North Carolina would like the option to establish a state religion

[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.

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  Now they just cheerfully ignore that lack (as amendment XVIII was repealed by amendment XXI).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.

Good point.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

The question I have is say they pass this legislation and establish a state religion. Predictably, the ACLU or some such brings a federal case, the legislation is nullified--but then what? NC could just as easily say "oh-huh...didn't happen," and what recourse would the Federal Government have? Kick NC out of the union? Bring in the national guard to obstruct state run prayers? What?

About the only action that seems politically feasible by the Federal government, would be to levy some sort of fine against the state...or possibly withhold funding for some piece of something. The only way I could see the former happening is by way of some wronged party claiming his rights had been violated in a way that entitled him to a payout. A tough sell. The latter, would have to pass the House and the Senate...an even tougher sell.

The real difference between drug laws and this shit? the DEA.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The initial wording for the First Amendment was 'establishment of a national religion'. This was changed to appease the anti-federalists who didn't want it to be tied to the federal/national level. IE, the 'States-Rights" guys from the 1700's fucked the States-rights guys from the 21st century 

Further, the Supreme court has killed every State law that tied religion to holding public office, or in any way connectng a specific religion to a state government. NC would have no leg to stand on if they passed this. Way too much precedent for the court and appeals court to use. I doubt the SC would even look at it.

[Banned User 1]

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.

Actually, there IS a constitutional basis for being able to regulate intoxicants:

Commerce Clause. Aka, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US constitution. To quote it: "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes".

Now then, this may not sound too sinister when you apply rational interpretation to this, but rational interpretation isn't the sort of precedent this clause has had applied to it.

Generally speaking, this clause is famous for being interpreted in overly-broad manners. For example, the commerce clause has been invoked to shut down subsistance farming by essentially saying that growing food for personal use effects the interstate price of food by lowering demand (see Wickard v. Filburn).

In other words, based on the commerce clause, congress can do whatever it wants so long as it can twist an argument to somehow connect whatever it is they want regulated to "commerce", assuming there is no explicit protection for that regulated thing in the constitution.



To bring this full circle and rebut your argument, because marijuana can be sold, and because there is no explicit protection for marijuana in the constitution, congress may regulate it freely...