The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment Demands the Separation of Church and State

[djmilf]

Originally Posted by rimmerama

Except that's not how it works.

The 1st amendment (most of the bill of rights, except that which has not been incorporated) applies to states by way of incorporation via the 14th amendment.

In fact, the 2nd amendment was only just incorporated a few years ago - prior to that local governments could and did overrule the 2nd amendment.

The supremacy clause has to do with state laws contradicting federal laws... Immigration law being a rather pertinent example of that.

That term 'incorporation' got me to a little information digging.

In the case Barron v Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled specifically that the Fifth Amendment was a restriction soley on the federal government and generally that the entire Bill of Rights were also only restrictions on the federal government. The consequence of this ruling were that the state governments were not bound by the first ten amendments of the Constitution.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by djmilf

That term 'incorporation' got me to a little information digging.

In the case Barron v Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled specifically that the Fifth Amendment was a restriction solely on the federal government and generally that the entire Bill of Rights were also only restrictions on the federal government. The consequence of this ruling were that the state governments were not bound by the first ten amendments of the Constitution.

...until later interpretations, laws and amendments changed and broadened this narrow interpretation.
(correctly btw)

[elamigo]

Originally Posted by MrRational

Do you always put words in others mouths like this?
Set up strong man arguments that were never posited...
and then make up still other arguments (and damned silly ones!) against those put up positions?

Whatever other points you might want to make are weakened by this sort of strategy.

I did not put words in anybody's mouth. I simply used philosophical jargon that applies to what I reply.
You can expand on what was silly. I would like to know.

It just seems you took offense for using jargon that applies to what you espouse. No need to take offense. I did not take offense for the "dammed silly ones!" comment. Just tell me why they are silly. Take care.