• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill

coloniestimeline.jpg
Taylor said:
I believe it was legal up until 1947 - when the Establishment Clause was incorporated against the states. The last state to have an established religion was Massachusetts, and all made the decision on their own to "disestablish" decades before the 14th amendment was passed... North Carolina disestablished in 1776. They did have a law that made it illegal for anyone other than a Christian to serve in office up until 1875. They still have a law that forbids atheists from serving, but I doubt it's been tested.
Click to expand...


By the year 1702 all 13 American colonies had some form of state-supported religion. This support varied from tax benefits to religious requirements for voting or serving in the legislature. Below are excerpts from colonial era founding documents citing these religious references.
Most instances of state-supported religion were removed before 1850, and the remaining requirements became null and void after the passing of the 14th Amendment on July 28, 1868. New Hampshire and North Carolina removed the nullified religious references from their state constitutions in 1875 and 1877 respectively.

I. Time Between Original Colonial Charter and End of State-Supported Religion


coloniestimeline.jpg
 
ernst barkmann said:
i am not aiming anything at you personally, so please dont take it that way.

but why is it i see people posting things that are federal law, and put it forth as it overrides constitutional law, or say something is unconstitutional, when the Constitution does not mention it.
Click to expand...

Because the Supreme Court determines what is and is not constitutional and is the Supreme Court in the land overriding any state.
 
Wiseone said:
Because the Supreme Court determines what is and is not constitutional and is the Supreme Court in the land overriding any state.
Click to expand...

many many times, i have federal law being posted , stating ....this is the law.....but i see it as no duty of congress, or nothing in the constitution that pertains to it.

the USSC cannot challenge the constitutionality of the constitution, in other words the court saying something to the effect, we have determined, that there is no due process of law.......because that would challenge supreme law.

the USSC cannot rewrite the constitution, ...but that is what they have been doing.
 
ernst barkmann said:
many many times, i have federal law being posted , stating ....this is the law.....but i see it as no duty of congress, or nothing in the constitution that pertains to it.

the USSC cannot challenge the constitutionality of the constitution, in other words the court saying something to the effect, we have determined, that there is no due process of law.......because that would challenge supreme law.

the USSC cannot rewrite the constitution, ...but that is what they have been doing.
Click to expand...

No they can't rewrite it, but they do determine what it means. A subtle and clever difference, but someone or some group has to determine what it means.
 
Perotista said:
By the year 1702 all 13 American colonies had some form of state-supported religion. This support varied from tax benefits to religious requirements for voting or serving in the legislature. Below are excerpts from colonial era founding documents citing these religious references.
Most instances of state-supported religion were removed before 1850, and the remaining requirements became null and void after the passing of the 14th Amendment on July 28, 1868. New Hampshire and North Carolina removed the nullified religious references from their state constitutions in 1875 and 1877 respectively.
Click to expand...
Again, if you're going to define "state-supported religion" so broadly, there were (legal) instances well into the 20th century. In terms of an establishedstate religion (e.g. the official religion of such an such a state is the Anglican church) - the States abolished that practice well ahead of the 14th amendment.

The 14th amendment did not have an immediate impact on "state-supported religion" so it is incorrect to say that it effectively "became null and void after the passing of the 14th Amendment on July 28, 1868" - unless you're talking like 80 years after the passing of the 14th Amendment.
 
Wiseone said:
No they can't rewrite it, but they do determine what it means. A subtle and clever difference, but someone or some group has to determine what it means.
Click to expand...

i will never understand how a 5 page document, which sets up the government , and delegates to them 18 duties only, and instructs them not to infringe on the rights of the people and the power of states, can be so hard.

in the first amendment...it clearly states" congress shall make no law"...........the constitution was never written for the states or the people to instruct them in any way.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the constitution was never written for the states or the people to instruct them in any way.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you'd probably agree with a lot of what Thomas Jefferson had to say on the matter when the SCOTUS first granted themselves the power to interpret the Constitution:

"You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
 
ernst barkmann said:
i will never understand how a 5 page document, which sets up the government , and delegates to them 18 duties only, and instructs them not to infringe on the rights of the people and the power of states, can be so hard.

in the first amendment...it clearly states" congress shall make no law"...........the constitution was never written for the states or the people to instruct them in any way.
Click to expand...

All law requires a body that is the ultimate decider of what it means, its a simple fact that comes with implementing it. And if you think think Constitution is simple to understand think again, many of its most important parts are vague and without a court to determine exactly what they mean they would be meaningless for their vagueness. Look at the 4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

By itself its meaningless, it doesn't define what an unreasonable search or seizures are, it doesn't define "effects" it doesn't define violated, it doesn't define warrant, it doesn't define probable cause, it doesn't define Oath or affirmation, it doesn't define how "particularly describing" a warrant must be about the things or persons to be searched or seized. But the reason we know that a police officer's "hunch" doesn't not constitute probable cause to stop and search you on the street is because the issue has come before the court and its been defined. Likewise all of these things have been defined either by Congress (things like the oaths of office) or by the Courts, either the Supreme or Lower courts.

The law cannot function without a court system, and through its very nature of making rulings a court system will naturally begin to define the law. When a court rules 10 out of 10 ten times that a police officer's hunch isn't probable cause to search someone, they are in essence telling us what the Constitution means even though the Constitution says nothing about police officer's hunches.
 
Taylor said:
I'm sure you'd probably agree with a lot of what Thomas Jefferson had to say on the matter when the SCOTUS first granted themselves the power to interpret the Constitution:

"You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
Click to expand...

the USSC has taken on themselves to be the authority of everything, even things which are not in the constitution at all.

when the court first ruled on the BILL of RIGHTS, they stated clearly, that they in no way pertained to the states, ..only the federal government...in 1833
 
Taylor said:
I'm sure you'd probably agree with a lot of what Thomas Jefferson had to say on the matter when the SCOTUS first granted themselves the power to interpret the Constitution:

"You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
Click to expand...

Consider the eloquence and earnest intention of those remarks, and compare it to what we hear from the collection of know-nothings that preside over our well-being today.
 
Taylor said:
I'm sure you'd probably agree with a lot of what Thomas Jefferson had to say on the matter when the SCOTUS first granted themselves the power to interpret the Constitution:

"You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
Click to expand...

ernst barkmann said:
the USSC has taken on themselves to be the authority of everything, even things which are not in the constitution at all.

when the court first ruled on the BILL of RIGHTS, they stated clearly, that they in no way pertained to the states, ..only the federal government...in 1833
Click to expand...

Erod said:
Consider the eloquence and earnest intention of those remarks, and compare it to what we hear from the collection of know-nothings that preside over our well-being today.
Click to expand...

Alexander Hamilton had this to say about it

[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental....

[A]ccordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the Judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former....

[T]he courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments
Click to expand...
 
Wiseone said:
All law requires a body that is the ultimate decider of what it means, its a simple fact that comes with implementing it. And if you think think Constitution is simple to understand think again, many of its most important parts are vague and without a court to determine exactly what they mean they would be meaningless for their vagueness. Look at the 4th amendment:
Click to expand...

it you look at the proposals of the constitutional convention, they are written in a more elegant style, when Gouverneur Morris penned them, it was written in an easy to read fashion aimed squarely at the federal government.

it is only those who believe the constitution to be hard, ..that is the problem.

question?....why do we have constitutions of states BOR when they are generally disregarded and the federal one has taken their place.
 
Wiseone said:
Alexander Hamilton had this to say about it
Click to expand...
Alexander Hamilton was also an ardent Federalist who believed in rule by an elite aristocracy.
 
Taylor said:
Really? Go to Indiana on a Sunday and try to buy some liquor.
Click to expand...

Just because unjust laws exist does not mean that we throw open the flood gates. Instead we should be seeking the repeal of these sorts of laws, not their proliferation.
 
ernst barkmann said:
it you look at the proposals of the constitutional convention, they are written in a more elegant style, when Gouverneur Morris penned them, it was written in an easy to read fashion aimed squarely at the federal government.

it is only those who believe the constitution to be hard, ..that is the problem.

question?....why do we have constitutions of states BOR when they are generally disregarded and the federal one has taken their place.
Click to expand...

Because a state has need to define how its government will function like any other government and if they want to include rights of citizens that's their choice, but just because they exist doesn't mean they override the Federal Constitution. The Constitution is a hard document to read and to know exactly what it means, the Supreme Court says busy for a reason, I provided an exactly of the 4th amendment and why for that amendment to mean anything you need a court to rule on it.


Taylor said:
Alexander Hamilton was also an ardent Federalist who believed in rule by an elite aristocracy.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying the founding fathers had different opinions on the matter, personally I like Hamilton's because its a much more piratical perspective. Thomas Jefferson may sound nice but to implement what he's proposing wouldn't be practical and wouldn't turn out well.

All law requires a ruling body to determine when and how it has been violated, the Constitution is law and describes itself as such when it says its the Supreme Law of the Land, and therefore the Constitution like all other laws falls under the purview of the courts and the courts have their own hierarchy that ends at the SCOTUS. If there was no court that could say when the Constitution had been violated it would be a worthless document.
 
Ikari said:
Just because unjust laws exist does not mean that we throw open the flood gates. Instead we should be seeking the repeal of these sorts of laws, not their proliferation.
Click to expand...
I'm not advocating their proliferation, merely pointing out that it is legal to pass laws based on "religious doctrine alone" - but where needed, it's quite easy to come up with some sort of secular rationalization to help make the case - things like "respecting tradition" or "acknowledging the history of our nation" etc.
 
Taylor said:
Alexander Hamilton was also an ardent Federalist who believed in rule by an elite aristocracy.
Click to expand...

actually the senate created under the founders is an (aristocracy), but it was not in the sense of people being royal, but in the sense of people having some political experience before assuming a senate seat.

as the founders state our government is mixed government, it is republican government , its democracy in the house, aristocracy in the senate, and a monarchy for the presidency.

each equal in power, and each watching each other so that one does not become to powerful.
 
Just another day in the life of the radical right-wing evangelicals that are attempting to push their perverted brand of Christianity into every segment of government and society.
 
What exactly does declaring an official state religion mean?

The state vegetable is the sweet potato. So? As far as I know you can eat sweet potatoes in North Carolina.

What would a state religion mean? Besides a whole bunch of nothing.
 
Wiseone said:
Because a state has need to define how its government will function like any other government and if they want to include rights of citizens that's their choice, but just because they exist doesn't mean they override the Federal Constitution. The Constitution is a hard document to read and to know exactly what it means, the Supreme Court says busy for a reason, I provided an exactly of the 4th amendment and why for that amendment to mean anything you need a court to rule on it.
Click to expand...

well i stated BOR, not its operating constitution, governments dont, grant, include, dispense rights at all, they exist only to affirm what is self evident.

the court stays busy, because the federal government is far outside the constitution, and doing things never intended for them to do, that is why they are so busy.

Wiseone said:
All law requires a ruling body to determine when and how it has been violated, the Constitution is law and describes itself as such when it says its the Supreme Law of the Land, and therefore the Constitution like all other laws falls under the purview of the courts and the courts have their own hierarchy that ends at the SCOTUS. If there was no court that could say when the Constitution had been violated it would be a worthless document.
Click to expand...

the constitution of the founders gave no authority to the federal government over the people or the states, its directly only at them, people have rights under their state constitution which mimics with the federal one, and if rights are violated, the person takes it to the courts of a state, if justice cannot be had because of the bias of a state which is also trying the case, then you can see justice in a federal court.

one thing to remember, a constitution is written for governments... not the people, ...people cannot violate the u.s. constitution...its not possible......any action a person would take would be criminal law
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
This isn't in contradiction to the Constitution. As much as I would oppose such a measure (it's bad for religion), it is within the State Powers to declare a State Church. At the time of the Signing of the Constitution, for example, several states had their own respective state churches, and kept them for years.
Click to expand...

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the article said:
The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments, by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
 
Taylor said:
I'm not advocating their proliferation, merely pointing out that it is legal to pass laws based on "religious doctrine alone" - but where needed, it's quite easy to come up with some sort of secular rationalization to help make the case - things like "respecting tradition" or "acknowledging the history of our nation" etc.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that they can't pass these laws, merely that these laws are unjust.
 
Wiseone said:
I'm just saying the founding fathers had different opinions on the matter, personally I like Hamilton's because its a much more piratical perspective. Thomas Jefferson may sound nice but to implement what he's proposing wouldn't be practical and wouldn't turn out well.
Click to expand...
Scholars have had conflicting views on the matter since Marbury vs. Madison. Although the overwhelming majority supports the idea of judicial review, I think that saying a view to the contrary is "just flat out wrong and clearly unconstitutional" goes a bit too far. Although it's highly unlikely that something like Marbury vs. Madison would be significantly altered (much less overturned) - it's important to understand that judicial review is not an explicit power granted by the Constitution.

And, when you really think about it, this power that the Supreme Court has granted itself continues only because the executive branch allows it to continue. They are the only one to enforce the law, and it's not that difficult to argue against a decision that essentially says "we have interpreted the Constitution to say that we are the ones who interpret what the Constitution says."

Wiseone said:
If there was no court that could say when the Constitution had been violated it would be a worthless document.
Click to expand...
That's not what's being argued - the alternative would be that the courts in each State would decide for themselves - i.e. a much more democratic form of governance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom