http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/north-carolina-religion-bill_n_3003401.html (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.
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.
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.
Quote from: V3X on April 04, 2013, 02:14:38 AM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2013, 03:59:40 AM
Quote from: V3X on April 04, 2013, 02:14:38 AM
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.
Quote from: V3X on April 04, 2013, 02:14:38 AM
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?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 04, 2013, 04:46:00 PM
Quote from: V3X on April 04, 2013, 02:14:38 AM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2013, 04:49:36 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 04, 2013, 04:46:00 PM
Quote from: V3X on April 04, 2013, 02:14:38 AM
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).
Quote from: V3X on April 04, 2013, 05:09:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2013, 04:49:36 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 04, 2013, 04:46:00 PM
Quote from: V3X on April 04, 2013, 02:14:38 AM
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.
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!".
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 04, 2013, 05:49:47 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2013, 05:51:40 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 04, 2013, 05:49:47 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2013, 05:51:40 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 04, 2013, 05:49:47 PM
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.
Quote from: V3X on April 04, 2013, 06:03:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2013, 05:51:40 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 04, 2013, 05:49:47 PM
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.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 04, 2013, 06:08:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2013, 05:51:40 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 04, 2013, 05:49:47 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2013, 06:10:53 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 04, 2013, 06:08:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2013, 05:51:40 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 04, 2013, 05:49:47 PM
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.
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.
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 :lulz:
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2013, 06:10:53 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 04, 2013, 06:08:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2013, 05:51:40 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 04, 2013, 05:49:47 PM
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...