state Capitol.

Turns out it’s a mop sink.

chumpThreads on April 4, 2013 at 7:19 AM

Sorta like not knowing a clip from a magazine. :)

Shy Guy on April 4, 2013 at 7:33 AM

Turns out it’s a mop sink

Toss some bacon in there just to be sure.

tommyboy on April 4, 2013 at 7:38 AM

Because no one is restricting freedom in the cast of the former.

njrob on April 3, 2013 at 11:59 PM

English is a Subject Verb Object language (SVO) and one that has an active voice and a passive voice allowed construction to it.

Diagram out Amendment I and see who the subject is, what the verb is and what the object is.

Now do that with Amendment II.

My question was actually rhetorical due to the nature of Amendment II and its passive voice construction. It actually doesn’t need Amendment XIV as its voice encompasses the entirety of all governments due to its Subject, Verb and Object. Similar voice comparisons can be done with the Bill of Rights to curb James II, the Magna Carta and even going back to Henry I. Yet the Left seems to be unable to understand SVO sentences, how to read them, nor what the history behind them are in the case of the US Bill of Rights which contains multiple passive voice Amendments. Heck they even refuse to read the body of the Constitution to understand the context of Amendment II within the framework of the Constitution itself.

In the case of NC and its proposed bill, having a religion held by a State does not prohibit the freedom to practice other religions within that State. That is simple Westphalian agreement that we get via the Snow Queen and the Restoration: we allow for government to have a religion it abides by, but protect the freedom of citizens to worship as they please. Establishing a religion requires edicts by government, proscribing other religions, and then trying to foster a sole religion without regard to any others. Just like standing armies are prohibited for States but a militia is not, so to are States not permitted an established religion, but one the government calls for itself on a voluntary basis is fine. Yet these are separated by being in Art I, Sec 10 and in Amendment I, but when Amendment XIV is put into place the exact same language applied to the legislative body of the State has the exact, same result: no establishment allowed, but bills calling for voluntary adherence are.

ajacksonian on April 4, 2013 at 7:41 AM

How does anyone with two brain cells to rub together continue to ignore the fact that bill of rights was specifically applied TO THE STATES via the 14th amendment ?

Anyone who disagrees, go read any of the congressional testimony at the time. That was intentional. No Supreme Court rulings needed. Its right there in the words of the amendment.

deadrody on April 4, 2013 at 7:47 AM

And much like in 1860 if the sitting POTUS lets states just walk away – even if it is for a GOOD reason this time – the Union will totally fall apart. The remaining states will be hideously destabilized and the idea of a Union at all will basically be void. So Ozero will be backed into a corner, coward that he is.

MelonCollie on April 3, 2013 at 11:13 PM

That’s why The Regime is buying hollow point ammunition by the billions and armored vehicles by the thousand… For use INTERNALLY.

I think the current Union is doomed anyway, not necessarily because of the state’s rights question but because of the debt implosion that is imminent. Why should people in the solvent states have to pick up the tab for irresponsible states like California, Illinois, and New York?

The answer: They shouldn’t. And even if they wanted to, they CANT. There doesn’t exist enough money on the whole planet just to meet the unfunded obligations of socialist security, medicare, and government pensions alone. And that doesn’t count the 6 million pound gorilla of Obamacare.

wildcat72 on April 4, 2013 at 7:51 AM

Doesn’t seem right that there are official sectarian prayers at government meetings or in public schools.

bluegill on April 4, 2013 at 8:14 AM

I see a trend of red states suing the fed government or passing their own legislation that negates federal regulations. The fed
govt. has overreached to the point where it is now imperative that the states fight back.

If you think the people are divided in this country, just wait as
the red states start pulling away from the lunatics who are in the blue states. I live in Illinois so I know the definition of lunatics!

As to religion, most of the people I know either believe in God, however, don’t attend regular services; some don’t attend any, or
are active in their churches, etc. to one degree or another.

However, I have a friend who does not believe in God and has never gone to church. I can’t recall the conversation exactly, however, she was shocked that I believe God created the earth, man, etc.
She asked if I believed in “evolution”. We are all descended from
apes according to her theory. I laughed and wanted to know what
happened to all the apes in the zoo and in the wild. Why weren’t they evolving? If they evolved, did it happen overnite when no one was looking? Needless to say, she had no response. Perhaps the apes that evolved into humans are a species that are now extinct! Of course, she and others are entitled to their opinions and scientific theories. The same scientific theories that give the EPA their power or global warming their “credibility”.

One thing that I am sick of are these small wacko fringe groups
leading the discussion on how the rest of us live our lives. Enough already. If someone wants to belong to an athesist church
(I know) then let them. Other than that, leave the rest of us alone.

Amjean on April 4, 2013 at 8:18 AM

Couldn’t someone else there take this story. I cannot trust Allahpundit on such issues. I’ll read about it elsewhere.

WannabeAnglican on April 4, 2013 at 8:19 AM

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

The failure in your argument is that the creation of a state religion absent a mandate to worship in that tradition is not compelling an individuals action. Citizens would be able to choose to join the church or not. As opposed to gun control which restricts a right.

I don’t believe this is as farfetched as you might think.

Zomcon JEM on April 4, 2013 at 8:31 AM

She asked if I believed in “evolution”. We are all descended from apes according to her theory. I laughed and wanted to know what happened to all the apes in the zoo and in the wild. Why weren’t they evolving? If they evolved, did it happen overnite when no one was looking?

Amjean on April 4, 2013 at 8:18 AM

The apes you see today are what evolved from the common ancestor to all apes. Those apes in the zoo ARE still evolving. It’s not that they turn into humans every once in a while. They are our evolutionary cousins. Maybe in a few million years they’ll have evolved a bigger brain like we have and begin to have speech and a higher intelligence like we have.

We have a 98% likeness to Chimpanzee’s DNA-wise, they are our closest cousins in the family of apes. The furthest from us DNA wise are the great apes if I’m not mistaken, with Orangutans and Bonobos between them and Chimps genetically.

Are you familiar with endogenous retrovirus (ERV) amjean? You should go look up the thousands upon thousands of examples of ERV’s that Chimpanzee DNA has that match up with the ones we have. It’s very telling.

Evidence for Evolution Part III

SauerKraut537 on April 4, 2013 at 8:40 AM

Well, Allahpundit is right that a bill like this would be laughed out of court. But the legislation is also correct in that the 1st Amendment is not supposed to apply to the states.

The language of the first amendment is remarkably specific in comparison to the other amendments. For example, the second amendment speaks in general terms when it says “the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say anything about WHO can’t infringe that right. It just makes a blanket statement that there shall be no infringement. Same with the fourth amendment. And so on.

The first amendment is different. The first amendment specifically mentions Congress. It says “Congress shall make no law.” Now, the founders of our nation were not stupid. In fact, they were brilliant. And they were very precise in their use of language. Why do you think they would have worded the first amendment in a completely different way than all other amendments if it was to be interpreted in the same way? Answer: They wouldn’t.

Bottom line: The first amendment was never meant to constrain the states. Only the federal government. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed long ago and you’re not going to change it now.

Shump on April 4, 2013 at 8:49 AM

The point is that the Establishment Clause keeps government from being a sponsor of a church, but not from being its enemy. So, no Aztec human sacrifice in the District of Columbia, by the federal government or anyone else.

PersonFromPorlock on April 4, 2013 at 8:50 AM

Considering the text & the definitions of the words in the 1st,
Govt has no businesses stopping prayer in schools, even if they are public & getting state or fed. funds, etc.

The respecting & establishment words regard the point that the Fed or state cannot make any laws that say this religion is the official religion & we are saying yall have to be a part of it.

But in no way does the 1st interfere with Congress in the Fed or state level opening a session with a Christian prayer etc.
This has been so abused by the left it is disgusting.
In regards to the wording of NC’s bill, I think it should be noted more obviously that they can pass laws regarding respect of a religion that does not establish a state sanctioned religion upon its citizens.
To respect & recognize something does not establish it as a norm for the populace, something many liberals do not clearly get.

And again, this all comes down to reading comprehension.
The ‘evolving’ definition of words is what is to blame in our country.
Words have static meanings. They should not be officially allowed to be dynamic.
Bcs as we have seen, this allows people to make the Const. & other documents that are official say anything they’d like them to stay, which was NEVER the intent of the Founders.

Badger40 on April 4, 2013 at 8:52 AM

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.

When these 2 words are joined together by the word emboldened above, they are linked.
It is not worded as respecting OR establishing.
It is an establishment OF that is not to be done.

I do think NC needs to reword things.

Badger40 on April 4, 2013 at 8:57 AM

Again, there’s that pesky 14th Amendment, passed in 1867. The states are no longer the guarantor of our rights — the federal government is.

Can you imagine Massachusetts going back to a constitution which mandates that all taxpayers pay for the maintenance of either of the modern day versions of the Unitarians or the Trinitarians? They realized the rat’s nest they’d gotten themselves into within just a couple of years of that constitution. The coolest reading of it are the portions dealing with Harvard. Just amazing.

unclesmrgol on April 4, 2013 at 1:16 AM

Once again, the 14th Amendment did no such thing. It was a poor Supreme Court decision, not in 1867, but 80 years later, in 1947 that did what you claimed.

njrob on April 4, 2013 at 8:58 AM

Equal protection means that my religion is as much a state religion as your religion is, and that an atheist has as much a state religion as my Catholicism. Any establishment of religion, at whatever level — from city to nation — will find itself coming up against the 14th, regardless of what the 9th and 10th say.

unclesmrgol on April 4, 2013 at 1:21 AM

In addition, no one is talking about compulsion, but instead we are talking about acknowledging faith in public. This is an appropriate push back against evangelical atheism that is rampant in the public sphere of society.

njrob on April 4, 2013 at 9:01 AM

Bottom line: The first amendment was never meant to constrain the states. Only the federal government. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed long ago and you’re not going to change it now.

Shump on April 4, 2013 at 8:49 AM

On this I do agree.
The states are sovereign entities rules locally by the citizens.
So if you had mini dictatorships regarding taxation, & even on social issue like sodomy laws & such, as long as the state is not clearly breaking the rules of the basic framework of the Const (which the 1st is as clear as you say), then that is that. And it is exactly why some insisted the 10th be specifically included even though many Founders said it wasn’t necessary bcs everybody KNEW it was obvious the states were sovereign entities.

Badger40 on April 4, 2013 at 9:02 AM

Establishing a religion requires edicts by government, proscribing other religions, and then trying to foster a sole religion without regard to any others. Just like standing armies are prohibited for States but a militia is not, so to are States not permitted an established religion, but one the government calls for itself on a voluntary basis is fine. Yet these are separated by being in Art I, Sec 10 and in Amendment I, but when Amendment XIV is put into place the exact same language applied to the legislative body of the State has the exact, same result: no establishment allowed, but bills calling for voluntary adherence are.

ajacksonian on April 4, 2013 at 7:41 AM

You’re talking about the privileges and immunities clause, but no where within that clause does it incorporate the 1st Amendment, directly restricting Congress, to the States. It’s only due to awful case law that we claim otherwise. I’m stating that the case law is incorrect and should be overturned.

njrob on April 4, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Doesn’t seem right that there are official sectarian prayers at government meetings or in public schools.

bluegill on April 4, 2013 at 8:14 AM

Then don’t go to the meeting. Stop whining.

njrob on April 4, 2013 at 9:08 AM

SauerKraut537 on April 4, 2013 at 8:40 AM

Context is important. We also “Share” 90% of DNA with mice. Kind of.

The often-quoted statement that we share over 98% of our genes with apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans) actually should be put another way. That is, there is more than 95% to 98% similarity between related genes in humans and apes in general. (Just as in the mouse, quite a few genes probably are not common to humans and apes, and these may influence uniquely human or ape traits.) Similarities between mouse and human genes range from about 70% to 90%, with an average of 85% similarity but a lot of variation from gene to gene (e.g., some mouse and human gene products are almost identical, while others are nearly unrecognizable as close relatives). Some nucleotide changes are “neutral” and do not yield a significantly altered protein. Others, but probably only a relatively small percentage, would introduce changes that could substantially alter what the protein does.

Mimzey on April 4, 2013 at 9:23 AM

David Barton on Separation of Church and State
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=123

ITguy on April 4, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Equal protection means that my religion is as much a state religion as your religion is, and that an atheist has as much a state religion as my Catholicism. Any establishment of religion, at whatever level — from city to nation — will find itself coming up against the 14th, regardless of what the 9th and 10th say.

unclesmrgol on April 4, 2013 at 1:21 AM

IIRR SCOTUS ruled that secular humanism is a religion. This is being taught in educational systems in all states.
Where is the outcry for the separation of church and state for that religion?

Mimzey on April 4, 2013 at 9:28 AM

Incorporation? You have to be a senseless loon to believe that the states ratified a document saying that from here on in the federal government would determine policy by policing rights at the state level–that’s how they got INTO the Civil War.

The federal courts determined that Illinois, while thinking that slaves could be free in their state, was supposedly bound by some Constitutional theory to protect the people of Missouri’s rights to think that slaves living alone in their state forever remained the property of the people of slave states.

But judges have turned into the functional equivalent of f-ing morons simply by being progressive hacks.

Of course, I find the libertarian-ish reaction on this quite ironic: They always claim that vying for the freedom to smoke pot is not exactly advocating –or being fer–smoking pot. However, they take the argument that it is still reserved to the states to decide how theocratic (they still must be republican in form, the Supreme Law of the Land is hard to equivocate on that) they want to be–and they take that as a direct endorsement of theocracy itself.

Instead they want to interpret the Cons as if it grants libertarian police powers over the states: Big Judiciary, Papa Judge. They always recommend that a little bad-tasting medicine is necessary for a healthy republic. But they spit and spew the minute they don’t like the direction that other people may decide to take things. As if the whole point of the colonial states wasn’t actually self-government, but some sort of optimized apportionment of personal liberties as ministered to by a central core of liberty mathematicians.

(The above not may reflect the opinion of every type of libertarian, so cool your jets.)

Axeman on April 4, 2013 at 9:28 AM

Let’s try this again… hopefully the links will work this time…

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/david-barton-pt–1

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/david-barton-pt–2

ITguy on April 4, 2013 at 9:33 AM

While just government protects all in their religious rights,
true religion affords to government its surest support.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports.

Who said it?

ITguy on April 4, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Search for the answer here:
Importance of Morality and Religion in Government.

ITguy on April 4, 2013 at 9:44 AM

A couple of Tennessee Republican lawmakers thought a Muslim foot-washing station had been installed in the state Capitol.

Turns out it’s a mop sink.

Top THAT North Carolina!

chumpThreads on April 4, 2013 at 7:19 AM

Did they think the footbath would ‘tip over and capsize’ if Marines used it?

I win.

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Did they think the footbath would ‘tip over and capsize’ if Marines used it?

I win.

Resist We Much on April 4, 2013 at 9:46 AM

I know the “corpse”man in the 57th state tipped it over. :)

melle1228 on April 4, 2013 at 9:53 AM

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

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

Then you should be able to easily point out a half dozen Christian attacks this week. Put up or shut up.

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

Oh the irony is overwhelming. Capitalist Hog, it’s time to prove you’re not a liar. I can’t seem to find any Christian violence articles of incidents in the last week. And no, a law is not violence. It’s a document, voted upon by representatives.

dominigan on April 4, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Sure you can, says the NC bill..

Point of order: it’s not a bill, it’s a resolution that would only last till the next election.

William Teach on April 4, 2013 at 10:03 AM

The apes you see today are what evolved from the common ancestor to all apes. Those apes in the zoo ARE still evolving. It’s not that they turn into humans every once in a while. They are our evolutionary cousins. Maybe in a few million years they’ll have evolved a bigger brain like we have and begin to have speech and a higher intelligence like we have.

We have a 98% likeness to Chimpanzee’s DNA-wise, they are our closest cousins in the family of apes. The furthest from us DNA wise are the great apes if I’m not mistaken, with Orangutans and Bonobos between them and Chimps genetically.

Are you familiar with endogenous retrovirus (ERV) amjean? You should go look up the thousands upon thousands of examples of ERV’s that Chimpanzee DNA has that match up with the ones we have. It’s very telling.

Evidence for Evolution Part III

SauerKraut537 on April 4, 2013 at 8:40 AM

Nice interpretation, but I see similarities like this all the time in software development. But those similarities are the result of the application of successful design patterns, not from spontaneous evolution of code. When something works successfully as a building block, you use it as the building block for other things so you don’t have to keep starting over from scratch. If you look at a building, they use many similar building blocks of concrete, steel, framing, etc… but I would never choose to believe that one building evolved from another. That’s just pure crazy talk! ;)

Your interpretation of similar DNA is to ASSUME that one species changed from another because of the similarities (even though you can’t find evidence of transitional creatures, which should be the majority of creatures).

My interpretation is that God is a fantastic designer, and is smart enough to reuse his successful designs in many different creatures. It’s what the best software developers do when creating systems.

I should point out that there is a reason why the “design” of DNA appeals to me. If you look at cell replication and how it reads the DNA and creates new cells from it, you have to admire one thing in particular that evolution can’t seem to explain… that of data format design. Before you can have usable software, you have to build code to read data and write data… but above that, you have to have a design for the structure of the data or the reading/writing mechanisms would be out of sync and the whole system would fail. Let me say that again… you have to have an agreed upon design for the data structure among all the mechanisms, or nothing works. DNA is all about information storage and data design. And for there to be a design, there must be a Designer…

That’s my interpretation.

dominigan on April 4, 2013 at 10:23 AM

But those similarities are the result of the application of successful design patterns, not from spontaneous evolution of code.

Nature is not a computer program, and doesn’t have a programmer writing code for it.

Good Lt on April 4, 2013 at 10:26 AM

I’m sure this point was made above but the states had state churches in days of yore. Even when they passed the Bill of Rights. Therefore, this bill is formidable to tyrants only.

Akzed on April 4, 2013 at 10:28 AM

And for there to be a design, there must be a Designer…

Who designed cancer?

Good Lt on April 4, 2013 at 10:28 AM

Sure it has been said but this will not fly any more than this:

The Colorado General Assembly asserts that the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws banning and infringing firearms.

tjexcite on April 4, 2013 at 10:29 AM

We have a 98% likeness to Chimpanzee’s DNA-wise, they are our closest cousins in the family of apes. SauerKraut537 on April 4, 2013 at 8:40 AM

40% of our DNA is identical to bananas’.

Akzed on April 4, 2013 at 10:30 AM

She asked if I believed in “evolution”. We are all descended from apes according to her theory. I laughed and wanted to know what happened to all the apes in the zoo and in the wild. Why weren’t they evolving? If they evolved, did it happen overnite when no one was looking?

Amjean on April 4, 2013 at 8:18 AM

The apes you see today are what evolved from the common ancestor to all apes. Those apes in the zoo ARE still evolving. It’s not that they turn into humans every once in a while. They are our evolutionary cousins. Maybe in a few million years they’ll have evolved a bigger brain like we have and begin to have speech and a higher intelligence like we have.

We have a 98% likeness to Chimpanzee’s DNA-wise, they are our closest cousins in the family of apes. The furthest from us DNA wise are the great apes if I’m not mistaken, with Orangutans and Bonobos between them and Chimps genetically.

Are you familiar with endogenous retrovirus (ERV) amjean? You should go look up the thousands upon thousands of examples of ERV’s that Chimpanzee DNA has that match up with the ones we have. It’s very telling.

Evidence for Evolution Part III

SauerKraut537 on April 4, 2013 at 8:40 AM

Of course, GOD planned it HIS way. I don’t need to read up on it
and you missed the point anyways. Don’t ever think YOU as a human are so important that you know more than GOD. That is what is wrong with human beings; we tend to think we know everything and that the world revolves on us and our “evolution”. Not true.

Amjean on April 4, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Who designed cancer?

Good Lt on April 4, 2013 at 10:28 AM

It evolved from cancer apes.

melle1228 on April 4, 2013 at 10:31 AM

It evolved from cancer apes.

melle1228 on April 4, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Who designed cancer apes?

Good Lt on April 4, 2013 at 10:32 AM

If there were a god he would be just as GoodLt imagines he should be. In other words, he would be just like GoodLt, only with super powers!

Akzed on April 4, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Of course, GOD planned it HIS way.

Prove it.

Don’t ever think YOU as a human are so important that you know more than GOD

Which god are you referring to? Vishnu?

That is what is wrong with human beings; we tend to think we know everything

The only people claiming to have absolute knowledge of the mystical workings of the universe are believers in god(s).

Their assertion of the existence of an invisible all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipotent god is a knowledge claim. They claim to KNOW there is one.

The problem comes when they have to prove it with evidence. Since there is no evidence for the existence of such a thing, there is no good reason to believe there is one.

Good Lt on April 4, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Who designed cancer apes?

Good Lt on April 4, 2013 at 10:32 AM

What are you a two year old asking ‘why” “why” “why”??

I was making a joke Francis..

Furthermore, I don’t care who designed cancer.. I care more about curing it.

melle1228 on April 4, 2013 at 10:38 AM

If there were a god he would be just as GoodLt imagines he should be. In other words, he would be just like GoodLt, only with super powers!

Akzed on April 4, 2013 at 10:34 AM

I’m not the one who believes in magic.

Good Lt on April 4, 2013 at 10:39 AM

I’m not the one who believes in magic.

Good Lt on April 4, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Actually “magic” is a subjective term. If you had told someone 600 years ago that we “evolved’ from apes or primordial slime and proved it to them; they would probably consider that witchcraft or magic.

Magic is a wholesale term used by someone who can’t comprehend something bigger than themselves..

melle1228 on April 4, 2013 at 10:42 AM

What are you a two year old asking ‘why” “why” “why”??

It’s really more of a “who” question than a “why,” but I missed the memo where vigorous questioning of baseless claims was a bad thing.

Furthermore, I don’t care who designed cancer.. I care more about curing it.

melle1228 on April 4, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Nobody designed cancer. I care about curing it as well.

Let’s hope the science continues to move us in the direction of a cure.

Good Lt on April 4, 2013 at 10:43 AM

The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause applies only to the federal government, not to the states.

In fact, it only applies to congress. Not local school boards, city councils, courtrooms, etc.

Akzed on April 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM

If you had told someone 600 years ago that we “evolved’ from apes or primordial slime and proved it to them; they would probably consider that witchcraft or magic.

And they would have been wrong on the facts. Hence, a belief in supernatural forces or explanations has no applicable value and is useless when it comes to determining objective fact.

Magic is a wholesale term used by someone who can’t comprehend something bigger than themselves..

melle1228 on April 4, 2013 at 10:42 AM

If you believe there are invisible supernatural forces and omnipotent beings that suspend the laws of nature at their whim, you believe in magic.

Good Lt on April 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM

It’s really more of a “who” question than a “why,” but I missed the memo where vigorous questioning of baseless claims was a bad thing.

If you want to know the religious answer to that then Hotair probably isn’t the best place to get the answer to that. Theologians have been trying to answer that question for 2000 years and there have been some great writings on it. If you are really interested in the answer to the question of “why bad things happen” then I suggest you start there. If you are just making a sarcastic point well then Meh!

melle1228 on April 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM

If there were a god he would be just as GoodLt imagines he should be. In other words, he would be just like GoodLt, only with super powers!

Akzed on April 4, 2013 at 10:34 AM

I’m not the one who believes in magic.

Good Lt on April 4, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Of course you do. Your magic just depends on billions of years, random chance, and the existence of processes that haven’t actually been observed to occur because they, um, take billions of years and random chance.

Evolution just assumes that genetic mutations, although extremely rare and almost universally harmful, can cause the development of amphibians into reptiles and mammals if given pure random chance and lots — and lots — of time.

And the proof of this is that it must have happened!

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM

I’m not the one who believes in magic.
Good Lt on April 4, 2013 at 10:39 AM

The implication of your argument is that if there were a god he would cure cancer with his super power, or have the super power to prevent it.

Otherwise your argument, as usual, rises to the level of a child saying, “Nuh uh…”

Akzed on April 4, 2013 at 10:49 AM

If you believe there are invisible supernatural forces and omnipotent beings that suspend the laws of nature at their whim, you believe in magic.

Good Lt on April 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM

No different or more absurd than believing that primordial slime eventually turned into thousands of different species and plants..

melle1228 on April 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Where is the outcry for the separation of church and state for that religion?

Mimzey on April 4, 2013 at 9:28 AM

The same place it is when secularists try to show the destructiveness of religions by assigning the blame for murderous atheistic regimes to “religion”, to wit: “secular religion”. Marxism is a secular religion.

But at the same time they generally endorse the avoidance of “excessive entanglement with religion” through the the current “Lemon Test” where a law has to be “wholly secular in intent” in order to be valid.

Take the case that there are secular religions. Then a motivation within the religion is or is not “wholly secular in intent”. Notice the stated standard. There are no half-measures, it either has some non-secular intent or it is wholly secular in intent.

But modern secularists like both things. The definition of “secular religion” forces an advocate of religion to defend Marxism–or at least for the sake of throwing chaff at you (and stonewalling), tries to. The hideousness of Marxism illustrates the danger of “religious thinking”, you see. On the other hand they are quite happy to see religionists be slapped down in the courts, lessening their ability to affect the life of a secularist. Like in liberal progressivism, inconsistency does not matter. Because it does not trouble them. They personally aren’t Marxists.

Just like even accepting the idea of “secular religions” acheiving a level of tyranny in less than 100 years it took the Church 1300 years to achieve. It is no issue for them to assume that secular petitioners are of course going to be sensible.

Axeman on April 4, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Your magic just depends on billions of years, random chance, and the existence of processes that haven’t actually been observed to occur because they, um, take billions of years and random chance.

Incorrect.

Something doesn’t become “magic” simply because it’s very old.

Things don’t cease to be true simply becuase you don’t observe them. It raining someplace else in the world and not where I am, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t raining simply because I’m not there observing it.

This process was also not “random chance.” Put down the Discovery Institute nonsense and get with the program.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html

You use magic to explain things you don’t understand and don’t want to understand. But that doesn’t mean that natural and verifiable explanations supported by reams of evidence do not exist. Your ignorance of science doesn’t mean magic is now an acceptable explanation for natural occurrences.

Good Lt on April 4, 2013 at 10:55 AM

No different or more absurd than believing that primordial slime eventually turned into thousands of different species and plants..

melle1228 on April 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM

If that’s what the theory of evolution said, then you’d be right. But that’s not what evolution says happened.

And you’re also conflating and confusing abiogenesis with evolution, which is a common mistake creationists make.

Good Lt on April 4, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Violence has been an apt solution since before your daddy fell out of a tree, piggy, well up until the time that duels of honor weren’t banned by pansies and well-meaning Christians.

MelonCollie on April 3, 2013 at 11:17 PM

Robert Heinlein:

Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and — thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.

GWB on April 4, 2013 at 11:00 AM

This process was also notrandom chance.” Put down the Discovery Institute nonsense and get with the program.

Good Lt on April 4, 2013 at 10:55 AM

So, you’re advocating Intelligent Design?

GWB on April 4, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Let’s hope the science continues to move us in the direction of a cure.

Good Lt on April 4, 2013 at 10:43 AM

But they can pray it away… ;-0

SauerKraut537 on April 4, 2013 at 11:04 AM

If that’s what the theory of evolution said, then you’d be right. But that’s not what evolution says happened.

And you’re also conflating and confusing abiogenesis with evolution, which is a common mistake creationists make.

Good Lt on April 4, 2013 at 10:57 AM

First off, I am an agnostic, and I never stated it was evolution.. I said the belief was as absurd and as magical as an intelligent designer. And please tell me “oh Scientific one” how did life start then? And if you say you don’t know then you have the same amount of “faith” in science that creationists do in the Bible..

melle1228 on April 4, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Cue the hysterical cries of “Taliban!” from the seculars. But here’s the reality: The established churches of Northern Europe preside over the most atheist nations on Earth. England, Germany, and Scandinavia have state-funded churches.

The founders of course knew this. They knew that The Church of England (their primary experiences with established churches) was King Henry’s attempt to corral personal faith to his own uses. The establishment clause does not exist to protect people from eeeevil religion. It exists, as the entire Bill of Rights does, to restrict government from control of people, in this case religious people. Judges and atheists who say that the 1st A means that religion is yucky and we should scrub it from public life are committing a self-serving revision of history. The founders weren’t fundamentalists or theocrats, but they did view Christian world view as positive reality, not a peculiar religion. Hence the use of Christian Bibles to signify adherence to oaths in court testimony and inaugural ceremonies.

The atheists should be begging for an established religion. It’s likely to be as dry and devoid of real faith as a service at National Cathedral.

xuyee on April 4, 2013 at 11:05 AM

If that’s what the theory of evolution said, then you’d be right. But that’s not what evolution says happened.

And you’re also conflating and confusing abiogenesis with evolution, which is a common mistake creationists make.

Good Lt on April 4, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Oh and BTW, there is a dispute in the scientific community as to whether abiogenesis is part of evolution or it isn’t.

melle1228 on April 4, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Ah atheists, pining for the final solution.

What’s old is new again.

You will have your secular humanistic hell on earth soon enough reprobates.

Everything you ever desired won’t be held from you.

Enjoy it while you can!

tom daschle concerned on April 4, 2013 at 11:09 AM

tom daschle concerned on April 4, 2013 at 11:09 AM

You LOVE using that word don’t you? Anyone you disagree with is a reprobate aren’t they?

SauerKraut537 on April 4, 2013 at 11:11 AM

And you’re also conflating and confusing abiogenesis with evolution, which is a common mistake creationists make.

Good Lt on April 4, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Creation and evolution are two separate topics. You’re conflating the two, which is a common mistake people make.

Mimzey on April 4, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Good Lt.

Enjoy your fight. Your belief in no god is no more provable than mine that there is.

I realize we often fall into the trap of saying you cannot prove a negative as the crutch your side uses to make fun of the believers. But in fact, neither of us can prove anything in this regard.

Your arguments would carry more consideration if you dropped the magic schtick – which just proves you enjoy being a jerk. You know all those complaints about pushy evangelicals? They have nothing on pushy atheists.

Zomcon JEM on April 4, 2013 at 11:12 AM

In fact, it only applies to congress. Not local school boards, city councils, courtrooms, etc.

Akzed on April 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM

As long as we plan to be civil members in a civil society, it must be observed that it does apply to the states through the doctrine of “Incorporation”. And as long as the courts are the interpreters of Constitutional rights and consent to interpreting the law thorugh Incorporation, there is a legal argument that states need to comply with restrictions on Congress.

Personally, I think Incorporation is crap. It was a way for judges to streamline future usurpations of legitimate powers of the states in the 9th and 10th amendments. However, if you think that after a bloody, judge-caused war, the entirety of the states said “we’re done deciding things for ourselves, we just want to be middle-managers”, you’ve got no sense I can use.

Obviously, as written and ratified, “Congress shall make no law” was a restriction on Congress as the equivalent to Parliament. And Jefferson’s letter saying that the people of America had chosen no religious involvement for “their legislature” ignores that, barely ten years after the Constitutional Congress almost adjourned in concern over over states’ rights issues, Americans would hardly have considered Congress their legislature and one of the reasons people may have chosen to limit the federal legislature has to do with what they saw as powers properly reserved to state legislatures.

But we’re at the other end of this colossal game of Telephone that indulgent judges have been playing for centuries. And no matter how bad a reading of Jefferson it is to believe that America chose something for “its legislature” a court has cited that letter and the expressed “Wall of separation” as yet another thing we agreed upon–only didn’t know we did.

Axeman on April 4, 2013 at 11:25 AM

But we’re at the other end of this colossal game of Telephone that indulgent judges have been playing for centuries. And no matter how bad a reading of Jefferson it is to believe that America chose something for “its legislature” a court has cited that letter and the expressed “Wall of separation” as yet another thing we agreed upon–only didn’t know we did.

Axeman on April 4, 2013 at 11:25 AM

So what’s our recourse here? I have a problem with judicial review in the first place. The courts are the third branch of government, so we’re going to let the federal government determine its own authorities and powers? Really?!

gryphon202 on April 4, 2013 at 11:37 AM

This process was also not “random chance.” Put down the Discovery Institute nonsense and get with the program.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html

Of course it’s not “random chance” but specifying that it had the probability that it had owing to forces upon it–without any particulars–has a mathematical model of random chance. Nobody assumes that monkeys would hit typewriter keys “at random” either. But there being no predictive formula for such events, can only be mathematically modeled as random.

Put down the rote apologetics, yourself.

Scientists when talking about Brownian motion, used to say that there is a non-zero probability that the molecules of air in a room could rush to the walls and leave a vacuum in the middle of the room. Of course, this “possibility” is simply created through the ignorance of a flat, random modeling. Since I don’t know of any observation of such, the suggestion that this is a “possibility” is simply by the sayso of theoreticians that know of no bound on it once flattened to a probability equation–with the simple random model.

Of course the idea that something had “ample time” to develop is not proven by 1) its exhibited development and 2) and specification of the full time it would have to develop. “Ample time” can be proven by taking the outer bound of a flat random process.

Axeman on April 4, 2013 at 11:41 AM

AP hardest hit(?)

Mr. Prodigy on April 4, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Both theists and atheists believe in magic. We both believe that the law of conservation of mass was violated at some point; it had to have been for our universe to exist, yet every experiment ever done has verified that matter cannot be created or destroyed, just converted.

Theists believe it was violated by a supernatural being, a being powerful enough to work around natural laws.

Atheists believe that eventually we’ll have a scientific explanation, but they don’t know what it is…..yet.

Of course, Good Lt will say that we can observe the universe, it exists, so it must have come from somewhere. Because Gods obviously do not exist, there must be a scientific explanation.

Likewise, my laptop exists. I can observe it. It must have evolved from my toaster, since I see no evidence of anyone who designed it.

:)

Good Solid B-Plus on April 4, 2013 at 11:58 AM

xuyee on April 4, 2013 at 11:05 AM

+1

ITguy on April 4, 2013 at 11:59 AM

We are all descended from
apes according to her theory. I laughed and wanted to know what
happened to all the apes in the zoo and in the wild. Why weren’t they evolving? If they evolved, did it happen overnite when no one was looking? Needless to say, she had no response.

Amjean on April 4, 2013 at 8:18 AM

Do you believe white Americans are descended from Europeans? If so, why are there are still Europeans?

DarkCurrent on April 4, 2013 at 12:06 PM

So what’s our recourse here? I have a problem with judicial review in the first place. The courts are the third branch of government, so we’re going to let the federal government determine its own authorities and powers? Really?!

gryphon202 on April 4, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Boy, I wish I knew.

Not only is the court the third branch of government, but because it lacked the power of the purse or armies it was thought to be “the weakest”, carrying neither the traditional powers of the purse or armies. It was also the most experimental. Mostly, they knew that they did not want Congress interpreting its own laws the way Parliament did. The Federalist Papers even contain a sort of “disclaimer” saying that if the Court proves to be no more than a super-legislature, it would nullify the reason that interpretational powers were split off from the legislative.

What you said in your last complete sentence was precisely the complaint of the Anti-federalists. You can read “Brutus” or “Federal Farmer”, two main authors of the “Anti-federalist Papers”, to see some predictions for how the federal government would expand through interpretation of the federal courts.

For me the way out is to repeat how bad a reading it was to take Jefferson’s political letter as a statement of Constitutional intent–and thus override the referendum of the people in their act of self-government.

Although I can be wordy, I try to hone things down to simple juxtapositions. People have gotten so used to treating the Constitution as a manifesto that they forget that it is fundamentally, and unequivocally, an agreement of the people. That the anti-federalists almost adjourned the convention without a constitution, and that the inclusion of the 9th and 10th amendments were the instrumental in agreeing to this one and creating the facile historical narrative phrased as “in the end, the federalists won”. If they did, and this is the result, it was not without swindling the majority. Nothing that the federalists might have convinced the doubters was “no problem” (“Hey, the court is the weakest branch–containing only 9 members!” (Federal courts were established under Congress.) has ever paid off.

Axeman on April 4, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Axeman on April 4, 2013 at 11:25 AM

That’s utterly incoherent.

Akzed on April 4, 2013 at 12:25 PM

SCOTUS cooked up the incorporation doctrine from whole cloth so they could increase their power. The incorporation doctrine is accepted only by the courts and leftist shysters. As one poster pointed out, the 1t did not repeal teh 9th and 10th amendments making the incorporation doctrine just one more data point on the SCOTUS lawlessness. SCOTUS has made itself illegitimate because of its lawlessness.

Quartermaster on April 4, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4