Separation of Church and State?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]pushharder wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
pushharder wrote:

.
Doc, I think I understand what you’re saying but a lot of this is the unnecessary complication of the a very simple, straightforward interpretation of "Congress shall make no law…"

[/quote]
Just one more.
From the Constitution of the State of Montana, Article II Sec 5:

“Freedom of religion. The state shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Purtneer all the states have got one of these sanity clauses. Catchy, eh?

64

[quote]pushharder wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
pushharder wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
pushharder wrote:

.
Doc, I think I understand what you’re saying but a lot of this is the unnecessary complication of the a very simple, straightforward interpretation of "Congress shall make no law…"

Just one more.
From the Constitution of the State of Montana, Article II Sec 5:

“Freedom of religion. The state shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Purtneer all the states have got one of these sanity clauses. Catchy, eh?

Thanks! I needed that for my next point: another reason why the Establishment Clause does not necessarily include the Bill of Rights; if it did why did so many states feel the need to place what would be redundant amendments in their respective state constitutions?

The 14th was passed well before Montana drafted its constitution. So why oh why did the drafters feel the need to include this in Article II if the 14th already applied in spades?[/quote]

More:
“Section 12. Right to bear arms. The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.”

So by the same logic, the Right to Bear Arms in the state of Montana was not assured by the 2nd Amendment, and the framers of the MT constitution felt obliged to spell it out in detail?

No, patently no.

After Reconstruction, many state constitutions were written or re-writen, proudly re-iterating the Bill or rights or the 1st 15 amendments. This was civic duty, not “cover-your-ass” in case the US Constitution did not apply to the laws of each state.

(The current MT constitution was re-written in 1972, well after it was understood that the first 15 amendments applied generally to the states as well. If they had left out Sec 12, would the right to bear arms not apply in Montana? Of course not.)

67

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You tell me WHY the 14th amends the first ten. Dissect it for me. Don’t just say like Mein did, “Well it works well thataway”. I don’t buy that. I don’t care.

I want you to dissect the verbiage in the 14th and without any convoluted mental yoga tell me why it becomes so damned sweeping that the word “Congress” has been effectively deleted from the First. Go git 'em, tiger.[/quote]

No constitutional scholar, I.

But parsing section 1:
The immunities and privileges of the citizens of the US are paramount.
The state government is subordinate to those rights.
Therefore, the rights manifest in the US BofR are enjoyed by citizens, regardless of their state of residence (and of course, previous station of servitude)
(Ooops, Push: Section 2 answers that problem of the census and apportionment. Can’t be fixed)
Section 5: Congress can enforce this. (and thus the courts)

So what Congress is forbidden to do in Amendment 1, it cannot allow to the States. That right is above the privilege of state government to remove. (Simply: If Congress cannot abrogate 1st Amendment rights, and those rights are held by US citizens regardless of residence, and no state can abridge those rights, it follows that the BofR applies generally and severally to the States.)

QED?

Well, I remove the powdered wig, and set my cap, and so to bed.

69

[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You have a habit of taking extreme hypoteticals that have no actual relevance to the matter at hand. There would be no problem with what you say. You haven’t ‘stumped’ anyone and uncovered some new wrinkle.

As someone already stated, "There’s nothing stopping a legislature from adopting a secular moment of silence law.

Ok, wasn’t going to respond anymore, but say what? I said the same thing early on in this thread. Look, I’m not arguing against myself here. I’m arguing against the likes of Sifu, who sees even a neutral/secular moment of silence as a backdoor theocracy…

[/quote]

Sorry. I guess I didn’t read closely enough.

70

[quote]pushharder wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
enantiomeric

You sonofabitch, I had to go and look up the word.

Don’t worry. I’ll get you back.[/quote]

So did I. Lame.