Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35
Like Tree8Likes

Thread: State laws that violate the US Constitution

  1. #11
    Kinda here

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-29-14 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,910
    Likes Received
    2398 times
    Likes Given
    2027

    Re: State laws that violate the US Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    There is no need for this here.
    Are we to understand, that if you considered there to be a "Need for this Here", it would then be acceptable?
    Chat room Flunky Forum Pariah

  2. #12
    Tavern Bartender
    KnightedConstitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Eyeballin' you.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    51,229
    Likes Received
    14322 times
    Likes Given
    10388

    Re: State laws that violate the US Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
    Are we to understand, that if you considered there to be a "Need for this Here", it would then be acceptable?
    We're having a good discussion right now, do you have a problem with that?
    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    Please pardon the sound of the children screaming in terror - that's the sound of Second Amendment Freedom!!!!

  3. #13
    Kinda here

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-29-14 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,910
    Likes Received
    2398 times
    Likes Given
    2027

    Re: State laws that violate the US Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    We're having a good discussion right now, do you have a problem with that?

    Nope...sorry to interrupt.
    Chat room Flunky Forum Pariah

  4. #14
    Sometimes wrong
    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,362
    Likes Received
    11381 times
    Likes Given
    12098

    Re: State laws that violate the US Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    No it does not, it adds stipulations, restricting the actions of Congress without removing the initial statement which applies to the "several states". All of the first ten amendments are 'additive' to the original requirements found in the Constitution with more precise stipulations as to the authority of Congress and the federal government as a whole.
    Nonsense. Amendments, by definition, alter by either adding, changing or deleting parts of the original text of the constitution. The first 10 amendments are no different than the next 17 in that respect, some of the amendments even modify other amendments as well as the original base document.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    09-19-14 @ 11:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177
    Likes Received
    7544 times
    Likes Given
    2325

    Re: State laws that violate the US Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Nonsense. Amendments, by definition, alter by either adding, changing or deleting parts of the original text of the constitution. The first 10 amendments are no different than the next 17 in that respect, some of the amendments even modify other amendments as well as the original base document.
    What is your legal evidence that the 1st amendment overrules this requirement in the Constitution? Let me show you some precedence that it took me a few minutes to find on wikipedia .

    Silverman v. Campbell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In 1992, Herb Silverman was a mathematics professor at the College of Charleston, who applied to become a public notary. Silverman is an atheist and had earlier run for the post of Governor of South Carolina.[3] His application was rejected after he crossed off the phrase "So help me God"[4] from the oath, as was required by the South Carolina State Constitution.[5] Silverman filed a lawsuit naming Gov. Carroll Campbell and Secretary of State Jim Miles as defendants.[6] After a lower court passed a ruling in favor of Silverman, the state appealed to the Supreme Court contending that the case was not about religion.[7]

    The South Carolina Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision[2] ruled that Article VI, section 2 ("No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution") and Article XVII, section 4 ("No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution") of the South Carolina Constitution[1] was in violation of the First Amendment protection of free exercise of religion and the Article VI, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution banning the use of a religious test for public office.[8]
    Torcaso v. Watkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In the early 1960s, the Governor of Maryland appointed Roy Torcaso as a notary public. At the time, the Maryland Constitution required "a declaration of belief in the existence of God" (Maryland Declaration of Rights, Article 37) in order for a person to hold "any office of profit or trust in this State" (ibid.).

    Torcaso, an atheist, refused to make such a statement, and his appointment was consequently revoked. Torcaso, believing his constitutional rights to freedom of religious expression had been infringed, filed suit in a Maryland Circuit Court, only to be rebuffed; the Circuit Court rejected his claim, and the Maryland Court of Appeals held that the requirement for a declaration of belief in God as a qualification for office was self-executing.
    The Court unanimously found that Maryland's requirement for a person holding public office to state a belief in God violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

    The Court had previously established in Everson v. Board of Education (1947):

    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.

    Writing for the Court, Justice Hugo Black recalled Everson v. Board of Education, and explicitly linked Torcaso v. Watkins to its conclusions:

    There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us - it sets up a religious test which was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public "office of profit or trust" in Maryland. ... We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.
    So even if the First amendment overrules the requirement mentioned in the OP(it doesn't), the SCOTUS has ruled on multiple occasions that these kinds of things violate the 1st amendment anyway. There you're argument is irrelevant

  6. #16
    Sometimes wrong
    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,362
    Likes Received
    11381 times
    Likes Given
    12098

    Re: State laws that violate the US Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    What is your legal evidence that the 1st amendment overrules this requirement in the Constitution? Let me show you some precedence that it took me a few minutes to find on wikipedia .

    Silverman v. Campbell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    Torcaso v. Watkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





    So even if the First amendment overrules the requirement mentioned in the OP(it doesn't), the SCOTUS has ruled on multiple occasions that these kinds of things violate the 1st amendment anyway. There you're argument is irrelevant
    What? Your own "legal evidence" supports my position as ALL of these cases cite the 1st amendment as well as confirm it overrides even the OP cited federal requirement in the U.S. constitituion the important part (that I have copied) from YOUR last SCOTUS decision noted follows: {...neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion."}
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 05-30-12 at 09:46 PM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  7. #17
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    08-24-14 @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294
    Likes Received
    2027 times
    Likes Given
    1569

    Re: State laws that violate the US Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post

    "Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States"

    from the Torcaso decision
    The language you quoted actually alludes to the technical reason why the first amendment (and most of the Bill of Rights) applies to the states. I've put the important part in bold.
    It's referencing a concept called incorporation. I've posted the wiki link below, but the basic idea is that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment includes the basic liberties provided in the first 8 amendments in the bill of rights. The first case to discuss this concept was Twining v New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908)

    Here's the wiki:

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

  8. #18
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 05:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,461
    Likes Received
    395 times
    Likes Given
    5562

    Re: State laws that violate the US Constitution

    I believe that this is one of those red flag laws and by that I mean those sort of laws that came out when the automobile was new and sharing the road with horse and buggies. Those laws are not in effect.
    An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson

  9. #19
    Guru Aberration's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-26-12 @ 03:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,571
    Likes Received
    692 times
    Likes Given
    1026

    Re: State laws that violate the US Constitution

    If our rights come from our Creator, as recognized in our founding document, and a person holding office does not recognize our Creator, how can they recognize the rights? What they view as the source of our rights would conflict with where our founding document says they originate from.

    Seems like a conflict of interest to me.
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”
    ― Thomas Jefferson

  10. #20
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    08-24-14 @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294
    Likes Received
    2027 times
    Likes Given
    1569

    Re: State laws that violate the US Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious View Post
    I believe that this is one of those red flag laws and by that I mean those sort of laws that came out when the automobile was new and sharing the road with horse and buggies. Those laws are not in effect.
    Is that in reference to my post, or the OP?

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •