Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No really you don't, I seriously doubt you have ever set foot in a law school.
Of course not. These people spend hours not reading the Constitution, but reading rightwing propaganda that is painstakingly trying to overturn the Constitution to support their dream theocracy.
And I'm still waiting for one -- just one -- of these alleged "scholars" to tell me how Connecticut is violating the Constitution re: gun laws. On that thread, the moaning about how the state CANNOT override the 2nd Amendment could be heard for a 1000-mile radius. Yet suddenly ... we have page after page arguing that the state CAN do just that.
Ok, it is heavy reading, but here is a good document on what the 14th Amendment means, word by word, and the historical context of the framers who wrote it in 1868:
If you still disagree, then you have an opinion and bias that is within you...and not the Constitution.
As much as I hate to say this. I was reading the 14th wrong all this time. I don't think they used wording that adequately accomplished what they intended to convey without reading 60-70 pages (I personally went to 4 sources last night and probably chewed on 250 pages worth of background, along with my pride) because without the background and the oral arguments, no one would realistically think the 14th Amendment does what no other amendment has done before.
So... Even though I still eat, sleep, live and breathe the Constitution. I just hadn't ever properly digested the 14th Amendment.
You were right. I was wrong. Thank you for pointing me in one of the right directions to learn more about it.
So what does this mean about North Carolina's attempt at proposing a State Amendment that allows it to establish a religion? THAT amendment would undoubtedly be found unconstitutional. IF however they carefully crafted the wording (because regardless of what SCOTUS says, the truth is the "Wall of Separation" did not enter the court until 87 years AFTER the ratification of the Constitution.) they could probably insert language in their State Constitution that would ALLOW prayer at any and all government funded buildings and entities as well as any official State government procedure or event.
I think if they were careful with the wording they COULD accomplish their desired task... even though it appears as if part of their desire is to urinate upon the excessive abuses by the bastards in the federal government. In this latter endeavor I offer the contents of my bladder just to ensure there is adaquate coverage for all the federal government. Just wanting to do MY part.
Anyway... Thanks again for setting me straight.
Last edited by KS_Referee; 04-04-2013 at 08:30 AM..
If stare decisis, precedent, Must be followed, we'd still have segregated public schools, anti-sodomy laws, parts of Roe v. Wade, creches in governement buildings, and who knows how many other rulings that later courts overruled.
Maybe my reading is slow. I see nothing in the 2nd Amendment that places the restriction solely upon Congress. The 2nd reads as a blanket shall not be infringed.
But that's just MY opinion.
Since everyone is focused on "It there is no law preventing a state from establishing a religion", then I supposed that you are fine to carry that logic forward to the second amendment. As long as I can have my 22-rifle, I'm able to bear arms. NOWHERE does it say I can have a high-powered rifle, a hunting rifle, an assault rifle.
So, if a state chooses to limit my right to bear arms to only 22-calibre weapons, then that right has not been infringed, and by your logic that the constitution does not say otherwise, you are OK with this?
I am scratching my head, trying to figure out what happened to the conservative party that used to be the GOP. The party that wanted government OUT of my life? The party that didn't want to legislate my religious, medical or other rights. Now (oh, and I'm an NC resident) we have the GOP coming in and trying to establish a state religion, we have them trying to restrict voting rights, we have them endorsing corporate welfare left and right, and we have them continuing to waste taxpayer money on stupid laws that will never be upheld, EVER, while they scream about overrun budgets and creating an environment that is not conducive to business. Forget about all the high-school debate going on in this discussion, and look at the big picture. This is just crazy.
Since everyone is focused on "It there is no law preventing a state from establishing a religion", then I supposed that you are fine to carry that logic forward to the second amendment. As long as I can have my 22-rifle, I'm able to bear arms. NOWHERE does it say I can have a high-powered rifle, a hunting rifle, an assault rifle.
So, if a state chooses to limit my right to bear arms to only 22-calibre weapons, then that right has not been infringed, and by your logic that the constitution does not say otherwise, you are OK with this?
I am scratching my head, trying to figure out what happened to the conservative party that used to be the GOP. The party that wanted government OUT of my life? The party that didn't want to legislate my religious, medical or other rights. Now (oh, and I'm an NC resident) we have the GOP coming in and trying to establish a state religion, we have them trying to restrict voting rights, we have them endorsing corporate welfare left and right, and we have them continuing to waste taxpayer money on stupid laws that will never be upheld, EVER, while they scream about overrun budgets and creating an environment that is not conducive to business. Forget about all the high-school debate going on in this discussion, and look at the big picture. This is just crazy.
Again... I must be slow. Are you asking me a question other than "you are OK with this?"
Personally I am NOT OK with any government limiting any firearms, ammo or any capacity including selective or full auto because I believe the 2nd Amendment was intended to keep the bastards in government in check to the people they work for.
That is MY opinion, but maybe you were asking something else. If you were, I apologize because I must have missed it in all the GOP bashing and rambling. The very same bashing and rambling I usually do.
I didn't spell it out, but I'm asking you to show me where in the 2nd Amendment it says that you have a right to any specific type of arms. Show me where it says that you have a right to an assault rifle like the one used in CT.
Your argument in Support of NC's right to establish a state religion is that the Constitution does not contradict that right. So I'm saying that the Constitution also does not restrict the right of THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to ban assault weapons, high capacity clips, or otherwise, as long as they don't infringe upon your right "to bear arms".
My question is that are you willing to follow your argument and stay consistent? Or are you talking out of both sides of your mouth? Just trying to figure out which it is, that's all.
EDIT> And until you asked, I did not have a question specifically for you. My comment started with "Since everybody is focused..." It was addressed to all of the people who were trying to apply the law of the land to meet their own personal preferences.
When the Constitution was written, there were numerous state religions/churches..
Remind me again what part of the Constitution says this isnt allowed?
The Fourteenth Amendment.
"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."
We really don't need to re-argue this here. It was all decided in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
Prior to the 14th Amendment, the First Amendment limitations was a limitation on Congress. What the 14th did was make all federal rights also rights that the States had to abide by.
When the Constitution was written, there were numerous state religions/churches..
Remind me again what part of the Constitution says this isnt allowed?
The Fourteenth Amendment.
"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."
The statute and the resolution forced inhabitants to pay taxes to help support and maintain schools which are dedicated to, and which regularly teach, the Catholic Faith. This is alleged to be a use of State power to support church schools contrary to the prohibition of the First Amendment which the Fourteenth Amendment made applicable to the states.
Prior to the 14th Amendment, the First Amendment limitations was a limitation on Congress. What the 14th did was make all federal rights also rights that the States had to abide by.
This is settled law. What NC is doing is patently unconstitutional.
"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."
Prior to the 14th Amendment, the First Amendment limitations was a limitation on Congress. What the 14th did was make all federal rights also rights that the States had to abide by.
This is settled law. What NC is doing is patently unconstitutional.
A bill filed by Republican lawmakers would allow North Carolina to declare an official religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Bill of Rights, and seeks to nullify any federal ruling against Christian prayer by public bodies statewide.
House Bill 494, filed by Republican Rowan County Reps. Harry Warren and Carl Ford, would refuse to acknowledge the force of any judicial ruling on prayer in North Carolina – or indeed on any Constitutional topic:
"The Constitution of the United States does not grant the federal government and does not grant the federal courts the power to determine what is or is not constitutional; therefore, by virtue of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the power to determine constitutionality and the proper interpretation and proper application of the Constitution is reserved to the states and to the people," the bill states. "Each state in the union is sovereign and may independently determine how that state may make laws respecting an establishment of religion."
This from the party who claims the left is "shredding the Constitution."
The phrase of Jefferson (see above) was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947.[18] The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
I think the church/state issue is mainly at the Federal level. I don't know the technical details, but I have much less of an issue with a state doing this compared to federal.
In short, it isn't even the constitution so your outrage is misguided.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
