First Amendment doesn't apply here: N.C. lawmakers push bill for state religion

Now here is some nonsense.

epublican lawmakers in North Carolina have introduced a bill declaring that the state has the power to establish an official religion — a direct challenge to the First Amendment.

Follow @NBCNewsUS

One professor of politics called the measure “the verge of being neo-secessionist,” and another said it was reminiscent of how Southern states objected to the Supreme Court’s 1954 integration of public schools.

The bill (View Here) says that federal courts do not have the power to decide what is constitutional, and says the state does not recognize federal court rulings that prohibit North Carolina and its schools from favoring a religion.
Advertise | AdChoices

The bill was introduced Monday by two Republican representatives from Rowan County, north of Charlotte, and sponsored by seven other Republicans. The party controls both chambers of the North Carolina Legislature.

It's getting out of hand this whole religious extremist thing. Everywhere, not just the US, but everywhere.

Now we want to further divide ourselves and create state sponsored religious legislation. It's almost scary to watch as some states fall further and further into what seems a time warp. I wonder if they wish to go back to the 1800's.

Thoughts?

~Tenth

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Now here is some nonsense.

epublican lawmakers in North Carolina have introduced a bill declaring that the state has the power to establish an official religion — a direct challenge to the First Amendment.

Follow @NBCNewsUS

One professor of politics called the measure “the verge of being neo-secessionist,” and another said it was reminiscent of how Southern states objected to the Supreme Court’s 1954 integration of public schools.

The bill (View Here) says that federal courts do not have the power to decide what is constitutional, and says the state does not recognize federal court rulings that prohibit North Carolina and its schools from favoring a religion.
Advertise | AdChoices

The bill was introduced Monday by two Republican representatives from Rowan County, north of Charlotte, and sponsored by seven other Republicans. The party controls both chambers of the North Carolina Legislature.

It's getting out of hand this whole religious extremist thing. Everywhere, not just the US, but everywhere.

Now we want to further divide ourselves and create state sponsored religious legislation. It's almost scary to watch as some states fall further and further into what seems a time warp. I wonder if they wish to go back to the 1800's.

Thoughts?

~Tenth

Let them. Then kick them out of the union. I just wish we'd let all these "secessionist" minded states loose and then take in their refugees. Let them live in their Christian Sharia state.

I live in NC. No way in HELL would I support this. And I'm not apologizing for my wording.

If it passes, surely it would be challenged, don't you think?

My neighbors, those in my community....we don't have any intention or desire to secede from the Union. Not sure where that idea even came from.

Originally posted by smyleegrl
I live in NC. No way in HELL would I support this. And I'm not apologizing for my wording.

If it passes, surely it would be challenged, don't you think?

My neighbors, those in my community....we don't have any intention or desire to secede from the Union. Not sure where that idea even came from.

Sorry. My response was a bit jaded, wasn't it? I sometimes forget about the decent people living in those states who have roots there and do not want to move even in the face of ignorance. I guess I just picture people like you being held captive and being forced to live in those type of states.

I can relate. If my state became like that (southernish), I wouldn't be able to say with certainty if I'd be willing to move just because of a few zealots.

I think I'm just tired of hearing about these types wanting to force others into living their own version of a religious utopia and sometimes wish we could just cut them loose. I don't mean to lump all the good folks into that crowd when I complain, though. Maybe I just need some more coffee...

Originally posted by smyleegrl
I live in NC. No way in HELL would I support this. And I'm not apologizing for my wording.

If it passes, surely it would be challenged, don't you think?

My neighbors, those in my community....we don't have any intention or desire to secede from the Union. Not sure where that idea even came from.

I'm with you!

If we let these people shove their delusions down our throats it's "GAME OVER"

I've only lived in NC a short while, and have no intention of leaving or supporting such nonsense...

I WONDER WHAT THE STATE RELIGION WILL BE?
Neo Baptist? Confronatational Charismatic ? or will they go with Classical extreme Mormonism?


This must be struck down by the SCOTUS im sure.....after NC is reconquered....

My thoughts -

Favoring a religion is Not the same as a state sponsored religion. The first amendment originally Only applied to the federal government - not the states.

Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government. A number of the states effectively had established churches when the First Amendment was ratified, with some remaining into the early nineteenth century.

Subsequently, Everson v. Board of Education (1947) incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states). However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by the states. In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet,[1] Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

I can see in today's climate how this Could be a good thing. Lets say the Extremist Muslims take over most important posts in our government. They would try to abolish the first amendment and if they could do it it would hurt the states by taking away the power to fight back. This legislation would allow the states to refuse the extremist Muslim religion so it's citizens won't be forced into it.

I think it would depend on exactly the states wants to use it's favoritism. If it's something trivial like having a statue of the ten commandments at the courthouse that would be o.k. with me. If it's a state sponsored religion mandating all citizens follow this one religion, thats something entirely different.

We need clearer definitions on this and the intentions of these lawmakers.

After reading the Bill i think i understand what they are saying -

No matter what the Supreme Court said in the middle half of the 20th century - adding this first amendment to include the states - they cannot do that legally without First making a new amendment that includes the states in the Constitution. They haven't done that.

Therefore the tenth amendment kicks in which gives power to the states the right to choose for them self on matters that are not expressly stated in the Constitution.

The question therefore becomes - How legally binding is the Supreme Courts interpretation of the first amendment?

How does the Supreme Court get it's power?

Article III, Section 1, mandates the creation of a Supreme Court and commissioning of Justices:
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.


Article III, Section 2, of the US Constitution explicitly spells out the responsibility of the Court:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state [later revoked by the 11th Amendment];--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

wiki.answers.com...

Does this specify interpenetration of the Constitution itself? It's not too clear on that.

Obama at his best.
you must stand up and fight.
a mass march ON to the white house lawn.

Originally posted by buddha
Obama at his best.
you must stand up and fight.
a mass march ON to the white house lawn.

Really.. er.. you do understand that Obama or the democrats of which Obama is one - has nothing to do with this proposed bill?

Originally posted by buddha
Obama at his best.
you must stand up and fight.
a mass march ON to the white house lawn.

what?

That's it - I'm moving. McCrory and his henchmen in state congress are quickly getting out of control.

Ya know.. I just noticed the date of this "bill" is April 1st.

Could this just be a hoax?

reply to post by tothetenthpower


The bill, while on its face, challenges Federal authority into State issues is not so far out of line except for one blaring problem; the North Carolina State Constitution. However, their heart is in the right place but they should have picked a better topic to flex their State's sovereignty in my opinion. That said, I do not see where in the bill they are pushing for a state religion. Care to point that out?

Section 13 of their Constitution reads:

Sec. 13. Religious liberty.

All persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.

By challenging the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution they are violating their own State Constitution by "control[ling] or interfering with the rights of conscience."

That aside, reading over the bill they will come into some strong head-wind in the way of judicial precedents. In the bill it claims the following:

Whereas, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States reads: "...Congress shall make no law respecting an Establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."; and Whereas, this prohibition does not apply to states, municipalities, or schools

This point is a valid point to make. The First Amendment is clearly written to limit the Congress of the United States from the above and the Establishment Clause therefore, only applies to the acts of Congress. Furthermore, the bill invokes the 10th Amendment (naturally with regards of attempting to do this) and that is the supporting clause to the above mentioned.

The bill also challenges Marbury v. Madison (the establishment by the Court itself of judicial review by the Marshall court) by stating that the Federal Constitution does not grant any power to the Federal Government to determine if a bill is Constitutional.

Originally posted by smyleegrl
I live in NC. No way in HELL would I support this. And I'm not apologizing for my wording.

If it passes, surely it would be challenged, don't you think?

My neighbors, those in my community....we don't have any intention or desire to secede from the Union. Not sure where that idea even came from.

What in the bill are you opposed to? Did you read it or did you respond to the fabricated emotionally charged title? I see the bill exerting the sovereignty of the State and their choices they make in terms of what is Constitutional and what is not; but I do not however see any official call for a "state religion" as supposed by the title of this thread. I do see a proclamation that the State has the ability to choose and if it agrees with their own Constitution, it would not be unconstitutional because the People have expressed their political will for it.

If anything, while misguided, it is a bill that is a push back against the continuing trend of nationalization of the States and their sovereignty. They could have picked a better topic to highlight it though.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
After reading the Bill i think i understand what they are saying -

No matter what the Supreme Court said in the middle half of the 20th century - adding this first amendment to include the states - they cannot do that legally without First making a new amendment that includes the states in the Constitution. They haven't done that.

Ultimately, this will be answered further in my post; but it has been applied judicially and via Amendment by the 14th Amendment; same as the 2nd Amendment in Heller and MacDonald.

The question therefore becomes - How legally binding is the Supreme Courts interpretation of the first amendment?

Judicial review was 'created' by the Marshall Court in Marbury v. Madison. In some aspects, it looks like a natural extension of the Supreme Court but could also be seen as a power grab by the least power branch of the time.

I agree with one thing though; it opens up the political and constitutional dialog and that is a good thing in my opinion.

ETA: No April Fools joke; pulled straight from the State Legislature website.

Post Script:
Upon further research in this regard, as it is an important question in my estimation. First we have people who will claim the Supremacy Clause to defeat this notion presented by the bill. Another point that could be made is the application of the 14th Amendment. Further consideration is how we, as a People understand Federalism, the 10th Amendment and the vast expansion of Federal power that has evaded the system over the past 150 (+- a year or so) years since the conclusion of the Civil War.

Examining the Supremacy Clause first, in McColluch v. Maryland, Chief Justice Marshall submitted a fatal blow to the 10th Amendment by pointing out that it did not include the word "expressly". In my opinion, this was a mistake and a bit of chicanery on the part of the Court. The 10th Amendment is fairly clear that the powers not enumerated to Congress are held by the States and the People respectively. Examining this, it is clear that the 10th Amendment is speaking of the powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8 (where enumerations are made; the Bill of Rights are not enumerations of powers).

The second point is the 14th Amendment, which has expanded much of the modern powers and applications of the Bill of Rights over State sovereignty. In some cases, it was common sense and the People rejoiced. In other instances, it hinders the People and their political will and Rights to self-governance. For instance, many rejoiced when the application of the 14th Amendment was applied to the 2nd Amendment in recent years. Originally, the Courts say the application of the 2nd Amendment as it was written; a restriction upon Congress to prohibit the People and the States (in the form of militias) to bear arms. That is until Heller and McDonald and by incorporation via the 14th Amendment, the 2nd was ruled to apply to both the States and the Federal Government.

Lastly, we have the anemic and quite frankly, hostile understanding of Federalism by the People. Different thread.

Good job NC. I see nothing wrong with a State declared belief system. As long as other people are respected and allowed to worship in their own beliefs publicly or privately without fear.

All students should have to say the pledge, if students have religious issues then they should be respected and don't have to say it. I see nothing wrong with that.

Originally posted by milkyway12
All students should have to say the pledge, if students have religious issues then they should be respected and don't have to say it. I see nothing wrong with that.

edit on 4-4-2013 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

Devils advocate here:
What if I have objections to the pledge based on my belief that the State cannot dictate my political speech and I see the pledge as such? Should I be able to not say the forced invocation? I agree in part with your above, just curious to other aspects of the statement.

As for the state respected system, I do object, on certain circumstances though. One, any law must fall within their State Constitution and they are clear that religious liberty is paramount in their state as I have shown above. That said, the State should be able to apply their own laws, as do the People (via the 9th, 10th and any clauses in their respective Constitutions) to determine what is and what is not Constitutional.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


No, any issue with the state and the student's morals should evaluated and discussed with the parents and staff. If the student is knowledgable on the situation and belief he should not be forced to say the pledge.

Unwillingness to pledge to your country is a serious matter, and should be resolved or discussed.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

No, any issue with the state and the student's morals should evaluated and discussed with the parents and staff. If the student is knowledgable on the situation and belief he should not be forced to say the pledge.

Unwillingness to pledge to your country is a serious matter, and should be resolved or discussed.

I thought about leaving this for another thread, but it is relevant to the case at hand in some ways.

I am curious to the following statement by you. "[A]ny issue with the state and the student's morals should be evaluated and discussed with the parents and staff". What issue or even business does the State have with a student's morals? Why should they be evaluated by "staff". I understand parents, as they are key players in our moral upbringing, but the State should have no bearing in that matter.

I also ask you, does saying the pledge, at the age of 4 or 5 or even 10, have any other meaning other than being part of the group, mean you are American? Do you think those age groups understand the complexities of what they are saying by merely saying it?

I don't want to derail too much from the issue at hand with this thread.