North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill

Wiseone · Apr 3, 2013

ernst barkmann said:
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.

the constitution of the founders gave no authority to the federal government over the people or the states, its directly only at them, people are supposed to 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

I'm not really sure what you're getting at, but back to the original topic. North Carolina has no right to establish a state religion, regardless of what its own laws or state Constitution says, its been ruled that way in Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court has every legal authority to determine what the Constitution means.

And the Constitution does give the Federal government authority over the people and the states, that's the very purpose of government to begin with. Just read the Supremacy Clause

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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

It quite clearly says the Laws of the United States are the Supreme Law of the land, that means that when a state and Federal law is in conflict the Federal law wins, every time, all the time, unless the court rules that the Federal law in question violates the Constitution in some way.

Let me ask you, without the courts to rule on the Constitution who would determine when it was violated? Or if as an individual if I thought my constitutional rights had been violated what recourse would I have if I couldnt go to a court?

samsmart · Apr 3, 2013

ReformCollege said:
Let's make Buddhism the national religion

I think we should all abide by the Necronomicon.

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

CTHULHU FHTAGN!

Taylor · Apr 3, 2013

Ikari said:
I'm not saying that they can't pass these laws, merely that these laws are unjust.

To me it's a bit potato-potahto - why should secular laws be any more just? It matters not where the law came from, it only matters whether or not the law makes sense. Are laws that come from "religious doctrine" inherently more dangerous than those that come from liberal doctrine, conservative doctrine, fascist doctrine, libertarian doctrine, socialist doctrine...

Not being able to buy beer on Sundays annoys me far less than the 30-40% of my income I give away to support all sorts of social doctrine that I think is utterly idiotic.

Wiseone · Apr 3, 2013

Taylor said:
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."

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.

Personally I think its quite clearly granted in the Constitution, but I agree its not spelled out word for word, and not only is it granted but it would be impractical for the system of laws in this country to work without a supreme body of some kind.

Your idea of each state determining what is and is not constitutional for example wouldn't work at all, it would leave the Federal Government with no authority of its own and thus no ability to keep the country together. How could a country exist when the states would determine which Federal Laws to follow and which to not follow? It would be like a society where individuals could decide which laws to follow and which to not follow. A powerless Federal Government was attempted under the Articles of Confederation and it failed. And it failed because it couldn't even fund itself through taxes, the states each individually had to decided if they wanted to give money to support the government and as a result the government could hardly function because unsurprisingly most states and their legislators didn't want to pay taxes. Did each state have more authority? Yes. Did the system as a whole work? No.

And you would remove the ability of the Supreme Court to have made some of the greatest examples of civil rights achievements in this country's history, things from desegregation to allow inter racial marriages would not exist for everyone equally in this country if it weren't for the ability of the SCOTUS to force the states into line with the Federal Government.

Master PO · Apr 3, 2013

Wiseone said:
I'm not really sure what you're getting at, but back to the original topic. North Carolina has no right to establish a state religion, regardless of what its own laws or state Constitution says, its been ruled that way in Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court has every legal authority to determine what the Constitution means.

And the Constitution does give the Federal government authority over the people and the states, that's the very purpose of government to begin with. Just read the Supremacy Clause

your not reading my statements thoroughly enough, the founders never gave the federal government ANY authority over the people or the states, the purpose of the government is to fulfill it 18 duties, and secure the rights of the people only. the supremacy clause is were there is a conflict of law, meaning if the state and the federal laws collide then the federal one is supreme, its grants no added authority to government.

Wiseone said:
Let me ask you, without the courts to rule on the Constitution who would determine when it was violated? Or if as an individual if I thought my constitutional rights had been violated what recourse would I have if I couldnt go to a court?

the USSC is to make it decisions based on what the words of the constitution says, and its says "congress shall make no law concerning religion"...a state is not congress, that is self evident.

if your rights are violated then it has to be by a government, a person or business, cannot violate RIGHTS...BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE CRIMINAL LAW.....by a state violation, you would go through the state court system, if you believe you not getting justice, because you fighting the state in the case, and the state is also trying the case, ...you can take it to federal ,so their is no bias in the case..........the founders state it wrong for an arbitrator to try his own case...

you dont have constitutional rights, the constitution does not grant the people any rights, they just affirm the natural rights you have, which are self- evident......thus rights are not granted by the constitution...they are just again affirmed, the BOR cannot be repealed ...as stated by the founders, and rights are unalienable.

this is why people get confused, the some think government grants rights, and some think the constitution grants rights, and both are wrong.........the founders just stated people have these rights which are theirs by birth, and government do not infringe on them.

Ikari · Apr 3, 2013

Taylor said:
To me it's a bit potato-potahto - why should secular laws be any more just?

Just laws are based upon the rights and liberties of the individual.

Taylor · Apr 3, 2013

Wiseone said:
Personally I think its quite clearly granted in the Constitution, but I agree its not spelled out word for word, and not only is it granted but it would be impractical for the system of laws in this country to work without a supreme body of some kind.

Pretty much everyone agrees it's an inferred power. Some see more evidence for it than others. It is not an explicit power, it's a power the court granted to themselves.

It would be like a society where individuals could decide which laws to follow and which to not follow. A powerless Federal Government was attempted under the Articles of Confederation and it failed. And it failed because it couldn't even fund itself through taxes, the states each individually had to decided if they wanted to give money to support the government and as a result the government could hardly function because unsurprisingly most states and their legislators didn't want to pay taxes. Did each state have more authority? Yes. Did the system as a whole work? No.

That was a government without an executive - completely different. And, you have already mentioned the Supremacy clause, which was not in existence under the Articles of Confederation.

And you would remove the ability of the Supreme Court to have made some of the greatest examples of civil rights achievements in this country's history, things from desegregation to allow inter racial marriages would not exist for everyone equally in this country if it weren't for the ability of the SCOTUS to force the states into line with the Federal Government.

At the same time it would have removed the ability of the Supreme Court to have made some of the worst examples of civil rights achievements in this country's history -

Dred Scott: Where Blacks were deemed "an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race [with] no rights that the white man was bound to respect...The Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his own benefit."

Also...
Plessy v. Ferguson: Jim Crow laws may treat people differently, but that's what makes it all equal!
Korematsu v. United States: Yes, concentration camps are a great idea!
Buck v. Bell: Sterilize those idiots, "three generations of imbeciles are enough!"
etc.

Again, Thomas Jefferson:
"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"

Taylor · Apr 3, 2013

Ikari said:
Just laws are based upon the rights and liberties of the individual.

Again, I don't see how taking my money to fund research on fly poop or to pay for healthcare of middle-class children are any more "based on the rights and liberties of the individual" than laws that prohibit me from buying beer on Sunday.

Ikari · Apr 3, 2013

Taylor said:
Again, I don't see how taking my money to fund research on fly poop or to pay for healthcare of middle-class children are any more "based on the rights and liberties of the individual" than laws that prohibit me from buying beer on Sunday.

I'm not arguing that they are, I am merely telling you the condition of just law.

Wiseone · Apr 3, 2013

Taylor said:
Pretty much everyone agrees it's an inferred power. Some see more evidence for it than others. It is not an explicit power, it's a power the court granted to themselves.

That was a government without an executive - completely different. And, you have already mentioned the Supremacy clause, which was not in existence under the Articles of Confederation.

At the same time it would have removed the ability of the Supreme Court to have made some of the worst examples of civil rights achievements in this country's history -

Dred Scott: Where Blacks were deemed "an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race [with] no rights that the white man was bound to respect...The Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his own benefit."

Also...
Plessy v. Ferguson: Jim Crow laws may treat people differently, but that's what makes it all equal!
Korematsu v. United States: Yes, concentration camps are a great idea!
Buck v. Bell: Sterilize those idiots, "three generations of imbeciles are enough!"
etc.

Again, Thomas Jefferson:
"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"

Its true the SCOTUS has held up some pretty dreadful stuff in the past, but I think on the whole its been a greater force for good than evil. Even when it has upheld bad things its been at the insistence of only some not all of the states, Plessy v. Ferguson for example. And had the SCOTUS not existed the laws would have been upheld by default since it was the state deciding for itself with no SCOTUS, so really it wouldn't have changed anything at all. But with the Supreme Court they've been able to over turn many of these things which would have lasted who knows how long without the SCOTUS present.

Could you imagine if in 2013 a black man being segregated when he traveled to Alabama but being a perfectly equal citizen when he went to New York or California? How could our country function as an indivisible body when the rights of citizens change from one state border to another state border?

Somerville · Apr 3, 2013

for the edification of the readers here the origins of the nonsensical bill offered up in the North Carolina legislature

Rowan Co. Commissioners pray before meeting despite ACLU letter | www.wsoctv.com
SALISBURY, N.C. —

In what the American Civil Liberties Union will likely perceive as an act of defiance, the Rowan County Board of Commissioners began its Monday night meeting with a prayer.

The Commission had received notice from the ACLU to discontinue prayer at meetings in light of a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that prayer at Forsyth County, NC, meetings was unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of that ruling.

ACLU files suit against Rowan Co. for prayer at county meetings | www.wsoctv.com
ROWAN COUNTY, N.C. —

The ACLU and three plaintiffs filed a lawsuit Tuesday calling for an injunction stopping Rowan County Commissioners from praying before meetings.

The ACLU says those prayers violate constitutional rights and make some citizens feel unwelcome.

"It's a very clear First Amendment issue," said Mike Meno, the communications director for the ACLU of North Carolina.

Rowan Co. fight over prayer heads to state capitol | www.wsoctv.com
ROWAN COUNTY, N.C. —

Rowan County's fight over prayer is now heading to the state capitol.

Two Rowan County representatives filed the Defense of Religion Act, which allows city and town councils to determine if religion is allowed in meetings without interference from courts.

from the local newspaper in Rowan County

Lawmakers file Rowan County Defense of Religion Act | Salisbury Post
RALEIGH — Local lawmakers are asking the N.C. General Assembly to proclaim the Rowan County Defense of Religion Act of 2013, a resolution that would back county commissioners’ use of sectarian prayer in official meetings.

But the intent of the resolution and the possible ramifications thereof have led to heated remarks on both sides as lawmakers and legal experts grapple with First Amendment interpretations.

and here we have the reasoning behind a filing in the legislature that even the originators understand they have no legal basis for their actions. It's all being done for political reasons

Warren said the proclamation focused on a “literal interpretation” of the First Amendment and was meant to show support for commissioners, not to assert a need for local sovereignty.

“This is, on my part, more of a demonstration of support more than an effort to have the courts revisit everything,” Warren said.

The second-term representative said the separation of church and state “has been liberally defined and interpreted” and the resolution intended to support a more conservative understanding.

But Warren admitted he didn’t expect the bill to go far.

“I didn’t expect it to go anywhere,” he said, noting that the bill was read into the floor Tuesday morning and referred to the committee for Rules, Calendar and Operations of the House. “Quite often bills go there and never come out.”

a bit more from some liberal academic type

Warren and Ford. “They’re throwing the gauntlet down. How much this is going to be binding — it’s a joint resolution — but they’re basically making it known where they’re drawing the line. This will play well within the base, but it calls into question any historical understanding of the past 200-plus years of legal precedents for both understanding the role of religion in the public sphere and the role of states to the federal government.”

Onward my hearties!

Taylor · Apr 3, 2013

Wiseone said:
Could you imagine if in 2013 a black man being segregated when he traveled to Alabama but being a perfectly equal citizen when he went to New York or California? How could our country function as an indivisible body when the rights of citizens change from one state border to another state border?

You're not going to get me to defend segregation in any way

but I will point out that our rights do change quite a bit from border to border, just not as much as they might otherwise.

Wiseone · Apr 3, 2013

Taylor said:
You're not going to get me to defend segregation in any way but I will point out that our rights do change quite a bit from border to border, just not as much as they might otherwise.

I think they would change too much for this country to function without the SCOTUS to enforce a standard, and really that's what we need, that's what all law needs. Regardless of whether the SCOTUS makes good or bad decisions we can't have radical changes in people's individual rights or in the laws that govern them as they cross state borders, that kind of inconsistency won't allow for a stable nation.

Taylor · Apr 3, 2013

Wiseone said:
I think they would change too much for this country to function without the SCOTUS to enforce a standard, and really that's what we need, that's what all law needs. Regardless of whether the SCOTUS makes good or bad decisions we can't have radical changes in people's individual rights or in the laws that govern them as they cross state borders, that kind of inconsistency won't allow for a stable nation.

Yeah, I think that ship has sailed and don't expect any major change - but could however see the Executive branch deciding to make an exception under extreme circumstances.

cpwill · Apr 3, 2013

Deuce said:
In your opinion, what does the first amendment prohibit?

:shrug: it's not "in my opinion" it's "in the opinion of the people who wrote it"; and what it prohibits is the federal government establishing a religion, with all the religious tests etc. that accrue to such a measure.

That is why, for example, when Thomas Jefferson wanted Virginia to not have a state church, he had to write it into Virginia's Constitution. Because the Federal Constitution did not cover Virginia in this matter, the States have Police Powers.

cpwill · Apr 3, 2013

samsmart said:
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh I'm aware of that. I just am also aware that the doctrine of judicial supremacy is dangerous, crap, and that using the 14th Amendment to Amend other portions of the Constitution that one does not like is also dangerous, and crap.

Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and South Carolina all had state Churches at the signing of the Constitution. I rather suspect that the Founders understood the limits of their own intent.

Master PO · Apr 3, 2013

cpwill said:
Oh I'm aware of that. I just am also aware that the doctrine of judicial supremacy is dangerous, crap, and that using the 14th Amendment to Amend other portions of the Constitution that one does not like is also dangerous, and crap.

one thing people think is the 14th gives them civil rights, but it gives them no such thing, its gives them civil privileges only, because government cannot create rights, and the 14th can be repealed at any time.

Bonzai · Apr 3, 2013

cpwill said:
Oh I'm aware of that. I just am also aware that the doctrine of judicial supremacy is dangerous, crap, and that using the 14th Amendment to Amend other portions of the Constitution that one does not like is also dangerous, and crap.

Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and South Carolina all had state Churches at the signing of the Constitution. I rather suspect that the Founders understood the limits of their own intent.

In the case of at least the New England states, wasn't that because they had been founded as religious colonies ?.................

samsmart · Apr 3, 2013

cpwill said:
Oh I'm aware of that. I just am also aware that the doctrine of judicial supremacy is dangerous, crap, and that using the 14th Amendment to Amend other portions of the Constitution that one does not like is also dangerous, and crap.

Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and South Carolina all had state Churches at the signing of the Constitution. I rather suspect that the Founders understood the limits of their own intent.

The Founders also allowed slavery to continue and did not guarantee women's right to vote, thus proving that their intents are far from infallible.

Wiseone · Apr 3, 2013

cpwill said:
Oh I'm aware of that. I just am also aware that the doctrine of judicial supremacy is dangerous, crap, and that using the 14th Amendment to Amend other portions of the Constitution that one does not like is also dangerous, and crap.

Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and South Carolina all had state Churches at the signing of the Constitution. I rather suspect that the Founders understood the limits of their own intent.

The founders also understood the Constitution could change, and it has changed. You can't really talk about the intent of the founders and the 14th amendment at the same time.

cpwill · Apr 3, 2013

samsmart said:
The Founders also allowed slavery to continue and did not guarantee women's right to vote, thus proving that their intents are far from infallible.

:shrug: no doubt. I'm not really sure how you could say "allowing slavery to continue" indicates fallibility, as I am unaware of a path by which they could have put slavery on a path to be reduced and removed other than that which they chose, that would have allowed the nation to stay together. But that is perhaps a debate for the history forum.

Regardless, the human nature of the founders is immaterial when applying the Constitution, just as your human nature is immaterial when the bank argues that, yes, in fact, you do owe them the money you borrowed in order to buy a car.

cpwill · Apr 3, 2013

Wiseone said:
The founders also understood the Constitution could change, and it has changed.

That's correct. They set up the Amendment Process.

You can't really talk about the intent of the founders and the 14th amendment at the same time.

On the contrary - as the 14th Amendment did not alter the First, when we apply the first we apply it in the context of the latest Constitutional Revision of that article. For applying the 14th Amendment, the relevant intent is of those who authored and voted in that Amendment.

Wiseone · Apr 3, 2013

cpwill said:
That's correct. They set up the Amendment Process.

On the contrary - as the 14th Amendment did not alter the First, when we apply the first we apply it in the context of the latest Constitutional Revision of that article. For applying the 14th Amendment, the relevant intent is of those who authored and voted in that Amendment.

Well I understand that is your opinion and that you don't respect the concept of judicial review as its been applied by the SCOTUS, and I know that you both understand the way things work and how that's different from how you want them to work, unlike some other folks around here. So I guess... we'll just have to disagree on the subject.

samsmart · Apr 3, 2013

cpwill said:
:shrug: no doubt. I'm not really sure how you could say "allowing slavery to continue" indicates infallibility, as I am unaware of a path by which they could have put slavery on a path to be reduced and removed other than that which they chose, that would have allowed the nation to stay together. But that is perhaps a debate for the history forum.

Regardless, the human nature of the founders is immaterial when applying the Constitution, just as your human nature is immaterial when the bank argues that, yes, in fact, you do owe them the money you borrowed in order to buy a car.

It is quite material when pointing out how flawed the Constitution really is as a document. Applying the 14th Amendment to the whole rest of the Constitution is an adequate work around to deal with a number of those flaws.

cpwill · Apr 3, 2013

samsmart said:
It is quite material when pointing out how flawed the Constitution really is as a document.

:shrug: which might be an interesting historical debate, but is immaterial when discussing whether or how it shall be applied.

Applying the 14th Amendment to the whole rest of the Constitution is an adequate work around to deal with a number of those flaws.

That is incorrect for two reasons:

1. You are just as fallible (very likely more so) than they
2. It is illegal. It is a return from Rule of Law to Rule of Man, with all the tyrannies that accompany.

North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill

Wiseone

samsmart

Taylor

Wiseone

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate

Ikari

Taylor

Taylor

Ikari

Wiseone

Somerville

Taylor

Wiseone

Taylor

cpwill

cpwill

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate

Bonzai

samsmart

Wiseone

cpwill

cpwill

Wiseone

samsmart

cpwill