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

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Regarding Judicial Review what about Article III, section 2?
Also what about Marbury V Madison?

Are you asserting that no State has to follow the US Constitution if they don't want to? To turn your question around, what is the point in having a US Constitution if States don't have to follow it?

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Regarding Judicial Review what about Article III, section 2?
Also what about Marbury V Madison?

Are you asserting that no State has to follow the US Constitution if they don't want to? To turn your question around, what is the point in having a US Constitution if States don't have to follow it?

Agreed in whole and those points were brought up in previous posts. As for your question turned around, that would deal with the "supremacy clause"; a clause that was directed towards the enumerated powers of the Constitution, not the declaration of Rights.

For instance, Congress is enumerated the power to declare war. The supremacy clause therefore applies that enumerated power of Congress to the States and bars the states from declaring war independently. In terms of the Bill of Rights, those are protected truths we hold evident, as part of being human, to be respected at the Federal level. Recognizing that, each state nearly holds each of those listed Rights in their own Constitutions.

The supremacy clause doesn't give wholesale control to the Federal Government except where it was explicitly given power; hence the 10th Amendment. The First Amendment reads "Congress shall not...", not "Congress and the States shall not....". The wording is straight-forward.

In other instances, such as the 2nd Amendment, the protection is explicit to the States in regards to militias and to the People. In that instance, it should be applied broadly and recently were (with the help of the 14th Amendment, which was redundant in my opinion) applied to the States.

I am however not asserting that States can ignore the Constitution but at the same time, the Federal Government cannot ignore its limits as it has over the past 150 years or so in terms of its limits of powers. States cannot enter into treaties just as the Federal Government cannot deny you due process (in which all 50 states agree since they explicitly placed such provisions in their own Constitutions).

reply to post by ownbestenemy


OK, I've read the bill and I still want to move. This is no different than many state's responses to their fear of gay marriage with the silly marriage amendment proposals. This is just the law-makers' narrow-minded response to the ACLU's rightful suit in Rowan County about opening prayers. It's another indication of the right's desperation against the more progressive, modern times - it's not right to discriminate (gay marriage) and it's not right to mix religion with government (the prayers) and these proposed laws and amendments they're bringing forward are a sign of their desperation. Look, this law likely won't pass, and if it does pass, it won't have any real impact, so in the end it's just immature grandstanding by these law makers - but, now that this state is fully red and if this is an indication of where legislature is heading, I want no part of it.

There is already an existing thread on this topic HERE.

WRAL News NC

Site states an alert:

Just In: House Speaker Thom Tillis' office says a GOP-sponsored resolution supporting North Carolina declaring an official religion is dead and won't be voted on.

This is great news. There is no way this could pass!

Is it just me, or is the agenda we fear becoming more of a reality every day. We've gone down a dark road for the past 10 years. 1 step forward, and 5 steps back anymore. Shouldn't humankind be progressing as a species? ?? I guess this is the way it has to go down. Get ready for the dark ages to return. Bummer. Guess my folks are lucky to be born when they were..... cheers.

Just another example of how politicians will push their own self-centered beliefs into law. The people's voice no longer matters. You can yell from the mountain tops, but these legislatures vote their own personal agendas.

The more I see partisan politics, laws being passed that are encroaching on our constitutional rights, the more It makes me want to .

reply to post by smyleegrl

I'm in NC, too, smyleegrl! I agree. And which of the many Christian sects would be chosen to represent us all?
Baptist? Catholic? Methodist? Non-Denominational Evangelists (which IS a denomination...), etc.

How would choosing one of those go over with everyone??? And what if a new legislature got in there and decided to choose a different religion or sect? How would that feel?? There are really great reasons for separation of Church and State. At least if one believes our Founding Fathers.

I am for more connection, less bickering. But I guess the genius mentality in this Bill isn't remotely concerned about what the actual US Constitution says, and would prefer to create marginalized peoples in favor of being able to choose a religion for us. Anyway...it will not get made into law, or if they vote it in, it will be challenged and cost the good people of our state tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to litigate. Yay. Let's hope it dies in committee...

peace,
AB

I think it's sad this won't pass.

The Federal Government has way too much power over the States they should not have as it is.. It should be up to the States to choose for themselves how they want to deal with these issues without the Feds mandating something.

I do not believe for one second North Carolina wants to create a State Mandated Religion for all it's citizens - anyone who actually believes that is all wet.

What they wanted is the option to choose to allow these people to start the session with an opening prayer if they choose - ( not hurting anyone, not mandating anything) and not have the Feds come tell them, " You do not have the freedom to choose to have that prayer"

The 1st Amendment even guarantees the rights of these people to have that prayer. They should have looked at it that way instead of the track they went on. They would have got further I think than the way they went about it.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

en.wikipedia.org...

They are not seeking to establish a religion, they are only seeking to exercise the freedom of religion the 1st amendment promises.

Originally posted by redtic
This is no different than many state's responses to their fear of gay marriage with the silly marriage amendment proposals.

Not really but I would be interested in hearing how it is. My guess is you are equating this bill to other states that are expressing their Right, along with their citizens, to choose what is best for their state?

This is just the law-makers' narrow-minded response to the ACLU's rightful suit in Rowan County about opening prayers.

I wanted to stop here with what you wrote. So those who believe differently than you are narrow-minded but closing off that believe is open-minded? No one is questioning nor is this bill denying, the ACLU or any citizen from seeking recourse to invocations of prayer prior to the beginning of the legislative day.

It's another indication of the right's desperation against the more progressive, modern times - it's not right to discriminate (gay marriage) and it's not right to mix religion with government (the prayers) and these proposed laws and amendments they're bringing forward are a sign of their desperation.

What is more progressive here? That the State is saying they are sovereign and if the People of that State have no problem with an opening prayer then so be it -- or -- silencing those in the State to submit to what the Federal Government decrees and a small minority? In terms of prayer, what harm does it create? Does it cause those without the same faith to burst into flames? Are they deprived of seeking their own conscience of faith (or any derivative thereof?)

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by HandyDandy
I never said it established a religion. I said it would establish laws based off religion.

And we all know what the deep down reason for this bill is correct?

GAY MARRIAGE!!!!!!!!

Yep, that...............and, abortion, contraception and sex-ed, evolution eliminated from the public school curriculum in favor of creationism, obligatory prayer in the classroom, courtroom and legislatures, the 10 Commandments being posted in courthouses.........

As it is, North Carolina already has already an article in their state constitution that bars atheists from public office.

Article 6, Section 8 The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

Well, the bill got rightfully tossed like a used Kleenex, but, sure, I'll respond...

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by redtic
This is no different than many state's responses to their fear of gay marriage with the silly marriage amendment proposals.

Not really but I would be interested in hearing how it is. My guess is you are equating this bill to other states that are expressing their Right, along with their citizens, to choose what is best for their state?

I'm not arguing the concept and rights of our federation, but merely pointing out that this is another case of politicians seeing a potential threat to their supposed superior morality and using their bully pulpit to try to dictate that morality.

I wanted to stop here with what you wrote. So those who believe differently than you are narrow-minded but closing off that believe is open-minded? No one is questioning nor is this bill denying, the ACLU or any citizen from seeking recourse to invocations of prayer prior to the beginning of the legislative day.

Yes - it's narrow minded to think that their concept of marriage is the only acceptable form of marriage, and that their religion is the one that should be observed in government proceedings. If this wasn't a response to the ACLU's suit, tell me, what exactly were they trying to achieve here?

What is more progressive here? That the State is saying they are sovereign and if the People of that State have no problem with an opening prayer then so be it -- or -- silencing those in the State to submit to what the Federal Government decrees and a small minority? In terms of prayer, what harm does it create? Does it cause those without the same faith to burst into flames? Are they deprived of seeking their own conscience of faith (or any derivative thereof?)

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

It's more progressive to keep religion out government - period.

reply to post by windword


I doubt it has anything to do with gay marriage. There is already constitutional protection from one state having to abide by the consensus of the voters in another state. It's called the "Full Faith and Credit Clause", (Article IV, Section 1). So if California and Massachusetts vote to affirm gay marriage those marriages would not be binding in let's say an Ohio or Indiana.

Originally posted by redtic
I'm not arguing the concept and rights of our federation, but merely pointing out that this is another case of politicians seeing a potential threat to their supposed superior morality and using their bully pulpit to try to dictate that morality.

Or the exercise of their autonomy from an ever aggressive central government. By expressing what they did in the bill, it was to question the application of the supremacy clause (a clause designed to adhere to Article I, Section 8 enumerations and the States), the power of the 10th Amendment and the fact that the First Amendment specifically is aimed at Congress, not the States. It also takes a shot at questioning the long held precedent of judicial review; a self-created power created by the Courts.

Yes - it's narrow minded to think that their concept of marriage is the only acceptable form of marriage, and that their religion is the one that should be observed in government proceedings. If this wasn't a response to the ACLU's suit, tell me, what exactly were they trying to achieve here?

We aren't talking about marriage. I never stated it wasn't a legislative gesture in response to the suit. But tell me, what religion is established when a prayer is held? What Rights are denied? The functions of Government are still secular but the People, the People who occupy Government are still able to retain their freedom of conscience in regards to how they dictate religion.

It's more progressive to keep religion out government - period.

And what religion is in Government? The makeup of Government is of the People and the People retain their religious view and practices regardless of their position. You find it more progressive to deny them that? Should they disavow their beliefs to hold office so we can be progressive?

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Or the exercise of their autonomy from an ever aggressive central government. By expressing what they did in the bill, it was to question the application of the supremacy clause (a clause designed to adhere to Article I, Section 8 enumerations and the States), the power of the 10th Amendment and the fact that the First Amendment specifically is aimed at Congress, not the States. It also takes a shot at questioning the long held precedent of judicial review; a self-created power created by the Courts.

Yes, yes, I understand the whole sovereignty thing - they certainly used that to prove their point. That was certainly their "in" to do their grandstanding. But we both know what the real impetus behind this bill was. Come on.

We aren't talking about marriage. I never stated it wasn't a legislative gesture in response to the suit. But tell me, what religion is established when a prayer is held? What Rights are denied? The functions of Government are still secular but the People, the People who occupy Government are still able to retain their freedom of conscience in regards to how they dictate religion.

And what religion is in Government? The makeup of Government is of the People and the People retain their religious view and practices regardless of their position. You find it more progressive to deny them that? Should they disavow their beliefs to hold office so we can be progressive?

Well, first off, the Rowan County board of commissioners opens their meetings with explicitly Christian prayers. But that's really neither here nor there. Prayer belongs in a church. Prayer belongs at home. No hint of religion belongs in a government building where its workers are employed by and for the people. Period. Again.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


What do you honestly expect? We as a species, if not for the ability to create and operate a computer, are literally 2 steps out of the cave. We are still primitive and of course, with that, we worship golden cows. Why do you think "aliens" don't land on the lawn? We have all our weapons pointed at each other.

Aw how adorable and completely non hypocritical,
Republicans cherry picking the constitution again.
Let's see we'll take this one get rid of that one
change this one...
You know like the Founding Fathers would have wanted.

reply to post by sealing


Ask the Liberals why they want to destroy the 2nd amendment and I'm on board with your anti republican 1st amendment rant.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
What they wanted is the option to choose to allow these people to start the session with an opening prayer if they choose - ( not hurting anyone, not mandating anything) and not have the Feds come tell them, " You do not have the freedom to choose to have that prayer"

The 1st Amendment even guarantees the rights of these people to have that prayer. They should have looked at it that way instead of the track they went on. They would have got further I think than the way they went about it.

They are not seeking to establish a religion, they are only seeking to exercise the freedom of religion the 1st amendment promises.

edit on 4-4-2013 by JohnPhoenix because: sp

If the issue was simply about them unanimously wanting the option to choose to open their meetings with a prayer, and the ACLU having discovered that they were praying, entered an unsolicited lawsuit against the practice, I would be of the opinion that the ACLU way overstepped in this situation and if they unanimously desired to open their meetings with a prayer, they should be left to it, no harm, no foul.

But, such does not appear to be the case.

After reading numerous articles regarding this, it appears that the ACLU filed suit on behalf of several residents who object the Rowan county commissioners' practice of opening their meetings with Christian prayer. These meetings are governmental meetings, if several residents attending these meetings object to the routine practice of opening these meetings with public Christian prayers that's a wholly different situation. They effectively are forcing people who do not share the same beliefs, to succumb to what could be considered government sponsored pressure to relinquish their belief's and convert to the government accepted doctrine, as an unspoken requirement for their continued employment.

And...That is dead wrong. If this were a church we were discussing such would be completely acceptable, but a position working within a government office...NO.

Source

Originally posted by windword

As it is, North Carolina already has already an article in their state constitution that bars atheists from public office.

Article 6, Section 8 The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

That article in their state constitution blatantly defies the 3rd paragraph of Article. IV. of the Constitution

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Article. IV. Section. 2. is the first mention that all Citizens are entitled to the same protections under the constitution.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Section.

.

The Bill of Rights although ratified (12/15/1791) 4 years after the Constitution was first signed (9/17/1787) and received the 9th state it needed for approval (7/2/1788), August 6, 1787 the convention accepted the first draft of the Constitution, by August 31, George Mason who just 3 months earlier eagerly expressed that such great work was before them, was now greatly distressed seeing the convention rushing to instituted a potentially ruinous, ill-advised, central authority. Although many generally accepted the implication that the Constitution protected that which those inspiring words from the Declaration of Independence lead them to envision,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

There were also a great many who realized that those rights were not enumerated in the Constitution and without those protections it lacked protections against tyranny. Even Thomas Jefferson, generally in favor of the new government, wrote to Madison that a bill of rights was "what the people are entitled to against every government on earth." The Bill of Rights was essential in winning the ratification of those final necessary states.
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine. THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz

Originally posted by sealing
Aw how adorable and completely non hypocritical,
Republicans cherry picking the constitution again.
Let's see we'll take this one get rid of that one
change this one...
You know like the Founding Fathers would have wanted.

What cherry picking has occurred? The statements presented are pretty valid. The First Amendment reads in part: "Congress shall make no law..."; implying that the First Amendment wasn't directed toward the States such as other Amendments that specifically either aimed towards the States, or to the People respectively. Such examples are the 2nd (...or the People...), 3rd (...any house...), 4th (the right of the People....), or the 5th (No person shall...) All of which directed Congress to the People and by extension, the State.

Not so much with the First Amendment. Overall, the United States of America, government-wise, shall be absent of an establishment of religion, but the States were left to dictate how they handled their own situations as the issue was presented.

Each State was left to decide how best to handle the issue of religion and a self-governing society; you know, one of the People. I see no cherry picking in regards to this particular language presented.