PDA

View Full Version : Does the first amendment apply to states?




PaulConventionWV
08-31-2011, 01:48 PM
So, I was in class the other day and supreme court cases, as well as hypothetical cases, were brought up in which freedom of religion was questioned. While others were trying to analyze how you would verify what "religion" is, I was trying to find a way to solve this without the federal government getting involved. The professor brought it to my attention that the first amendment must apply to states via the 14th amendment. Is this correct?

Furthermore, even if it were, should we ammend the Constitution so that the federal government is not involved? The hypothetical religion scenario is just too complicated to me to even consider getting the federal government involved, so I suggested ammending the Constitution in order to prevent this from being a federal issue so that people could choose which state's laws they would be willing to live with. Some people thought that some laws were too ridiculous to leave up to the states, so they thought the federal government should get involved. As ludicrous as that sounds, what do you make of this situation? Is the fourteenth amendment binding on all states, and by extension, the first amendment as well? If it is, should we change it?

In other news, I just got my Ron Paul gear from the last moneybomb! :D

TheBlackPeterSchiff
08-31-2011, 01:59 PM
It's the states that ratified the Constitution, creating the federal government. If the do not want to allow free speech, then leave the union.

low preference guy
08-31-2011, 02:00 PM
In practice it does, it shouldn't.

low preference guy
08-31-2011, 02:01 PM
If the do not want to allow free speech, then leave the union.

Have you read the first Amendment? Congress shall write no law... Congress not writing a law doesn't change what state legislatures can or cannot do.

PaulConventionWV
08-31-2011, 02:15 PM
In practice it does, it shouldn't.

So does that mean this interpretation of the fourteenth and first amendments is correct and the amendment should be changed? Or does it mean that the amendments are fine as is, but we usually interpret it wrong?

CaptainAmerica
08-31-2011, 02:19 PM
Thank Abraham Lincoln for federal encroachment.

low preference guy
08-31-2011, 02:20 PM
So does that mean this interpretation of the fourteenth and first amendments is correct and the amendment should be changed? Or does it mean that the amendments are fine as is, but we usually interpret it wrong?

Depends who you ask. Ron Paul is opposed to incorporation but I don't know his reasoning. If I recall correctly, Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman believe the application is a misinterpretation. See this link (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=678).

erowe1
08-31-2011, 02:21 PM
Yes, the first amendment applies to the states.

The way it applies to the states is as follows:

If any state passes legislation establishing a religion for that state, the 1st amendment prohibits the federal government from doing anything about it. For the federal government to interfere in that would be to "make a law respecting the establishment of religion."

bobbyw24
08-31-2011, 02:23 PM
So is anyone here in favor of states being abler to abridge our First Amendment rights????

erowe1
08-31-2011, 02:47 PM
So is anyone here in favor of states being abler to abridge our First Amendment rights????

I don't even know what that means. The first amendment limits the federal government, by prohibiting it from doing anything about what the states do with regard to religion. There's no such thing as a state abridging 1st amendment rights.

low preference guy
08-31-2011, 02:49 PM
I don't even know what that means. The first amendment limits the federal government, by prohibiting it from doing anything about what the states do with regard to religion. There's no such thing as a state abridging 1st amendment rights.

Abridging First Amendment rights = Congress might write a law...?

Pericles
08-31-2011, 03:00 PM
Yes, the 1A now applies to the sates because of the 14A. I tend to have a different view than many here, as I maintain that the other Amendments, 2 to 10 inclusive applied to the states via Article VI, while as clearly stated, the 1A applied to the federal government only when it was ratified.

The SCOTUS mistakenly took the language from the 1A when it ruled that the BoR did not apply to the states in 1833.

PaulConventionWV
08-31-2011, 03:03 PM
So is anyone here in favor of states being abler to abridge our First Amendment rights????

I am. I will fight it, but at least I have the option to move if something goes wrong. The problem is when people think that the federal government can better solve the problem of religious controversy. It simply cannot be solved, so the only solution is to leave it up to the states.

fisharmor
08-31-2011, 03:11 PM
erowe1 wins.
The text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Words have meanings. The constitution isn't rocket science. It says what it says, and it doesn't say what it doesn't say.
Society's understanding is incorrect. Civics class was incorrect. The media is incorrect. Most of us are incorrect.

The only entity mentioned in the text is Congress.

Should there be an amendment that says something like:
"The peaceful exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, shall not be infringed."

Probably. But they fuck up the 2nd all the time too, despite its use of that format.
It's one reason I've given up on the constitution. People just can't comprehend written words anymore.

matt0611
08-31-2011, 03:31 PM
I believe most state constitutions contain the relevant parts of the Bill of Rights anyway.

Tarzan
08-31-2011, 04:04 PM
Yes, the first amendment applies to the states.

The way it applies to the states is as follows:

If any state passes legislation establishing a religion for that state, the 1st amendment prohibits the federal government from doing anything about it. For the federal government to interfere in that would be to "make a law respecting the establishment of religion."

No! This is just wrong on its face. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It contains supremacy over any state laws or regulations. The first amendment is to protect individuals from the government (federal, state or local) in several regards... including the prevention of a state (meaning government established) religion.

The states are NOT free to do whatever they want. The states are bound by the limits in the Constitution. Therefore, the notion that the states can "do whatever they want" is not correct. That concept is not established in law, legislation nor supported by a reading of the Constitution itself... or, what the writers of the Constitution intended.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land... the states cannot override it. The 10th amendment clarifies this issue. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

To the OP and the original question Does the first amendment apply to states?
It applies to the states in as much as they must obey it as the supreme law of the land... period. Does it afford some sort of individual right that allows the state to override the Constitution... NO. And the question is frankly ridiculous. For the instructor to attempt to use the 14th amendment is bizarre. The 14th amendment is one of several amendments intended to resolves conflicts within the Constitution regarding slavery, reparations and other issues remaining after the Civil War. An attempt to use the 14th to explain the 1st is way off base and demonstrates a lack of understanding as to the words and intent of the Constitution. But, this mind numbing nonsense is what is being taught in school. These tortured interpretations of the Constitution and acceptance of such arguments have been used so often they have actually been accepted in common thinking. Yet, the notion is still ridiculous.

If you are trying to make a good grade just regurgitate the instructors position... you'll get an A. If he is open to actual thought do some reading on your own. Read the Constitution without someone telling what you means or 'interpreting' it for you. Then, do a little reading of the arguments and how they were addressed in the writings of those who wrote the Constitution. The federalist papers are a compilation of some of those writings and an easy place to get a broad perspective of the framers thoughts in one place.

The truth will be easily revealed... there are so many misconceptions about the Constitution and the notion that is a "living document" are nonsense. Everyone should take some time to read the Constitution from time to time... to remind us of our most fundamental laws and guidelines. It is a simple read... but, we can easily believe it means things other than what it actually says due to constant rewording and purposeful misinterpretation

A quick example... the term "freedom of region" is a phrase often assigned to the 1st Amendment. But, read it... it does not say that anywhere. FOR is a sound bite that is not completely accurate and has taken on a meeting of its own.

Bman
08-31-2011, 04:18 PM
Have you read the first Amendment? Congress shall write no law... Congress not writing a law doesn't change what state legislatures can or cannot do.

I don't see anything that says they cannot right a law forcing states to recognize and adopt the first amendment.

low preference guy
08-31-2011, 04:20 PM
I don't see anything that says they cannot right a law forcing states to recognize and adopt the first amendment.

lol! what about "shall write no law"? who would've thought even that isn't clear!

Buchananite
08-31-2011, 04:24 PM
Yes, because of the 14th amendment.

And its a good thing it applies to the states. Don't say "states rights". States shouldn't have the right to violate my freedoms. Otherwise, leave things to the states.

Ray
08-31-2011, 04:27 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

Napoleon's Shadow
08-31-2011, 04:28 PM
No, the 2nd Amendment does (did) not apply to the State governments. Then the invasion of the northern army into the south happened and they imperial forces pretended that the 14th Amendment was passed, and then people started to make up a story that the 14th incorporated the rest of the amendments onto the State governments. So most attorneys think that the amendments apply to the States because that's how they have been trained and they don't know any better.

Tarzan
08-31-2011, 04:28 PM
lol! what about "shall write no law"? who would've thought even that isn't clear!

Because you are not reading the entire amendment... a single sentence:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Wacking out a couple of words in the Constitution and calling them "clauses" are part of the problem... usually with the other side.

If we had an Amendment that said "Congress shall make no law." we would have a lot fewer problems in this country (maybe). But, that is NOT what the Constitution says. This is how the so called "Commerce Clause" is argued... this is how the "General Welfare" clause is argued... neither of which actually exist because proponents forgot something... to read the entire line.

Southron
08-31-2011, 04:33 PM
It doesn't matter what I think. It just matters what the Supreme Court says.

But if we are going to invade countries, we might as well incorporate the BoR on them and in Iraq and Afghanistan too. :)

Tarzan
08-31-2011, 04:34 PM
Yes, because of the 14th amendment.

And its a good thing it applies to the states. Don't say "states rights". States shouldn't have the right to violate my freedoms. Otherwise, leave things to the states.

Did you mean the 10th Amendment???


No, the 2nd Amendment does (did) not apply to the State governments. Then the invasion of the northern army into the south happened and they imperial forces pretended that the 14th Amendment was passed, and then people started to make up a story that the 14th incorporated the rest of the amendments onto the State governments. So most attorneys think that the amendments apply to the States because that's how they have been trained and they don't know any better.

What??? You people need to go and read the Constitution. This is just pathetic!!!
http://usconstitution.net/const.html

Buchananite
08-31-2011, 04:37 PM
What??? You people need to go and read the Constitution. This is just pathetic!!!
http://usconstitution.net/const.html

I did.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you want to ignore the latter amendments that take precedent, and if you want the state to take away your freedoms, thats up to you.

Tarzan
08-31-2011, 04:50 PM
I did.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you want to ignore the latter amendments that take precedent, and if you want the state to take away your freedoms, thats up to you.

Ah... I think I understand your point now. But, do a bit more reading. The 14th Amendment was to make sure that the states understood that slaves had the same rights guaranteed to individuals earlier in the Constitution. All those guarantees existed earlier... this Amendment was to make it clear that those rights extended to slaves as the civil war ended.

sorry I missed your point

Bman
08-31-2011, 04:52 PM
lol! what about "shall write no law"? who would've thought even that isn't clear!



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where in that does it say Congress cannot make a law to make states obey the first amendment?

low preference guy
08-31-2011, 04:55 PM
Where in that does it say Congress cannot make a law to make states obey the first amendment?

a law that forces a state to "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is itself a law "respecting an establishment of religion".

kylejack
08-31-2011, 04:57 PM
Liberty is more important than the Constitution, imo, and I will fight tyranny on every level of government.

kylejack
08-31-2011, 05:01 PM
First Amendment was applied to the states in 1947 with a court decision.


Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)[1][2] was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the religion clauses in the country's Bill of Rights to state as well as federal law. Prior to this decision the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"[3] imposed limits on the federal government, while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges.[4] This was the first Supreme Court case incorporating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision in Everson marked a turning point in the interpretation and application of disestablishment law in the modern era.[5]

erowe1
08-31-2011, 05:11 PM
No! This is just wrong on its face. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

So is the Constitution the law of the land by legislating things other than what it says, or by legislating what it says?

I'm saying it means what it says. You seem to be saying it means something else.

The 1st Amendment expressly prohibits Congress from interfering with states that establish religions. We know that it was understood that way when it was ratified, since almost all of the states that ratified it did have established religions. Are you saying that despite this express prohibition on Congress, that they somehow do have a right to pass laws respecting the establishment of religion, which is what they would be doing if they passed laws interfering with states establishing religion?

erowe1
08-31-2011, 05:13 PM
Did you mean the 10th Amendment???



What??? You people need to go and read the Constitution. This is just pathetic!!!
http://usconstitution.net/const.html

No. He meant the 14th. If you don't understand why, then maybe you should educate yourself before you start pointing fingers at others.

IndianaPolitico
08-31-2011, 05:23 PM
At one time I thought it applied to the states, but thinking it over, it kind of obviously doesn't. It says, "Congress shall write no law..." It doesn't say anything about the states. Plus, almost, if not every state, has their own bill of rights.

Tarzan
08-31-2011, 05:24 PM
The 1st Amendment expressly prohibits Congress from interfering with states that establish religions. We know that it was understood that way when it was ratified, since almost all of the states that ratified it did have established religions. Are you saying that despite this express prohibition on Congress, that they somehow do have a right to pass laws respecting the establishment of religion, which is what they would be doing if they passed laws interfering with states establishing religion?

No... you are wrong. Neither the federal or state governments were allowed to establish a state religion. Yes, several of the colonies had 'state approved' religions. To the framers credit, neither the fed nor the states were any longer allowed to establish (or designate) a official state religion. They saw the dangers of the state church in England.


No. He meant the 14th. If you don't understand why, then maybe you should educate yourself before you start pointing fingers at others.

All the guarantees in the 14th Amendment already existed in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment was to clarify that the newly freed slaves after the civil war ALSO had those rights... rights that already existed for others. I am getting tired of repeatedly explaining this and am just flabbergasted as to the misconceptions as to what the Constitution actually says... and means.

erowe1
08-31-2011, 05:25 PM
Liberty is more important than the Constitution, imo, and I will fight tyranny on every level of government.

I agree with you.

However, the way of fighting tyranny is important too. If the method of fighting tyranny is by establishing some global government that gets to use force to make all local governments comply with its standards of freedom, then that would be the biggest tyranny of all. And it seems to me that incorporation of the bill of rights in the 14th amendment looks an awful lot like that.

erowe1
08-31-2011, 05:29 PM
No... you are wrong. Neither the federal or state governments were allowed to establish a state religion. Yes, several of the colonies had 'state approved' religions. To the framers credit, neither the fed nor the states were any longer allowed to establish (or designate) a official state religion. They saw the dangers of the state church in England.


Which is it? Did the states have established religions when they ratified the Constitution? Or did they not?

And if they did, then did the federal government have the authority to pass laws interfering with their doing that or not (i.e. laws respecting the establishment of religion)?


All the guarantees in the 14th Amendment already existed in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment was to clarify that the newly freed slaves after the civil war ALSO had those rights... rights that already existed for others. I am getting tired of repeatedly explaining this and am just flabbergasted as to the misconceptions as to what the Constitution actually says... and means.

The 14th amendment wasn't just to do that at the federal level. It was also to require the states to do that. But even at that, it was never intended to overturn the 1st amendment, which is what happens when you incorporate the BoR into it.

kylejack
08-31-2011, 05:33 PM
I agree with you.

However, the way of fighting tyranny is important too. If the method of fighting tyranny is by establishing some global government that gets to use force to make all local governments comply with its standards of freedom, then that would be the biggest tyranny of all. And it seems to me that incorporation of the bill of rights in the 14th amendment looks an awful lot like that.
We've got much bigger fish to fry than proving that we are ideologically pure by helping states to institute state religion, if they so desire. Pushing things like this just make it less likely that we'll persuade people to our message, not more.

Tarzan
08-31-2011, 05:33 PM
Which is it? Did the states have established religions when they ratified the Constitution? Or did they not?

And if they did, then did the federal government have the authority to pass laws interfering with their doing that or not (i.e. laws respecting the establishment of religion)?

The 14th amendment wasn't just to do that at the federal level. It was also to require the states to do that. But even at that, it was never intended to overturn the 1st amendment, which is what happens when you incorporate the BoR into it.

Good grief! I give up. Apparently George Bush II was right... "It's just a goddamned piece of paper" and you have turned into whatever you want it to mean.

erowe1
08-31-2011, 05:40 PM
We've got much bigger fish to fry than proving that we are ideologically pure by helping states to institute state religion, if they so desire. Pushing things like this just make it less likely that we'll persuade people to our message, not more.

It seems to me that opposing larger and more centralized government is a pretty big fish. This isn't just about being pure. It's the right thing to do. I don't think I should be taxed to fund a campaign to force Iraq to have certain laws. And I don't think I should be taxed to force Alabama to either.

Also, I think pushing things like this helps a lot more than it hurts. A lot of Ron Paul's new support is from the religious right. And there are a lot more of them yet to win over. If we win their votes, we can win the nomination. If we don't, then we don't stand a chance.

erowe1
08-31-2011, 05:40 PM
Good grief! I give up. Apparently George Bush II was right... "It's just a goddamned piece of paper" and you have turned into whatever you want it to mean.

But I'm the one who's just taking it literally. You're the one taking the living document approach.

Bman
08-31-2011, 06:54 PM
a law that forces a state to "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is itself a law "respecting an establishment of religion".

hmmm. I see what your saying but it's still not sitting right with my brain. I'll have to ponder on this.

DamianTV
08-31-2011, 09:18 PM
So, I was in class the other day and supreme court cases, as well as hypothetical cases, were brought up in which freedom of religion was questioned. While others were trying to analyze how you would verify what "religion" is, I was trying to find a way to solve this without the federal government getting involved. The professor brought it to my attention that the first amendment must apply to states via the 14th amendment. Is this correct?

Furthermore, even if it were, should we ammend the Constitution so that the federal government is not involved? The hypothetical religion scenario is just too complicated to me to even consider getting the federal government involved, so I suggested ammending the Constitution in order to prevent this from being a federal issue so that people could choose which state's laws they would be willing to live with. Some people thought that some laws were too ridiculous to leave up to the states, so they thought the federal government should get involved. As ludicrous as that sounds, what do you make of this situation? Is the fourteenth amendment binding on all states, and by extension, the first amendment as well? If it is, should we change it?

In other news, I just got my Ron Paul gear from the last moneybomb! :D

Very easy. 9th Amendment


The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And the Rights enumerated in the Constitution are retained by the people, thus, powers are Not Granted the State, County, City, or Township in which they reside to make those kinds of decisions. It is the Right of the Individual.

Tarzan
08-31-2011, 10:17 PM
Which is it? Did the states have established religions when they ratified the Constitution? Or did they not?

Once the Constitution was signed neither the federal OR state governments were allowed to establish an official religion (paraphrase). The colonies HAD been doing it... after ratification is was no longer allowed (illegal) and the practice was phased out.


The 14th amendment wasn't just to do that at the federal level. It was also to require the states to do that. But even at that, it was never intended to overturn the 1st amendment, which is what happens when you incorporate the BoR into it.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. The states may not create laws that conflict with the Constitution. Any such state law would be Unconstitutional and, by definition, illegal. The 14th amendment clarified that slavery was no longer legal. Slavery had never actually been legal according to the Constitution prior to this Amendment... it (slavery) had just never been illegal. The 14th Amendment was to insure that black males now had the same rights as white males as provided earlier in the Constitution. Several Amendments, beginning with the 13th, were created to clarify the issues of making slavery illegal... and other issues resulting from the civil war.

The Constitution was (is) not just a limit on the federal government. It applies to the states and individuals as well. The states did not and do not have the authority to accept or reject the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) or any other part of the Constitution. It was (is) the law and all the states accepted it at the time the Constitution was ratified.

I hope we are not having a semantics issue here. If you believe the Constitution means something else I would really like to know how you came by that information. Was it a training course or book... personal understanding... something you learned in school or elsewhere. I am not trying to caste aspersions... this is something I would genuinely like to know.

low preference guy
08-31-2011, 10:21 PM
The Constitution was (is) not just a limit on the federal government. It applies to the states and individuals as well. The states did not and do not have the authority to accept or reject the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) or any other part of the Constitution. It was (is) the law and all the states accepted it at the time the Constitution was ratified.

Exactly. And when it comes to the first amendment, that means that the states can't do anything about the fact that congress can't write any law respecting freedom of speech. Nothing more.

kylejack
08-31-2011, 10:22 PM
Once the Constitution was signed neither the federal OR state governments were allowed to establish an official religion (paraphrase). The colonies HAD been doing it... after ratification is was no longer allowed (illegal) and the practice was phased out.
Incorrect, it only applied to the federal government initially. In fact, several states had established state religions.


The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. The states may not create laws that conflict with the Constitution. Any such state law would be Unconstitutional and, by definition, illegal.
Until 1947, the interpretation of the First Amendment was that it only applied to the federal government. Congress shall make no law. In 1947, the 14th was interpreted by the Supreme Court to extend the First and other amendments to the states as well.


The Constitution was (is) not just a limit on the federal government. It applies to the states and individuals as well. The states did not and do not have the authority to accept or reject the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) or any other part of the Constitution. It was (is) the law and all the states accepted it at the time the Constitution was ratified.
Yes...but the First Amendment text referred specifically to [federal] Congress only, not to state legislatures. Until 1947 when a Supreme Court decision changed the interpretation, with the help of the 14th Amendment.

I've posted the case earlier in the thread.

Pericles
08-31-2011, 10:23 PM
But I'm the one who's just taking it literally. You're the one taking the living document approach.

If you were taking the Constitution literally, this language from Article V

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;"

makes clear that the Amendments have same force as the Constitution itself, and this language from Article VI

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Makes clear that in the case of any part of a state constitution or state law conflicting with the
Constitution, that part of the state Constitution or state law is null and void.

If you believe in the SCOTUS "living" Constitution, then you go along with them in Barron v. Baltimore when the SCOTUS decided the Constitution only was a restraint on the federal government, until the 14A overturned this SCOTUS decision, along with overturning Dred Scott.

The SCOTUS reasoning was flawed in saying because the BoR did not contain the language 'No state shall" the BoR did not apply to the states as did the Article I Section 10 prohibitions, forgetting that those prohibitions applied to the states only, because those were powers delegated to the federal government. The prohibitions ofAmendments 2 through 10 have the language thay do because they are the supreme law of the land, being prohibitions on all levels of government. If the prohibitions were meant to apply to one level of government only, it would be so stated, as in the 1A.

Napoleon's Shadow
08-31-2011, 10:26 PM
The Constitution was (is) not just a limit on the federal government. It applies to the states and individuals as well. No it doesn't. Only the specific sections which discuss or mention limitations on State power apply to the State governments.


The states did not and do not have the authority to accept or reject the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) You're right, because they don't apply to the State governments.



or any other part of the Constitution. It was (is) the law and all the states accepted it at the time the Constitution was ratified.Actually the States can leave the federation if they want although that action will probably be opposed by violence as it was the last time.


I hope we are not having a semantics issue here. If you believe the Constitution means something else I would really like to know how you came by that information. Was it a training course or book... personal understanding... something you learned in school or elsewhere. I am not trying to caste aspersions... this is something I would genuinely like to know.Try this guy, professor of law and history at UConn, and intellectual heavyweight in the liberty movement: http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Constitution-Guides/dp/1596985054/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314851140&sr=8-1

kylejack
08-31-2011, 10:28 PM
Actually the States can leave the federation if they want although that action will probably be opposed by violence as it was the last time.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if a state tried a legal secession. Unfortunately, in the Civil War they decided to fire on a federal fort. The South was actually the ones initiating force.

Pericles
08-31-2011, 10:32 PM
No it doesn't. Only the specific sections which discuss or mention limitations on State power apply to the State governments.

You're right, because they don't apply to the State governments.

Actually the States can leave the federation if they want although that action will probably be opposed by violence as it was the last time.

Try this guy, professor of law and history at UConn, and intellectual heavyweight in the liberty movement: http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Constitution-Guides/dp/1596985054/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314851140&sr=8-1


Then why is Article VI in the Constitution?

Napoleon's Shadow
08-31-2011, 10:32 PM
It would be interesting to see what would happen if a state tried a legal secession. Unfortunately, in the Civil War they decided to fire on a federal fort. The South was actually the ones initiating force.You need to learn your history. It was a setup, they were provoked.

Not only that, why was a Union fort still in South Carolina territory after South Carolina was no longer part of the Union?

Napoleon's Shadow
08-31-2011, 10:34 PM
Then why is Article VI in the Constitution?Again, that's only referring to specific instances. The State governments never gave up their sovereignty to the federal government except on specific and enumerated powers listed in the Constitution.

Pericles
08-31-2011, 10:37 PM
Again, that's only referring to specific instances. The State governments never gave up their sovereignty to the federal government except on specific and enumerated powers listed in the Constitution.

Which are enumerated in the Amendments

kylejack
08-31-2011, 10:41 PM
You need to learn your history. It was a setup, they were provoked.

Not only that, why was a Union fort still in South Carolina territory after South Carolina was no longer part of the Union?
It was 6000 men surrounding 60. Yes, S.C. had seceded 5 months prior, but I think a little more patience would have been more prudent.

There has actually been a whole lot of revisionism about Lincoln, because for all the terrible things he did during the war, he did quite a bit to try and avoid the war. I honestly do not think Lincoln wanted a war, and he was willing to allow slavery to continue to avoid it (at least existing slaves, that is).

kylejack
08-31-2011, 10:44 PM
Which are enumerated in the Amendments
Yes, Article VI says that state judges have to adhere to the Constitution...so in the context of the First Amendment, that means that state judges cannot rule that it's okay for the federal Congress to pass a law establishing a religion.

Prior to the 1947 ruling that reinterpreted the First Amendment, that is.

Tarzan
08-31-2011, 10:48 PM
Incorrect, it only applied to the federal government initially. In fact, several states had established state religions.

Until 1947, the interpretation of the First Amendment was that it only applied to the federal government. Congress shall make no law. In 1947, the 14th was interpreted by the Supreme Court to extend the First and other amendments to the states as well.

Yes...but the First Amendment text referred specifically to [federal] Congress only, not to state legislatures. Until 1947 when a Supreme Court decision changed the interpretation, with the help of the 14th Amendment.

I've posted the case earlier in the thread.

Yes... I saw your earlier post. You are using a quote from wikipedia (I think) and the conclusions of the person who wrote that page... conclusions that are wrong. Wikipedia is NOT authoritative and I wish people understood that and would stop using it for reference. The conclusions the person made are not correct. Go read the entire case and decision... both the majority and dissenting opinions.

The Constitution... ALL OF IT... applies to both the federal and state governments.
The notion that this was a new interpretation created in 1947 is just not correct. Again, it is the Wiki author who is wrong.

Here is a germane excerpt from the majority ruling:


The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining [p16] or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
Justice Hugo Black

Justice Black sited Reynolds v. United States as precedence... a case from 1878

Pericles
08-31-2011, 10:51 PM
Yes, Article VI says that state judges have to adhere to the Constitution...so in the context of the First Amendment, that means that state judges cannot rule that it's okay for the federal Congress to pass a law establishing a religion.

Prior to the 1947 ruling that reinterpreted the First Amendment, that is.

Actually the 1947 ruling is based on the 14A applying all of the BoR to the states. If the SCOTUS had done it right in 1833, there would have been no 14A, just as the 11A was to overturn a SCOTUS decision, and the 16A, or the 24A.

kylejack
08-31-2011, 11:01 PM
Yes... I saw your earlier post. You are using a quote from wikipedia (I think) and the conclusions of the person who wrote that page... conclusions that are wrong. Wikipedia is NOT authoritative and I wish people understood that and would stop using it for reference. The conclusions the person made are not correct. Go read the entire case and decision... both the majority and dissenting opinions.
From the decision:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.


The Constitution... ALL OF IT... applies to both the federal and state governments.
Yes, it applies to both, but it applies to them in the way that it states. For example, when an amendment stated that "Congress shall make no law respecting..." it was establishing a limitation on...Congress! Because that's what it said!

Until those Amendments were incorporated to apply to the states by the courts. Some parts of some amendments have been incorporated to apply to the states, and some haven't. If you want some evidence that the Bill of Rights restrictions on government didn't always apply to all levels of government, read Barron v. Baltimore (pre 14th Amendment) or United States v. Cruikshank (post 14th Amendment).

Black may have cited Reynolds v United States for some foundation for some part of his ruling, but it didn't speak to states having to adhere to the First Amendment.

kylejack
08-31-2011, 11:03 PM
Now don't get me wrong, I don't want to give power to the states to establish religion. When the Constitution conflicts with liberty, my policy is: Fuck the Constitution.

Tarzan
08-31-2011, 11:19 PM
Now don't get me wrong, I don't want to give power to the states to establish religion. When the Constitution conflicts with liberty, my policy is: Fuck the Constitution.

Ah! So, this exchange has been with an anarchist... Nevermind.

From Article VI of the Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Focusing on the word "Congress" in the 1st Amendment does not alter the fact that everything in the Constitution also applies to the states. The word was used to clarify that even "Congress" could not violate this provision by enacting laws.

kylejack
08-31-2011, 11:29 PM
[B]From Article VI of the Constitution:


Focusing on the word "Congress" in the 1st Amendment does not alter the fact that everything in the Constitution also applies to the states. The word was used to clarify that even "Congress" could not violate this provision by enacting laws.
It's just so absurd.


No Person shall be a Representative [in Congress] who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

I suppose this applies to the states too, right? No state representatives under 25? Of course not. But it's in the Constitution.

kylejack
08-31-2011, 11:30 PM
Read the First Amendment. Then answer me the following question, from your reading of the Amendment as it is written. Who shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion? ______________

Sam I am
09-01-2011, 12:15 AM
Yes The first amendment does apply to states, because of the 14th amendment

Bordillo
09-01-2011, 12:33 AM
I agree states should have slavery if they want it

erowe1
09-01-2011, 05:58 AM
Which are enumerated in the Amendments

If you think that means the 1st amendment enumerates a power for the federal government to make laws respecting the establishment of religion, then you have it exactly backwards. It doesn't give Congress that power, it explicitly takes it away.

erowe1
09-01-2011, 06:00 AM
Once the Constitution was signed neither the federal OR state governments were allowed to establish an official religion (paraphrase). The colonies HAD been doing it... after ratification is was no longer allowed (illegal) and the practice was phased out.

What are you paraphrasing? And why not cite that source, whatever it is?

And if it was illegal for states to have established religions (I wonder why, since the Constitution doesn't say it is), then why would they be phased out? Wouldn't they have had to change their laws prior to ratifying the Constitution, if only states without established religions were allowed into the union?

I'm getting the feeling that you're just pulling things out of nowhere.

erowe1
09-01-2011, 06:02 AM
If you were taking the Constitution literally, this language from Article V

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;"

makes clear that the Amendments have same force as the Constitution itself, and this language from Article VI

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Makes clear that in the case of any part of a state constitution or state law conflicting with the
Constitution, that part of the state Constitution or state law is null and void.

If you believe in the SCOTUS "living" Constitution, then you go along with them in Barron v. Baltimore when the SCOTUS decided the Constitution only was a restraint on the federal government, until the 14A overturned this SCOTUS decision, along with overturning Dred Scott.

The SCOTUS reasoning was flawed in saying because the BoR did not contain the language 'No state shall" the BoR did not apply to the states as did the Article I Section 10 prohibitions, forgetting that those prohibitions applied to the states only, because those were powers delegated to the federal government. The prohibitions ofAmendments 2 through 10 have the language thay do because they are the supreme law of the land, being prohibitions on all levels of government. If the prohibitions were meant to apply to one level of government only, it would be so stated, as in the 1A.

No amendment has ever been ratified that overturns the 1st amendment's explicit protection of states' rights to have established religions without federal interference. The 14th amendment nowhere suggests that, nor was it understood that way when it was ratified.

So yes, reading that into the 14th is to take a living document approach.

muzzled dogg
09-01-2011, 06:19 AM
leave the union.
easier said than done

erowe1
09-01-2011, 06:49 AM
easier said than done

I think it would be great if the arrangement states had with the federal government were one where they had to match up to certain standards or else just leave the union. But we're kidding ourselves if we think it works that way.

fisharmor
09-01-2011, 08:27 AM
It was 6000 men surrounding 60. Yes, S.C. had seceded 5 months prior, but I think a little more patience would have been more prudent.

Lincoln sent warships to reinforce a position in what was legally a sovereign country. They were acting before the reinforcements arrived.
And it was 60 cannons, and 85 people.


You are using a quote from wikipedia (I think) and the conclusions of the person who wrote that page... conclusions that are wrong. Wikipedia is NOT authoritative and I wish people understood that and would stop using it for reference.

No, it's not authoritative and therefore can't be debunked as using appeal to authority logical fallacies. If the conclusions are wrong, go edit it. The problem you have with Wikipedia is the same problem you have with the constitution: you think that anointed individuals have final authority on the facts. Well, the constitution is written in 11th grade English, and anyone who has graduated high school should be able to read and comprehend it.
However, as I stated earlier, that's not the case.


Ah! So, this exchange has been with an anarchist... Nevermind.
Maybe you are talking to anarchists. Perhaps you state lovers should stop and ask a simple question: why are there so many of us here?
It's a simple logical progression.
Here's this beautiful thing called the US Constitution, and it makes a lot of sense.
Except that nobody can read the damned thing and process what it says.
It's dead simple. It says what it says, and it doesn't say what it doesn't say.
And it doesn't say outright that states can't establish religions.
Should it be changed to say this? Yes. Will it? No, because people like you think it already says that.

When you impose values on a static text that doesn't specifically say the things you believe it does, it destroys the rule of law and replaces it with the rule of men.
All it takes is for rotten people to get into the positions that rule, and the whole idea goes in the toilet.
When people who are supposed to be on the side of liberty can't make the mental leap to realize this, we all go in the toilet.

So you state lovers need to stop acting so surprised that some of us have given up and advocate for smashing the whole fucking thing with a hammer and not rebuilding it. It's just going to end up the same way: formerly free men dominated by a police state.

ItsTime
09-01-2011, 08:28 AM
Most states have something similar to the 1st amendment in their own state constitution.

erowe1
09-01-2011, 08:44 AM
Most states have something similar to the 1st amendment in their own state constitution.

That's true. So it's not the federal Constitution that limits them in that respect, it's their own.

Napoleon's Shadow
09-01-2011, 10:16 AM
Yes The first amendment does apply to states, because of the 14th amendmentNo, that is legal fiction, an idea that someone just made up. Besides, the 14th Amendment was never ratified.

Napoleon's Shadow
09-01-2011, 10:19 AM
It was 6000 men surrounding 60. Yes, S.C. had seceded 5 months prior, but I think a little more patience would have been more prudent.Again, SC was provoked. But again, I think 5 months is enough time to remove one's property from a foreign nation. But they weren't doing that they were sending arms down there.



There has actually been a whole lot of revisionism about Lincoln, because for all the terrible things he did during the war, he did quite a bit to try and avoid the war. I honestly do not think Lincoln wanted a war, and he was willing to allow slavery to continue to avoid it (at least existing slaves, that is).Yes, Lincoln cared nothing about slavery or slaves. He was trying to keep the Union together, the Constitution or liberty be damned.

jmdrake
09-01-2011, 10:38 AM
No, the 2nd Amendment does (did) not apply to the State governments. Then the invasion of the northern army into the south happened and they imperial forces pretended that the 14th Amendment was passed, and then people started to make up a story that the 14th incorporated the rest of the amendments onto the State governments. So most attorneys think that the amendments apply to the States because that's how they have been trained and they don't know any better.

Actually if you understand the militia clause the 2nd Amendment DOES apply to the states regardless of the 14th amendment. The 2nd amendment is not restricted to congress. Go back and read it. It says that in order for there to be a well regulated militia the right of the people shall not be infringed. In other words any restriction on the right to bear arms was initially seen as a threat to national security. We've turned the constitution around and made it so people think that the exercise of 2nd amendment rights is the threat to security.

Also I assume you've read Liberty Defined? In the first chapter Ron Paul invokes the clause of the constitution that gives the federal government the power to assure the states have a "republican form of government". Ron Paul interpreted that to mean that infanticide could be banned at the federal level. Using that same Ron Paul logic (not "lawyer trained" logic) if there is a right so fundamental that to deny it would be the state in question was not a republic, the federal government has a right to strike down state laws that make a state no longer a republic. For the record, I tire of people who haven't gone to law school making bogus assumptions about those who have.

jmdrake
09-01-2011, 10:41 AM
Again, SC was provoked. But again, I think 5 months is enough time to remove one's property from a foreign nation. But they weren't doing that they were sending arms down there.


Yes, Lincoln cared nothing about slavery or slaves. He was trying to keep the Union together, the Constitution or liberty be damned.

The first chance Lincoln got he attempted the same compensated emancipation plan that Ron Paul advocated. Lincoln was successful in Washington D.C. but unsuccessful in the border states. If he care nothing about slavery he wouldn't have done that. Also Lincoln pushed to restrict slavery from westward expansion and indicated that he would not prevent northern states from nullifying fugitive slave laws. While slavery wasn't why Lincoln responded to Ft. Sumpter, it's inaccurate to say he cared nothing about slavery just as its inaccurate to say that the slave states cared nothing about slavery.

Napoleon's Shadow
09-01-2011, 11:01 AM
it's inaccurate to say he cared nothing about slavery Fair point.. I should've instead written that "slavery was not his priority".

fisharmor
09-01-2011, 11:12 AM
Fair point.. I should've instead written that "slavery was not his priority".

I think it would be even more fair to say that he was really only addressing the topic to address his main priority, "saving the union".

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

-The man himself

erowe1
09-01-2011, 11:14 AM
I think it would be even more fair to say that he was really only addressing the topic to address his main priority, "saving the union".

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

-The man himself

And not just Lincoln, but the propaganda of saving the union permeated the whole war. It was the main justification the North used. When I've seen commemorative statues of the war from the years immediately following it, they call it "The War to Preserve the Union" or something like that.

Napoleon's Shadow
09-01-2011, 11:36 AM
Actually if you understand the militia clause the 2nd Amendment DOES apply to the states regardless of the 14th amendment. The 2nd amendment is not restricted to congress. Go back and read it. It says that in order for there to be a well regulated militia the right of the people shall not be infringed. In other words any restriction on the right to bear arms was initially seen as a threat to national security. We've turned the constitution around and made it so people think that the exercise of 2nd amendment rights is the threat to security.Interesting point. But why did state governments have Constitutions that also protected the RTKBA?



Also I assume you've read Liberty Defined?
Embarrassingly no. I haven't had enough time :(


In the first chapter Ron Paul invokes the clause of the constitution that gives the federal government the power to assure the states have a "republican form of government". Ron Paul interpreted that to mean that infanticide could be banned at the federal level. Using that same Ron Paul logic (not "lawyer trained" logic) if there is a right so fundamental that to deny it would be the state in question was not a republic, the federal government has a right to strike down state laws that make a state no longer a republic. For the record, I tire of people who haven't gone to law school making bogus assumptions about those who have.Hmmm.... fascinating...


I think you have just made my brain try to divide by zero

http://aznbadger.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/scannersexplodinghead.gif?w=200&h=161


Thanks for the intellectual challenge.

Pericles
09-01-2011, 12:29 PM
If you think that means the 1st amendment enumerates a power for the federal government to make laws respecting the establishment of religion, then you have it exactly backwards. It doesn't give Congress that power, it explicitly takes it away. Never said that. In response to this:
Again, that's only referring to specific instances. The State governments never gave up their sovereignty to the federal government except on specific and enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. The BoR enumerates certain restrictions. In the case of the 1A, those restrictions only applied to the federal Congress. The other restrictions applied to all government.

erowe1
09-01-2011, 12:31 PM
Never said that. In response to this: The BoR enumerates certain restrictions. In the case of the 1A, those restrictions only applied to the federal Congress. The other restrictions applied to all government.
Oh. OK. So, when a state legislator takes an oath to uphold the federal constitution, and that constitution includes categorical statements that such-and-such a right shall not be violated, then the state legislators having taken that oath would be breaking it if they passed state laws violating that right.

If that's what you meant, I agree.

I thought you were including the 1st amendment, which doesn't have that categorical language.

Pericles
09-01-2011, 12:43 PM
No amendment has ever been ratified that overturns the 1st amendment's explicit protection of states' rights to have established religions without federal interference. The 14th amendment nowhere suggests that, nor was it understood that way when it was ratified.

So yes, reading that into the 14th is to take a living document approach.

Admittedly is is not so explicitly stated, and would only come into play if a state enacted a statute that established a privilege (subsidy) or immunity (no militia obligation) as examples to members of one religion to the exclusion of others.

fisharmor
09-01-2011, 01:03 PM
Interesting point. But why did state governments have Constitutions that also protected the RTKBA?

Perhaps the fundamental assumption back then was that they were sovereign, and they needed these things stated in their constitutions so they'd be law in case things didn't work out on the federal level....

Pericles
09-01-2011, 01:35 PM
Interesting point. But why did state governments have Constitutions that also protected the RTKBA? As of 1792, 4 of the 13 states did not have RKBA at the state level - the notion kept coming up in discussions, so i did some research.

John of Des Moines
09-01-2011, 02:09 PM
To throw a monkey wrench into the argument that the BoR applies to the states I offer the following:


Preamble:

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.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

The BoR was meant to apply to the newly established federal government and not to the longer existing state governments.

erowe1
09-01-2011, 02:13 PM
To throw a monkey wrench into the argument that the BoR applies to the states I offer the following:



The BoR was meant to apply to the newly established federal government and not to the longer existing state governments.

Exactly. As Madison said in Federalist 45, the powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined, while those remaining with the states are numerous and indefinite. So a limitation that's expressly put on the federal government in the Constitution could not have been understood as a limitation put on the states.

Pericles
09-01-2011, 02:48 PM
To throw a monkey wrench into the argument that the BoR applies to the states I offer the following:



The BoR was meant to apply to the newly established federal government and not to the longer existing state governments.

It isn't a monkey wrench at all if you recall that much of the anti - federalist ire was directed at Article VI and the supremacy clause, which would take precedence over the state constitutions and laws.

Making the BoR restrictions the supreme law of the land was the solution, therefore there could be no doubt as to the restraints being in force and the language of the 10A would make no sense -

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

jmdrake
09-01-2011, 03:08 PM
Interesting point. But why did state governments have Constitutions that also protected the RTKBA?

Good question. I would say overkill is a good thing sometimes. ;) Let's take prohibition of alcohol. (I hate that example because it's something I disagree with). When the federal prohibition passed, jurisdictions that had local laws banning alcohol didn't automatically say "Let's repeal our law because of the federal amendment." Also look at how poorly the 2nd amendment is being followed at the federal level. Based on that its quite reasonable for a state to say "We want our own 2nd amendment that will offer protections that the SCOTUS says aren't covered."




Embarrassingly no. I haven't had enough time :(


Sorry. I wasn't trying to embarrass you. I haven't read the whole thing either. :o I read the first chapter because I was embroiled in a Ron Paul abortion debate. I recently read the chapter on evolution. I guess if everytime someone is talking about and issue they reference that book we'll all get it read. ;)



Hmmm.... fascinating...


I think you have just made my brain try to divide by zero

http://aznbadger.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/scannersexplodinghead.gif?w=200&h=161


Thanks for the intellectual challenge.

LOL @ the GIF. And you're welcome! While I razz you sometimes I appreciate your forum contributions.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
09-01-2011, 03:28 PM
So, I was in class the other day and supreme court cases, as well as hypothetical cases, were brought up in which freedom of religion was questioned. While others were trying to analyze how you would verify what "religion" is, I was trying to find a way to solve this without the federal government getting involved. The professor brought it to my attention that the first amendment must apply to states via the 14th amendment. Is this correct?

Furthermore, even if it were, should we ammend the Constitution so that the federal government is not involved? The hypothetical religion scenario is just too complicated to me to even consider getting the federal government involved, so I suggested ammending the Constitution in order to prevent this from being a federal issue so that people could choose which state's laws they would be willing to live with. Some people thought that some laws were too ridiculous to leave up to the states, so they thought the federal government should get involved. As ludicrous as that sounds, what do you make of this situation? Is the fourteenth amendment binding on all states, and by extension, the first amendment as well? If it is, should we change it?

In other news, I just got my Ron Paul gear from the last moneybomb! :D

It would be better to throw out The Constitution and just start over than to ammend it to death. The Supreme Court didn't start off determining what is or what is not constitutional. It slowly evolved to taking up that function. So, nothing is set in stone but the natural law declared by our Founding Fathers in The Declaration of Independence. The Constitution and The Declaration of Independence are mutually inclusive of each other. One without the other is no longer a benefit for the people, but a detriment. Legal Precedence works to make these two formal documents mutually exclusive.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
09-01-2011, 03:36 PM
Have you read the first Amendment? Congress shall write no law... Congress not writing a law doesn't change what state legislatures can or cannot do.

I've often wondered if the Queen of England has a throne. I assume the purpose for having a throne during ancient times was to have a place to pass judgment. This means the king once played the part of the Supreme Court. Similarly, Congress can do whatever it wants to do, meaning, concerning law, it is the real Supreme Court.
So, in order to keep from being redundant in its function and for it to operate in such a way that it aids the disadvantaged people against tyranny, what should the Supreme Court do with itself?

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
09-01-2011, 04:22 PM
The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution cannot be considered apart as they are mutually inclusive, meaning that the Civil Purpose of the people should always supersede the legal precedence of tyranny. In other words, the natural law declared by our Founding Fathers overrides every tradition in history, as well as every future event yet to occur. Natural law was the scientific method used during that time and it dealt only with the physical as the cognitive social-sciences had yet to be established.
You know, it is almost like a person has to meditate on this stuff as it is very simple.

CBC4L
09-01-2011, 10:22 PM
Back on topic to the original question: "The professor brought it to my attention that the first amendment must apply to states via the 14th amendment. Is this correct?"

Well yes and no. The 14th Amendment was created to allow people who were not state citizens (freed slaves, people born in Washington DC or other US territory ie anywhere that wasn't under the jurisdiction of a state) the ability to have the rights of a Republican form of government ie the ability to own property. (See Dred Scott v. Sandford and Bartemeyer v. Iowa) It created a new class of citizens. So yes, if you fall into the rare class of being a 14th Amendment citizen, then yes it does apply.

However; most people were born in one of the 50 states and are not legally a citizen (as stated in the 14th amendment), but have been misinterpreted as being one. So if New York wanted to establish a state religion, they could, but they could only enforce its rules on citizens of New York. The 1st Amendment is not a right. It is a restriction put on the Federal Government by the states.

As a couple of extra supporting aids:
Republic = Rule of Law, meaning you have a right to property. Since you are King of your property, you are born with rights, you can yield your rights, but no one can take them away. I'd recommend reading The Law by Frederic Bastiat

Citizenship, there are many different types: check out http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php

3rd. Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class on video.google.com it's about 8 hrs total, but well worth the watch.

AFPVet
09-01-2011, 10:49 PM
Yes, the 1A now applies to the sates because of the 14A. I tend to have a different view than many here, as I maintain that the other Amendments, 2 to 10 inclusive applied to the states via Article VI, while as clearly stated, the 1A applied to the federal government only when it was ratified.

The SCOTUS mistakenly took the language from the 1A when it ruled that the BoR did not apply to the states in 1833.

I strongly support the 14th's incorporation... otherwise, what's the whole point of the Constitution—other than to apply to the federal government?

Bordillo
09-01-2011, 10:56 PM
Back on topic to the original question: "The professor brought it to my attention that the first amendment must apply to states via the 14th amendment. Is this correct?"

Well yes and no. The 14th Amendment was created to allow people who were not state citizens (freed slaves, people born in Washington DC or other US territory ie anywhere that wasn't under the jurisdiction of a state) the ability to have the rights of a Republican form of government ie the ability to own property. (See Dred Scott v. Sandford and Bartemeyer v. Iowa) It created a new class of citizens. So yes, if you fall into the rare class of being a 14th Amendment citizen, then yes it does apply.

However; most people were born in one of the 50 states and are not legally a citizen (as stated in the 14th amendment), but have been misinterpreted as being one. So if New York wanted to establish a state religion, they could, but they could only enforce its rules on citizens of New York. The 1st Amendment is not a right. It is a restriction put on the Federal Government by the states.

As a couple of extra supporting aids:
Republic = Rule of Law, meaning you have a right to property. Since you are King of your property, you are born with rights, you can yield your rights, but no one can take them away. I'd recommend reading The Law by Frederic Bastiat

Citizenship, there are many different types: check out http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php

3rd. Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class on video.google.com it's about 8 hrs total, but well worth the watch.

I believe you're wrong, if New York wanted to bring back slavery, I'm pretty sure they couldn't say "only people of New York can be enslaved"

Pericles
09-01-2011, 11:02 PM
I believe you're wrong, if New York wanted to bring back slavery, I'm pretty sure they couldn't say "only people of New York can be enslaved"

You mean that you can't use the 10th Amendment to nullify the rest of the Constitution?;):D

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
09-02-2011, 03:38 PM
I strongly support the 14th's incorporation... otherwise, what's the whole point of the Constitution—other than to apply to the federal government?

All this confusion, a bottomless pit of legal debate, is a result of lawyers treating The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution as mutually exclusive. In other words, a decision was enforced rejecting the two formal documents being mutual inclusive to each other based on the ability of a few to abuse the majority into submission.

Napoleon's Shadow
09-03-2011, 10:23 AM
Back on topic to the original question: "The professor brought it to my attention that the first amendment must apply to states via the 14th amendment. Is this correct?"

Well yes and no. The 14th Amendment was created to allow people who were not state citizens (freed slaves, people born in Washington DC or other US territory ie anywhere that wasn't under the jurisdiction of a state) the ability to have the rights of a Republican form of government ie the ability to own property. (See Dred Scott v. Sandford and Bartemeyer v. Iowa) It created a new class of citizens. So yes, if you fall into the rare class of being a 14th Amendment citizen, then yes it does apply.

However; most people were born in one of the 50 states and are not legally a citizen (as stated in the 14th amendment), but have been misinterpreted as being one. So if New York wanted to establish a state religion, they could, but they could only enforce its rules on citizens of New York. The 1st Amendment is not a right. It is a restriction put on the Federal Government by the states.

As a couple of extra supporting aids:
Republic = Rule of Law, meaning you have a right to property. Since you are King of your property, you are born with rights, you can yield your rights, but no one can take them away. I'd recommend reading The Law by Frederic Bastiat

Citizenship, there are many different types: check out http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php

3rd. Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class on video.google.com it's about 8 hrs total, but well worth the watch.Well the 14th Amendment creates dual citizenship (assuming it were actually ratified); federal citizenship and state citizenship.

sorianofan
09-03-2011, 11:05 AM
The 1st amendment applies only to congress until the 14th amendment.

erowe1
09-03-2011, 11:06 AM
All this confusion, a bottomless pit of legal debate, is a result of lawyers treating The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution as mutually exclusive. In other words, a decision was enforced rejecting the two formal documents being mutual inclusive to each other based on the ability of a few to abuse the majority into submission.

That happened when the Constitution was ratified.

pcosmar
09-03-2011, 12:10 PM
What about the 5th amendment or the 4th. or the third for that matter.
Can the state police be quartered in your home?

Every state accepted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights upon entry in the Union. It's protections apply to all citizens as the supreme law of the land.

PaulConventionWV
09-03-2011, 03:17 PM
I strongly support the 14th's incorporation... otherwise, what's the whole point of the Constitution—other than to apply to the federal government?

I believe that's exactly the point.

axiomata
09-03-2011, 05:00 PM
Seems pretty straightforward to me. Prior to the 14th Amendment the 1st and other explicitly guaranteed rights were protected against violation by the federal government. States could and did violate them. After the 14th Amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It seems obvious that the 1st Amendment should be considered a privilege of citizens of the United States and therefore after the 14th Amendment the 1st was incorporated to the states.

erowe1
09-03-2011, 05:25 PM
Seems pretty straightforward to me. Prior to the 14th Amendment the 1st and other explicitly guaranteed rights were protected against violation by the federal government. States could and did violate them. After the 14th Amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It seems obvious that the 1st Amendment should be considered a privilege of citizens of the United States and therefore after the 14th Amendment the 1st was incorporated to the states.

Is that true of the 10th also? The only powers states could constitutionally exercise after the passage of the 14th amendment are those that are explicitly enumerated for the federal government in the Constitution?

That can't be right.

CBC4L
09-03-2011, 09:15 PM
Define the following per Black's Law at the time the 14th Amendment was written:

"privileges or immunities"
"citizens of the United States"
"person"

The 1st Amendment was a restriction on the Federal government. There is no such thing as privileges or immunities. The BOR doesn't grant anything, it just restricts. The Constitution grants a Republican form of government which means anyone can own property.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
09-08-2011, 09:16 AM
I don't even know what that means. The first amendment limits the federal government, by prohibiting it from doing anything about what the states do with regard to religion. There's no such thing as a state abridging 1st amendment rights.

The letter of the law can be interpreted in any fashion a tyrant or a tyranny deems fit. That is why our Founding Fathers reduced the problem down to a natural law which was the scientific method used during their time. The truths our Founders spoke about were both self-evident and unalienable meaning the king couldn't deny the conclusion as nonsense either symbolically in its reduced down meaning or linquistically in its wording. The logic was sound while the wording was written in such a way that someone couldn't claim to misconstrue, misinterpret, or misunderstand it.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
09-08-2011, 09:29 AM
At best, the law is nonsense. The problem with science is how, as an endeavor, it becomes a servant to the irrational ways of the law.
The Kennedy assassination is the perfect example of this problem. Eight doctors got a good look at the presidents wounds under the glare of very bright lighting. They were emergency room doctors trained in how to diagnose injuries. Later, unqualified pathologists in ferensics were picked to do the president's autopsy. At the same time, poor quality photos were taken of the president's wounds.
Where did the law go with this evidence? Well, in the end, it chose the irrational way over the rational by discarding the most expert opinions of the qualified scientists.
This is the best tyranny will ever work.
Think about it this way. The Washingtonian lawyers ruling over our nation are no better than the Mexican City lawyers ruling over Mexico. There is not one bit of difference in them whether one is talking about education or the ability to improve the lives of their citizens. If there is something different about the United States, it is something we inherited from our Founding Fathers and has to do with something outside of the law, and the so-called "liberty" lawyers like to speak about to whip people into a foaming at the mouth frenzy.
The only way tyranny can work is to shrink it down to its most harmless yet functional ability.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
09-08-2011, 10:45 AM
Define the following per Black's Law at the time the 14th Amendment was written:

"privileges or immunities"
"citizens of the United States"
"person"

The 1st Amendment was a restriction on the Federal government. There is no such thing as privileges or immunities. The BOR doesn't grant anything, it just restricts. The Constitution grants a Republican form of government which means anyone can own property.
Where is an argument supporting the quality of the lawyers ruling over our nation over those ruling over Mexico?
Am I in a forum of lawyers? I read all this legal mumbo jumbo, yet, no one is willing to discuss the point made about how the irrationality of law rules over the rationality of science?
See, this is why we should be artistic in our "being" while at the same time scientific in our "becoming."
Most out there would probably agree with me until they realized such definition would cut into the values society would place on their importance or into the amount of money their functioning would earn them.
*As it was discussed by the ancient philosophers in Greece, "being" denotes something concrete in structure while "becoming" denotes the dynamic change or motion of the structure. So we should be artistic in our being and scientific in our becoming. This should become the American way to differentiate us from the old Europeans, Africans, Latin Americans, Asians, and basically every primitive culture that exists outside of the borders of the United States.