North Carolina would like the option to establish a state religion

[Pergamos]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/north-carolina-religion-bill_n_3003401.html

North Carolina would like to distance themselves from Kentucky's recent legalization of all religious practices and would like to make it clear they have the right to restrict religious practices as they see fit.

[Trivial]

Damn, you're supposed to hide behind code words and such, not outright say it.

Will go to the googles for this, but didn't the early U.S. make some states rewrite their constitutions before they were allowed in the union over this very thing?

*edit*  I was off, it was state churches that had to be disbanded, and they did it after the Bill of Rights.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

What bugs me is that, as far as I can tell, they're technically not wrong. The Constitution does say that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It doesn't actually say the States can't do it. In other places the language is more universal. "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," for example, doesn't mention Congress or the States specifically, it just says that infringement "won't happen."

I still think a proper Article 5 Constitutional Convention is the only thing that could do any good, to be honest, I'm just afraid of who would show up to such a convention.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

What bugs me is that, as far as I can tell, they're technically not wrong. The Constitution does say that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It doesn't actually say the States can't do it. In other places the language is more universal. "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," for example, doesn't mention Congress or the States specifically, it just says that infringement "won't happen."

I still think a proper Article 5 Constitutional Convention is the only thing that could do any good, to be honest, I'm just afraid of who would show up to such a convention.

Probably nobody with an agenda or anything.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

What bugs me is that, as far as I can tell, they're technically not wrong. The Constitution does say that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It doesn't actually say the States can't do it. In other places the language is more universal. "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," for example, doesn't mention Congress or the States specifically, it just says that infringement "won't happen."

I still think a proper Article 5 Constitutional Convention is the only thing that could do any good, to be honest, I'm just afraid of who would show up to such a convention.

Probably nobody with an agenda or anything.

Certainly not. We'd have delegates from all 50 states and every company represented on the NYSE. No possible way that could go awry.

[LMNO]

What bugs me is that, as far as I can tell, they're technically not wrong. The Constitution does say that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It doesn't actually say the States can't do it. In other places the language is more universal. "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," for example, doesn't mention Congress or the States specifically, it just says that infringement "won't happen."

I still think a proper Article 5 Constitutional Convention is the only thing that could do any good, to be honest, I'm just afraid of who would show up to such a convention.

But didn't the 14th amendment address that with the Due Process clause?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

What bugs me is that, as far as I can tell, they're technically not wrong. The Constitution does say that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It doesn't actually say the States can't do it. In other places the language is more universal. "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," for example, doesn't mention Congress or the States specifically, it just says that infringement "won't happen."

I still think a proper Article 5 Constitutional Convention is the only thing that could do any good, to be honest, I'm just afraid of who would show up to such a convention.

But didn't the 14th amendment address that with the Due Process clause?

Also, Article VI.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

What bugs me is that, as far as I can tell, they're technically not wrong. The Constitution does say that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It doesn't actually say the States can't do it. In other places the language is more universal. "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," for example, doesn't mention Congress or the States specifically, it just says that infringement "won't happen."

I still think a proper Article 5 Constitutional Convention is the only thing that could do any good, to be honest, I'm just afraid of who would show up to such a convention.

But didn't the 14th amendment address that with the Due Process clause?

Also, Article VI.

I personally believe the 14th amendment grants freedom of religion in a roundabout way, even if that particular freedom isn't specifically mentioned there. Unfortunately since it's admittedly vague, and the case can be made that imposing an official state religion doesn't mean people are required to be members of that religion, it's a matter of interpretation. In a perfect world the 1st Amendment would have just said "Neither Congress NOR the States..." but it doesn't say that, and so you have assholes like this guy in NC who have a plausible path to declaring an official state religion.

As for Article VI, it does promote federal law to a status that trumps state law; but if you're talking about the Constitution specifically, again, it's a federal law that specifically limits Congressional power (and elsewhere specifically states that if a power isn't granted to Congress, the states by default have it).

[The Good Reverend Roger]

What bugs me is that, as far as I can tell, they're technically not wrong. The Constitution does say that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It doesn't actually say the States can't do it. In other places the language is more universal. "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," for example, doesn't mention Congress or the States specifically, it just says that infringement "won't happen."

I still think a proper Article 5 Constitutional Convention is the only thing that could do any good, to be honest, I'm just afraid of who would show up to such a convention.

But didn't the 14th amendment address that with the Due Process clause?

Also, Article VI.

I personally believe the 14th amendment grants freedom of religion in a roundabout way, even if that particular freedom isn't specifically mentioned there. Unfortunately since it's admittedly vague, and the case can be made that imposing an official state religion doesn't mean people are required to be members of that religion, it's a matter of interpretation. In a perfect world the 1st Amendment would have just said "Neither Congress NOR the States..." but it doesn't say that, and so you have assholes like this guy in NC who have a plausible path to declaring an official state religion.

As for Article VI, it does promote federal law to a status that trumps state law; but if you're talking about the Constitution specifically, again, it's a federal law that specifically limits Congressional power (and elsewhere specifically states that if a power isn't granted to Congress, the states by default have it).

Amendment XIV guarantees equal protection, and Article VI states that amendment XIV trumps state law.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Hmmmm. What's interesting here is that this is part of a trend, and the trend is states passing laws that essentially thumb their nose at the Federal government and say "you're not the boss of me!".

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Hmmmm. What's interesting here is that this is part of a trend, and the trend is states passing laws that essentially thumb their nose at the Federal government and say "you're not the boss of me!".

It's deeper than that.

The trend of the laws is "WE'RE GOING TO SHOW THOSE LIBRULS, BRB, LOL", without for one moment considering that this isn't talk radio, it's THE LAW.  So welcome to Arizona, America.  It's a special kind of hell, but you wouldn't settle for anything less.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Hmmmm. What's interesting here is that this is part of a trend, and the trend is states passing laws that essentially thumb their nose at the Federal government and say "you're not the boss of me!".

It's deeper than that.

The trend of the laws is "WE'RE GOING TO SHOW THOSE LIBRULS, BRB, LOL", without for one moment considering that this isn't talk radio, it's THE LAW.  So welcome to Arizona, America.  It's a special kind of hell, but you wouldn't settle for anything less.

Yeah, this. If memory serves, the last time we got in a legal shootout over who could distance themselves the farthest from DC, it didn't end too well.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Hmmmm. What's interesting here is that this is part of a trend, and the trend is states passing laws that essentially thumb their nose at the Federal government and say "you're not the boss of me!".

It's deeper than that.

The trend of the laws is "WE'RE GOING TO SHOW THOSE LIBRULS, BRB, LOL", without for one moment considering that this isn't talk radio, it's THE LAW.  So welcome to Arizona, America.  It's a special kind of hell, but you wouldn't settle for anything less.

It's not just Conservative states. The medical and recreational marijuana laws also thumb their nose at Federal control.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Hmmmm. What's interesting here is that this is part of a trend, and the trend is states passing laws that essentially thumb their nose at the Federal government and say "you're not the boss of me!".

It's deeper than that.

The trend of the laws is "WE'RE GOING TO SHOW THOSE LIBRULS, BRB, LOL", without for one moment considering that this isn't talk radio, it's THE LAW.  So welcome to Arizona, America.  It's a special kind of hell, but you wouldn't settle for anything less.

Yeah, this. If memory serves, the last time we got in a legal shootout over who could distance themselves the farthest from DC, it didn't end too well.

Oh, I don't think it will come to THAT.   But what WILL happen is America will Jan Brewer all over the carpet.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Hmmmm. What's interesting here is that this is part of a trend, and the trend is states passing laws that essentially thumb their nose at the Federal government and say "you're not the boss of me!".

It's deeper than that.

The trend of the laws is "WE'RE GOING TO SHOW THOSE LIBRULS, BRB, LOL", without for one moment considering that this isn't talk radio, it's THE LAW.  So welcome to Arizona, America.  It's a special kind of hell, but you wouldn't settle for anything less.

It's not just Conservative states. The medical and recreational marijuana laws also thumb their nose at Federal control.

Difference being, there's no actual constitutional basis for allowing the US government to outlaw intoxicants.  That's why they needed amendment XVIII, back in the day.  Now they just cheerfully ignore that lack (as amendment XVIII was repealed by amendment XXI).

There IS constitutional grounds for presenting a religion as endorsed by a state.