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.
BaptistFundie, just because you believe that First Amendment does not apply to states doesn't make it right. Supreme Court decisions are the law of the land, no matter whether you believe they are flawed or not. In Ex parte Commonwealth of Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 346, 1879 WL 16561, at *6 (U.S.,1879) the U.S. Supreme Court stated: "
The prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment are directed to the States, and they are to a degree restrictions of State power." In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 84 S.Ct. 710, 718, 376 U.S. 254, 265 (U.S., 1964) the Court, in shielding the N.Y. Times from a state court libel verdict stated:
Any attorney or party making the argument that the Supreme Court decisions are invalid if the attorney in court disagrees with them would in all likelihood be subject to sanctions. See, e.g. FRCP Rule 11.
It is just not a serious argument.
I really didn't suggest that the First Amendment didn't apply to the states. I said that the founding Fathers stated that Congress should make no Law. We, as American citizens, do have freedom of speech, to practice religion, etc.
Having said that, if you wish to use that reading of the 14th Amendment, why not prohibit states from making laws limiting other Constitutional rights? States like California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey rather flagrantly restrict my rights.
It's interesting how it only gets applied to religion.
I really didn't suggest that the First Amendment didn't apply to the states. I said that the founding Fathers stated that Congress should make no Law. We, as American citizens, do have freedom of speech, to practice religion, etc.
Having said that, if you wish to use that reading of the 14th Amendment, why not prohibit states from making laws limiting other Constitutional rights? States like California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey rather flagrantly restrict my rights.
It's interesting how it only gets applied to religion.
The Bill of Rights has been applied, via the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause, pretty much across the board, except for the right to jury trial in civil matters.
I really didn't suggest that the First Amendment didn't apply to the states. I said that the founding Fathers stated that Congress should make no Law. We, as American citizens, do have freedom of speech, to practice religion, etc.
Really? You are disavowing your own words?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
I'm not familiar with that, but if they wish to do that, I don't see how that violates the Constitution, as Wisconsin is not Congress.
The Constitution says no such thing. It just says that Congress can make no law. It says nothing about the state of Wisconsin doing it.
^^^The Constitution also established the Supreme Court and its power and authority to interpret the Constitution. It also established an amendment process. The combination of those things means that yes, the Constitution is binding upon the states.
Quote:
Having said that, if you wish to use that reading of the 14th Amendment, why not prohibit states from making laws limiting other Constitutional rights? States like California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey rather flagrantly restrict my rights.
It's interesting how it only gets applied to religion.
Wow. Remedial civics lesson time.
The federal constitution and federal law is binding upon the states, the states are not binding upon the federal government, unless the federal government accepts their authority, typically under the umbrella of interstate commerce.
Essentially this means that a state can make a more restrictive law than federal law, but not less restrictive. So if the federal law says that hourly workers get paid overtime over 40 hours in a week, the states can enhance that in their state by saying that overtime applies after 30 hours, but they cannot say it only applies after 50 hours.
And I have pointed out the flawed interpretation and ruling by the Supreme Court. It doesn't matter if you believe otherwise, it's still a lousy ruling. That's just the way it is. The fact that you keep repeating your statements is you trying to stir up trouble.
But if you do wish to take that interpretation, then we should apply it to a lot of other things that my state legalizes, as well, but you'd just get all bent out of shape if I named them. I'd love to be able to apply my state's laws to all the states in the union. But you don't seem to appreciate it when it goes the other way, do you?
As if you're a trusted interpreter of the Constitution after decades of study and legal work.
Sure they are. They have all sorts of laws that restrict constitutional rights. If you think hard enough, I'm sure you can figure out which one that is restricted I'm specifically thinking of. I'd hate to spell it out for you, as you'd probably get all whiny about it.
^^^The Constitution also established the Supreme Court and its power and authority to interpret the Constitution. It also established an amendment process. The combination of those things means that yes, the Constitution is binding upon the states.
Wow. Remedial civics lesson time.
The federal constitution and federal law is binding upon the states, the states are not binding upon the federal government, unless the federal government accepts their authority, typically under the umbrella of interstate commerce.
Essentially this means that a state can make a more restrictive law than federal law, but not less restrictive. So if the federal law says that hourly workers get paid overtime over 40 hours in a week, the states can enhance that in their state by saying that overtime applies after 30 hours, but they cannot say it only applies after 50 hours.
This is 10th grade stuff. You should know this.
Right. So...where does the separation of church and state come from? It's not in the Constitution. It's silent on the topic. If Wisconsin wants to establish a state church that is MORE restrictive than the Federal Government, then according to the Constitution, they can do that. Same as if they restrict another right by passing laws about it that Congress is not allowed to.
Right. So...where does the separation of church and state come from? It's not in the Constitution. It's silent on the topic. If Wisconsin wants to establish a state church that is MORE restrictive than the Federal Government, then according to the Constitution, they can do that. Same as if they restrict another right by passing laws about it that Congress is not allowed to.
First Amendment. Not in those exact words of course, but the exact words do not matter. The rights are there, and have been consistently interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean government...all levels of government, cannot establish a religion.
You know this, or at least you should. You simply choose to be obtuse because you do not agree with it, because you want your specific religion to dominate.
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.
