We the People act

[>shaw]

I'm in an argument with someone over states rights.

He's claiming that Paul would allow states to prevent atheists from holding public office which is already something that is written into 7 state constitutions, as to which I countered saying that this would be unconstitutional.

However Paul supported legislation called We The People act which apparently would allow a state to do something like this. Anyway to counter this?

[MeDa]

I read the bill. Rather then infringe upon freedom it seems to protect the freedom of Religion where some states have forced individuals to go against their beliefs to hold certain positions in society (my opinion only). Ron Paul is for individual rights, and that is the intent of the bill.

As it is, the view of the person you are talking to sounds like a red herring. While some states do have those provisions in their Constitution, the people in the community will not let them be enforced. If some community did support the law being enforced, who in support of freedom and liberty would want to live in that community and be a part of it, or hold public office?

[DinahWest]

CONSTITUTIONOF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA (http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html)

Religion Section 4.

No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.
.


Originally, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the reach of certain provisions of the First Amendment—specifically the provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press—to the governments of the individual states.

Background and ruling

The Supreme Court previously held, in Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), that the Constitution's Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, and that, consequently, the federal courts could not stop the enforcement of state laws that restricted the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Gitlow v. New York's partial reversal of that precedent began a trend toward nearly complete reversal; the Supreme Court now holds that almost every provision of the Bill of Rights applies to both the federal government and the states. The Court upheld the state law challenged in Gitlow v. New York, which made it a crime to advocate the duty, need, or appropriateness of overthrowing government by force or violence. The Court's ruling on the effects of the Fourteenth Amendment was incidental to the decision, but nevertheless established an extremely significant precedent.

As justification for its decision, the Supreme Court relied on the "due process clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment. This provision, contained in Section One of the amendment, prohibits any state from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Specifically, in its decision the Court stated that "For present purposes we may and do assume that" the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press were "among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states" (at 666). The Court would go on to use this logic of incorporation much more purposefully in other cases, such as De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937), Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), to extend the reach of the Bill of Rights. Constitutional scholars refer to this process as the "incorporation doctrine," meaning that the Supreme Court incorporates specific rights into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Gitlow v. New York was also important for defining the scope of the First Amendment's protection of free speech following the period of the "Red Scare," in which Communists and Socialist Party members were routinely convicted for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918. Gitlow, a Socialist, had been convicted of criminal anarchy after publishing a "Left Wing Manifesto." The Court upheld his conviction on the basis that the government may suppress or punish speech when it directly advocates the unlawful overthrowing of the government.

The opinions in this case are notable for their attempt to define more clearly the "clear and present danger" test that came out of Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). The majority opinion written by Justice Edward Terry Sanford, embracing the bad tendency test that came out from Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919), stated that a "State may punish utterances endangering the foundations of government and threatening its overthrow by unlawful means" because such speech clearly "present[s] a sufficient danger to the public peace and to the security of the State." According to Sanford, "a single revolutionary spark may kindle a fire that, smoldering for a time, may burst into a sweeping and destructive conflagration." The case was also notable for being the American Civil Liberties Union's first major First Amendment case before the Supreme Court.[1]

Dissent

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Holmes, the original author of the clear and present danger test, disagreed, arguing that Gitlow presented no present danger because only a small minority of people shared the views presented in the manifesto and because it directed an uprising at some "indefinite time in the future."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York



If I am understanding correctly, the knock against Ron Paul is only justified if at the present day one truly believes that any State would overstep its bounds(invoking or creating a law). And even then it would be up to the people of the State to force a law change or as the term goes "Vote with your feet" and move to another State, which can take the individual to a friendly State of their cause and/or depending on the mass en route to leave force a change of that particular State law.

Nothing is perfect, and things can get messy. Yet, the newsflash is that things are already messy. And in the law of "unintended consequences" the Federal Government has become more centralized and thus prone to corruption. i.e. the saying that "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely ".

One of the many reasons both Democrats & Republicans lambaste Ron Paul, he is a threat to their centralized power that is growing ever stronger. It is why so few things change despite changing parties in Washington. Their agenda is similar, they simply have to fight it out for whom gets to proverbial Wheel.

[jmdrake]

CONSTITUTIONOF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA (http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html)


Thank you for posting that. Note that this provision does not actually require a religious test. Rather it restricts any religious test that might be passed. So, for example, Pennsylvania could not pass a law barring Muslims from elected office. I suppose an atheist could get around a "supreme being" test by declaring himself to be the supreme being.



If I am understanding correctly, the knock against Ron Paul is only justified if at the present day one truly believes that any State would overstep its bounds(invoking or creating a law). And even then it would be up to the people of the State to force a law change or as the term goes "Vote with your feet" and move to another State, which can take the individual to a friendly State of their cause and/or depending on the mass en route to leave force a change of that particular State law.


States do overstep their bounds. Here in Tennessee we came very close to passing a law that singled out Islam for special scrutiny and terrorism designation. (Basically it held to the "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims" and the "all good Muslims secretly want to overthrow the U.S." twin fallacies. The law was rewritten and watered down thanks to a lot of behind the scenes discussions with those who were pushing it. Part of those discussions included the "this law will be struck down as unconstitutional by the federal courts" argument.

As for "voting with your feet", that's kind of hard to do if you are already in prison. I guess you have to monitor the state legislature just in case an unjust law passes you can pack up and leave before it's implemented?



Nothing is perfect, and things can get messy. Yet, the newsflash is that things are already messy. And in the law of "unintended consequences" the Federal Government has become more centralized and thus prone to corruption. i.e. the saying that "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely ".

One of the many reasons both Democrats & Republicans lambaste Ron Paul, he is a threat to their centralized power that is growing ever stronger. It is why so few things change despite changing parties in Washington. Their agenda is similar, they simply have to fight it out for whom gets to proverbial Wheel.

I agree. The supreme court has overstepped its bounds in many respects. Whether some town square has a manger scene that was paid for by private money should not be a concern of the federal government. That said, I fear the "We the People Act" goes too far. What about the federal government's role in ensuring that states maintain a republican form of government? In Ron Paul's book "Liberty Defined", Dr. Paul invoked that part of the constitution to argue that the federal government should be able to overrule a state law that allowed infanticide. Well then what about a state law that gave arbitrary power to the state to close down churches with politically unpopular stances?

The one good thing I would say about the WTPA is that it would require people to become more familiar with their state constitutions. For example, the Tennessee state constitution has broader protections for religious freedom than the federal one. So that sharia terrorism bill likely wouldn't have survived a challenge based on the TN state constitution either.


§ 3. Freedom of worship

That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.

And here's what the TN constitution says about religious tests.

§ 4. Political or religious test

That no political or religious test, other than an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of this State, shall never be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this State.

And while this isn't about religious freedom, this is a great clause about freedom in general.

§ 2. Doctrine of non-resistance

That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

[jmdrake]

A counter to the criticism of Ron on the WTPA is that he did co-sponsor a religious freedom amendment that would specifically prohibit states from establishing religion.

Religious Freedom Amendment. H.J.Res. 78 , 1997-05-08 (cosponsor). Clarifies the "right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience" to include the right of prayer in public schools and other public property, and to prohibit state establishment of religion or requirements to participate in prayer.

So one could argue that Ron Paul supports restricting the right of states to establish or restrict religion, but he wants that done through what he sees as constitutional means.

[erowe1]

I'm in an argument with someone over states rights.

He's claiming that Paul would allow states to prevent atheists from holding public office which is already something that is written into 7 state constitutions, as to which I countered saying that this would be unconstitutional.

However Paul supported legislation called We The People act which apparently would allow a state to do something like this. Anyway to counter this?

The way to counter it is that, contrary to the answer you gave, Paul's position is constitutional. It would be unconstitutional for the federal government to make any law respecting (i.e. having anything to do with) the establishment of religion. A law prohibiting the states from excluding atheists from public office would be just such a law.

Federal courts that have appealed to the 14th Amendment as a way of undoing the 1st amendment have completely overstepped their constitutional authority.

[DinahWest]

Thank you for posting that. Note that this provision does not actually require a religious test. Rather it restricts any religious test that might be passed. So, for example, Pennsylvania could not pass a law barring Muslims from elected office. I suppose an atheist could get around a "supreme being" test by declaring himself to be the supreme being.

You're Welcome. While true it does restrict any religious test, Atheist I take it could still have a claim depending upon if "Atheism" as it were in and of itself considered or termed as a "religion". As Atheist do not "acknowledge God".

IMO, the only way it could become an issue that would then have to be addressed is if a self-proclaimed Atheist ran for office, won, and then an opponent raised an objection based on their "Atheism".

Yet, there is IMHO no need for any addressing until when or if it would become an issue. Only when/if a true Atheist proclaimed it, ran, won, and an objection came. Because as we know, many "acknowledge God" openly but do not in their heart.
i.e. Posturing and pandering to simply attain a powerful position.


States do overstep their bounds. Here in Tennessee we came very close to passing a law that singled out Islam for special scrutiny and terrorism designation. (Basically it held to the "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims" and the "all good Muslims secretly want to overthrow the U.S." twin fallacies. The law was rewritten and watered down thanks to a lot of behind the scenes discussions with those who were pushing it. Part of those discussions included the "this law will be struck down as unconstitutional by the federal courts" argument.

As for "voting with your feet", that's kind of hard to do if you are already in prison. I guess you have to monitor the state legislature just in case an unjust law passes you can pack up and leave before it's implemented?

I think the biggest underlying narrative here is an "alert and knowledgeable citizenry" as with Pres.Eisenhower's warning of the coming Military Industrial Complex. The People must become more aware, even more so in these apathetic times(that is however seeing more and more awake thankfully) as politicians for big government rely on the ignorance of the people to maintain and expand their power and control under the seeming benign guises of help and protection.



I agree. The supreme court has overstepped its bounds in many respects. Whether some town square has a manger scene that was paid for by private money should not be a concern of the federal government. That said, I fear the "We the People Act" goes too far. What about the federal government's role in ensuring that states maintain a republican form of government? In Ron Paul's book "Liberty Defined", Dr. Paul invoked that part of the constitution to argue that the federal government should be able to overrule a state law that allowed infanticide. Well then what about a state law that gave arbitrary power to the state to close down churches with politically unpopular stances?

Not sure I can give proper justice to this, but maybe the main goal is stopping the Federal Government from arbitrarily impeding on States Rights'?

From the backdrop of Gitlow v. New York

The Court upheld the state law challenged in Gitlow v. New York, which made it a crime to advocate the duty, need, or appropriateness of overthrowing government by force or violence. The Court's ruling on the effects of the Fourteenth Amendment was incidental to the decision, but nevertheless established an extremely significant precedent.


To Justice Holmes dissent

Gitlow presented no present danger because only a small minority of people shared the views presented in the manifesto and because it directed an uprising at some "indefinite time in the future."

So maybe Dr.Paul's goal is to stop such things as this, where despite upholding the State Law the Supreme Court took it upon itself to still set a precedent allowing for the Federal Government to more easily usurp a State's Right for even arbitrary(i.e. political) reasons? That is not to say that at any given time the Federal Government may not have to step in on a unique case that may truly require a federal oversight.