- Joined
- Jul 31, 2005
- Messages
- 36,705
- Reaction score
- 17,867
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
The problem is that many conservatives have been arguing for decades now that First Amendment protections only apply to the federal government and thus state and local government could restrict freedom of expression in state law, use state and local laws and facilities to promote religious views, and so on.
For example, when the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice snuck a Ten Commandments monument into the State Supreme Court under the cover of darkness, without informing any other justice on the court, and while being filmed by a fundamentalist group for propaganda purposes, social conservatives across America decried the federal court ruling that the Alabama Supreme Court's actions violated the constitutional separation of Church and State. The social conservative argument at the time was that it only applied to the federal government, and the federal courts were thus violating the state rights of Alabama.
The same was true in regards to the federal courts overturning state sodomy laws in Texas, with the federal courts citing the right to privacy being violated by the state of Texas, and social conservatives throwing out the states rights argument.
So its rather hypocritical for them to all of a sudden believe that the second amendment should apply to all levels of government, but the rest of our constitutional protections should only apply to the federal government.
As a side note I think I think the 2nd Amendment does apply to all levels of government and I think the 1st Amendment does as well.
The 1st amendment just says they shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. So a ten commandments plaque is not a 1st amendment violation.