[Einarr]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	We are also a society that values Freedom of Religion. Both Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech are elements of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Categorically discounting one while quoting the other is a bit... heh! heh! I will never see your response. So long!

The first Amendment does not say freedom of religion, it specifically says.....'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'

to me this means that the federal government will not make any laws either promoting or demoting any religion or the right of the people to exercise their choice of religion.

This is totally false and can be proven as such by simply pulling out your wallet and looking at money, it all says "In God We Trust". This simple statement invalidates the statement in the first amendment.

---------- Post added 11-08-2011 at 10:04 PM ----------

Originally Posted by LaoTzu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As long as One uses that Freedom to choose Christianity. I like to think of Hebdo as a sting operation. Then not sure I'd mind. But think if someone did the same in the USA, and instead just repeated "Jesus was only a lesser Prophet!"? I'm pretty sure those folks would be hunted down just the same. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .

The First Amendment forbids the federal government from making any laws per religion, this does not forbid or restrict a state from making the same laws.

[LaoTzu]

	Originally Posted by Einarr To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The First Amendment forbids the federal government from making any laws per religion, this does not forbid or restrict a state from making the same laws.

The States have to follow the Constitution too.

[Einarr]

	Originally Posted by LaoTzu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The States have to follow the Constitution too.

The Constitution specifically state that any power not specifically given to the federal government is reserved to the state. The Amendment applies only to the federal government.

[eagleseven]

	Originally Posted by Einarr To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The Constitution specifically state that any power not specifically given to the federal government is reserved to the state. The Amendment applies only to the federal government.

Article VI, Clause 2. It's the "Supremacy Clause" of the US Constitution.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

If a state contradicts the US Constitution, the US Constitution always wins. Hence, the US Constitution is supreme. The Amendments are part of the US Constitution, and thus overpower any state law or state constitution in court.

[Einarr]

Ths
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
of the U.S. Constitution states:
“ This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. (Emphasis added.) ” In
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, ratification proponent
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
explained the limitations this clause placed on the proposed federal government, describing that acts of the federal government were binding on the states and the people therein only if the act was in pursuance of constitutionally granted powers, and juxtaposing acts which exceeded those bounds as "void and of no force":
“ But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.

------------------

In 2009-2010 thirty eight states have introduced resolutions to reaffirm the principles of sovereignty under the Constitution and the 10th Amendment; Nine states have passed the resolutions. These non-binding resolutions, often called “state sovereignty resolutions” do not carry the force of law. Instead, they are intended to be a statement to demand that the federal government halt its practices of assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[eagleseven]

I think I've been over these cases a thousand times, so I'll change my response up a bit. Let's try something a bit more recent. Say...


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one's home is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Hence, it is well within the Federal Government's power to protect the Bill of Rights in all member states. Etcetera etcetera etcetera.


Justice Stevens cited your Cruikshanks in his dissent.

---------- Post added 11-09-2011 at 01:51 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Einarr To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In 2009-2010 thirty eight states have introduced resolutions to reaffirm the principles of sovereignty under the Constitution and the 10th Amendment; Nine states have passed the resolutions. These non-binding resolutions, often called “state sovereignty resolutions” do not carry the force of law. Instead, they are intended to be a statement to demand that the federal government halt its practices of assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't think the state senators who voted for those resolutions were defending the state's ability to oppress speech or persecute religion.

[LevBron]

The relevant part of the Constitution that you're looking for is the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court has been using it for the past 120 years or so to incorporate almost all of the Bill of Rights, as in make them apply to the state governments.

[dungeonguy88]

Regardless of whether or not the states legally can act in such a manner, we would need to consider the fact that a lot of lay people really do see that section as just Freedom of Religion+Freedom of Speech. The legality of such actions would be moot if the general populace refuses to accept it, no matter how cynically one looks upon political machinations.

[titi monkey]

	Originally Posted by Einarr To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The first Amendment does not say freedom of religion, it specifically says.....'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' to me this means that the federal government will not make any laws either promoting or demoting any religion or the right of the people to exercise their choice of religion.

I agree: I see nothing in the passage you quoted that would prevent a State from endorsing a particular religion, so long as it a) doesn't violate any article or amendment in the Constitution; b) doesn't enter into agreement or compact with a foreign power; c) doesn't confer any privileges or immunities not enjoyed by any citizen of any other State; and d) does nothing to deny a citizen's right to vote.

	This is totally false and can be proven as such by simply pulling out your wallet and looking at money, it all says "In God We Trust". This simple statement invalidates the statement in the first amendment. The First Amendment forbids the federal government from making any laws per religion, this does not forbid or restrict a state from making the same laws.

The word God or Providence has not been interpreted as constituting a religion.

[raimius]

	Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I agree: I see nothing in the passage you quoted that would prevent a State from endorsing a particular religion...

That would be a "law respecting an establishment of religion." So, I'm pretty sure the 1st WOULD prohibit that.

[Einarr]

	Originally Posted by raimius To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That would be a "law respecting an establishment of religion." So, I'm pretty sure the 1st WOULD prohibit that.

Then by the same statement, the law that makes churches non taxable entities illegal.


I believe that the original was to prevent the federal government from creating a state religion.

---------- Post added 11-09-2011 at 08:59 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The word God or Providence has not been interpreted as constituting a religion.

But it does, it promotes Judeo-Christian religions. It does not say "In Buddha we trust." nor does it say "In Vishnu do we trust."

It specifically says "GOD" therefore the federal government is violating the First Amendment

---------- Post added 11-09-2011 at 09:03 PM ----------

To make it legal, they need to include ALL of the various gods of ALL religions

[titi monkey]

	Originally Posted by raimius To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That would be a "law respecting an establishment of religion." So, I'm pretty sure the 1st WOULD prohibit that.

Take me through the steps that show how it applies to State governments.

[Storm]

The 1st amendment has been applied to the states via the fourteenth amendment for quite a while now.

[Einarr]

14th Amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[Storm]

Yup, there it is in section 1.

[Einarr]

And by the original post, The first amendment says 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'

The prevents the state from establishing a state religion and prevents the state from prohibiting the state from the free exercise there of.

It does not prevent anything else.

A state could pass a bill to tax churches on the state level but can not force them to pay taxes on the federal level.

[titi monkey]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yup, there it is in section 1.

Sorry, still don't see it.

[Kisai]

	Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sorry, still don't see it.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

[Storm]

If you're really interested in it, I would say you should go read the history on it. It's just a wee bit complex and not really suitable for internet posts. Suffice it to say that the 14th amendment, through a series of cases, has been interpreted to mean that the 1st amendment applies to the states on a state-level. Before the 14th amendment's passage, a state could establish a religion no problem.

[titi monkey]

	Originally Posted by Kisai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

So long as the official State religion doesn't compel people to join, doesn't give any privileges to those who do join, and doesn't punish those who don't join, in combination with the other qualifiers I mentioned previously, I see no reason why it couldn't be done.

The first amendment would have to be changed to read "Neither Congress, nor any legislative body of the States…"

[Kisai]

Everson vs. The Board of Education, 1947:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

[titi monkey]

	Originally Posted by Kisai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Everson vs. The Board of Education, 1947:

The problem that I'm getting at is that if we want to make the Constitution say something that it doesn't actually say, then we should get together as a nation and change the wording so that it does.

What you are talking about is legislating from the bench: how we twist something that clearly reads "Congress" into "Every Legislative Body in the Nation" based on some letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a church group. It strikes me as absurd!

I am in favor of amending the Constitution to say what it means and mean what it says. I am against modern interpretations relying too heavily on precedent.

[Kisai]

When you are on the Supreme Court, titi monkey, your opinions shall have weight.

[Aronnax]

Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The problem that I'm getting at is that if we want to make the Constitution say something that it doesn't actually say, then we should get together as a nation and change the wording so that it does. What you are talking about is legislating from the bench: how we twist something that clearly reads "Congress" into "Every Legislative Body in the Nation" based on some letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a church group. It strikes me as absurd! I am in favor of amending the Constitution to say what it means and mean what it says. I am against modern interpretations relying too heavily on precedent.

We've used stare decisis since the birth of the nation, legal rulings have always heavily relied on precedent. If you don't like the precedent as interpreted by the supreme court then you need a constitutional amendment to undo their ruling, not the other way around.

[Equinox]

	Originally Posted by Kisai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	When you are on the Supreme Court, titi monkey, your opinions shall have weight.

This is why I hate the Supreme Court. They can do whatever they want and have very few checks and balances that can be placed on them by the other branches of the government. Therefore, they get away with idiotic decisions like declaring corporations "people" with respect to funding political campaigns. I don't know if they should be elected by the public instead of being vetted by the Senate, but they shouldn't be allowed to just do whatever without regard to the American public.