The Establishment Clause

code1211 said:

Exactly.

Both social laws and religious expression of morality are evolving standards.

However, that evolution starts with shared acceptance of a tapestry of ideas and principles.

Interesting conflicts rise when widely accepted principles conflict on the same topic.

I think most would agree that a woman who is pregnant is a bad person is she drinks a quart of whiskey each and every day. However, we all agree as a society that she has the right control her own body. Conflict.

Click to expand...

It's only conflict if she is forcibly stopped from acting on her desires. Whether or not she is a bad person is a matter of opinion and everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Whether she is breaking the law is a different matter.

Logicman said:

That's bizarre. There's been tons of these anti-establishment cases against people of faith. It has nothing to do with sinners, but with our First Amendment rights.

Perhaps you should re-read the OP.

Click to expand...

The basic idea that 1) you are free to worship in any way you like but 2) you are not allowed to force your religious beliefs on others.

Freedom of Religion but also freedom from religion (by freedom from this means force or coercion)

A football team is not a "Church". if individuals want to pray that is fine but, the coach should not be orchestrating a prayer as this involves an element of coercion.

Visbek said:

The 14th amendment changed that. The Due Process clause and subsequent SCOTUS decisions established what is known as "incorporation," in which elements of the Bill of Rights must be incorporated into state law.

Not all rights outlined in the Constitution are incorporated to the states. Everson v Board of Education extended the Establishment Clause to public schools via incorporation.

Rejection of incorporation of the Establishment Clause is mostly a fringe position these days. I.e. if your interpretation was correct, then each state would in fact have its own state laws regulating things like prayer in school. Obviously, that is not how it works today.

Your claim that there is "zero credibility" to apply the Establishment Clause to public schools is factually incorrect.

Click to expand...

Except if you actually study the history, the 14th was never legally ratified. Not in either of the two ways required by the Constitution and the fact it was done under duress so therefore it is, in reality, a bogus and nonexistent amendment. The only argument for its continued use would be that, hey, we have been utilizing it for over 150 years...based on that line of acceptance we would still have the Ptolemaic system.

If we are going to use it, it should be rewritten in a manner palatable to us today and then properly ratified for anything you are here declaring to have any semblance of authority and from that, truth.

Nothing is good that comes from bad.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Except if you actually study the history, the 14th was never legally ratified. Not in either of the two ways required by the Constitution and the fact it was done under duress so therefore it is, in reality, a bogus and nonexistent amendment. The only argument for its continued use would be that, hey, we have been utilizing it for over 150 years...based on that line of acceptance we would still have the Ptolemaic system.

If we are going to use it, it should be rewritten in a manner palatable to us today and then properly ratified for anything you are here declaring to have any semblance of authority and from that, truth.

Nothing is good that comes from bad.

Click to expand...

There was that ever so inconsequential event some call the Civil War and others label as the War of Northern Aggression which led to the ratification of the 14th Amendment in a manner which some like to complain about. The South lost the war, southern states were told - "ratify the 14th or remain under federal control, your choice"

Today, we have several groups who believe what you believe: White supremacists like the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan who say "the Fourteenth Amendment was never legally ratified but pronounced 'law' by the 'Radical Reconstruction' Congress in July 1868." and 'sovereign citizens' who believe African-Americans, who do not have inalienable rights but only the limited statutory civil rights that Congress granted them under the 14th Amendment. Such "Fourteenth Amendment citizens" are subject to federal law because their very citizenship emanates from the rights granted by the federal government, whereas the "sovereign citizens" are not subject to federal laws.

The United States of America defeated the Confederate States in an incredibly bloody conflict. To fight the 14th Amendment today is to reveal one's self as a new-Confederate who doesn't want to accept the results of that war which killed so many.

"rewritten in a manner palatable to (some) of us today" - means what exactly? What rights would you like to see removed from the legal codes? It seems that you and others wish to return to that American society which ended in 1865 with the defeat of the rebellion, a nation of sovereign states where an American would not have the same protections in states they visit as they enjoy in the place of their residency.

Cephus said:

It's only conflict if she is forcibly stopped from acting on her desires. Whether or not she is a bad person is a matter of opinion and everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Whether she is breaking the law is a different matter.

Click to expand...

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. However, simply saying that when there is a conflict that the conflict is not a conflict is not reasonable. Despite this, in our system, it is legal.

I've written on this board before that the only thing that separates murder from abortion is the opinion of the would be mother on whether or not the baby is wanted.

Is there another area of law in which the opinion of one non-credentialed individual on the legal status of another creates in and of itself that opined status? This is a conflict.

Somerville said:

There was that ever so inconsequential event some call the Civil War and others label as the War of Northern Aggression which led to the ratification of the 14th Amendment in a manner which some like to complain about. The South lost the war, southern states were told - "ratify the 14th or remain under federal control, your choice"

Today, we have several groups who believe what you believe: White supremacists like the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan who say "the Fourteenth Amendment was never legally ratified but pronounced 'law' by the 'Radical Reconstruction' Congress in July 1868." and 'sovereign citizens' who believe African-Americans, who do not have inalienable rights but only the limited statutory civil rights that Congress granted them under the 14th Amendment. Such "Fourteenth Amendment citizens" are subject to federal law because their very citizenship emanates from the rights granted by the federal government, whereas the "sovereign citizens" are not subject to federal laws.

The United States of America defeated the Confederate States in an incredibly bloody conflict. To fight the 14th Amendment today is to reveal one's self as a new-Confederate who doesn't want to accept the results of that war which killed so many.

"rewritten in a manner palatable to (some) of us today" - means what exactly? What rights would you like to see removed from the legal codes? It seems that you and others wish to return to that American society which ended in 1865 with the defeat of the rebellion, a nation of sovereign states where an American would not have the same protections in states they visit as they enjoy in the place of their residency.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, you haven't a clue. In multiple areas.

First, have you studied the 14th amendment's ratification process/history? If not, you haven't the first clue. From your skeletal outline you have proposed its quite apparent you don't know what you are talking about. Second, do you know the ways specified in our Constitution that guides us in the only proper ways to amend our Constitution? There are just the two, so you may have a clue. Third, which method was utilized? Was it done properly with the correct number of states needed to ratify by the end of the process? You have not a clue... but go ahead, study up.

Fourth, you only have to be a patriot to believe that our Constitution needs be followed to properly amend it. To do it any other way you need to amend [properly ] the Constitution to allow for a new method, which was not done. You probably didn't know that... because you are clueless.

Fifth, to associate someone today with the Confederacy solely based on a desire to have our Constitution amended in a legal and just manner is offensive and rather imbecilic trash talk... and highlights another area of your cluelessness.

As regards rewriting, most, if not all, the other amendments cover only one area and so are fairly thorough and understandable. Too much was jammed into this one. Also, it should be detailed what the narrow scope of this amendment is, so as not a catch all allowing everything and everybody to pretty much do whatever they want. The Constitution was drafted and agreed upon as it was all about limiting the powers of the Federal government, not expanding them into horizons that need actual debate and contemporary agreement, not, "...well, the 14th says we can, so..." Besides, its not up to me to rewrite it, nor am I the one that would decide what is included and what is not, thats up to the states and the people.

You are missing on all cylinders today, but from our prior discussions, that seems less than unusual.

Gaugingcatenate said:

With all due respect, you haven't a clue. In multiple areas.

First, have you studied the 14th amendment's ratification process/history? If not, you haven't the first clue. From your skeletal outline you have proposed its quite apparent you don't know what you are talking about. Second, do you know the ways specified in our Constitution that guides us in the only proper ways to amend our Constitution? There are just the two, so you may have a clue. Third, which method was utilized? Was it done properly with the correct number of states needed to ratify by the end of the process? You have not a clue... but go ahead, study up.

Fourth, you only have to be a patriot to believe that our Constitution needs be followed to properly amend it. To do it any other way you need to amend [properly ] the Constitution to allow for a new method, which was not done. You probably didn't know that... because you are clueless.

Fifth, to associate someone today with the Confederacy solely based on a desire to have our Constitution amended in a legal and just manner is offensive and rather imbecilic trash talk... and highlights another area of your cluelessness.

As regards rewriting, most, if not all, the other amendments cover only one area and so are fairly thorough and understandable. Too much was jammed into this one. Also, it should be detailed what the narrow scope of this amendment is, so as not a catch all allowing everything and everybody to pretty much do whatever they want. The Constitution was drafted and agreed upon as it was all about limiting the powers of the Federal government, not expanding them into horizons that need actual debate and contemporary agreement, not, "...well, the 14th says we can, so..." Besides, its not up to me to rewrite it, nor am I the one that would decide what is included and what is not, thats up to the states and the people.

You are missing on all cylinders today, but from our prior discussions, that seems less than unusual.

Click to expand...

In response, I'll simply quote you : " you haven't a clue" despite your claims otherwise.

Somerville said:

In response, I'll simply quote you : " you haven't a clue" despite your claims otherwise.

Click to expand...

That don't quite cut it. Like a blind man telling a sighted man that the sighted man cannot see.

So, you have no clue about the faulty ratification of the 14th. If you like history, its a truly interesting study. At the same time I have no interest in relating its numerous faults to someone who is not interested in history. You profess you are, but have shown you are not, just as in this case.

Suffice to say it is not a valid amendment and I would think that states that have problems with all the social engineering forced fed the nation this last 8 years could take legal, ethical and moral solace in refusing to obey any law or mandate having utilized this illegitimate, bastardized and fake amendment.

You can go back to sleep now.

Gaugingcatenate said:

First, have you studied the 14th amendment's ratification process/history? If not, you haven't the first clue.

Click to expand...

I have. So I have the first clue. yay.

Second, do you know the ways specified in our Constitution that guides us in the only proper ways to amend our Constitution? There are just the two, so you may have a clue. Third, which method was utilized? Was it done properly with the correct number of states needed to ratify by the end of the process?

Click to expand...

Method 1: 2/3s of each house agree to an amendment which is then ratified by 3/4 of the states. Method 2: 2/3s of the states petition for a convention during which 3/4s of the states vote for the proposed amendment.

Method 1 was used. 3/4 of the Senate and 4/5s of the House voted for the 14th and it was submitted to the States. By July 9th, 1868 28 states (the required 3/4ths) had ratified. Ohio and New Jersey had rescinded their ratification, but even if those were valid (they weren't) Alabama and Georgia had both ratified by July 21st, making the ratification valid regardless.

I have 2 clues!

Fourth, you only have to be a patriot to believe that our Constitution needs be followed to properly amend it. To do it any other way you need to amend [properly ] the Constitution to allow for a new method, which was not done.

Click to expand...

But it was amended properly. 2/3ds of each house and ratified by 3/4 of the states.

Fifth, to associate someone today with the Confederacy solely based on a desire to have our Constitution amended in a legal and just manner is offensive and rather imbecilic trash talk... and highlights another area of your cluelessness.

Click to expand...

Well, I can agree with that.

As regards rewriting, most, if not all, the other amendments cover only one area and so are fairly thorough and understandable. Too much was jammed into this one. Also, it should be detailed what the narrow scope of this amendment is, so as not a catch all allowing everything and everybody to pretty much do whatever they want. The Constitution was drafted and agreed upon as it was all about limiting the powers of the Federal government, not expanding them into horizons that need actual debate and contemporary agreement, not, "...well, the 14th says we can, so..." Besides, its not up to me to rewrite it, nor am I the one that would decide what is included and what is not, thats up to the states and the people.

Click to expand...

That is a cop-out.

If you believe the amendment is a good amendment but was simply not ratified correctly, say so. If you are opposed to the 14th for other reasons, please state those reasons and whether you think neither it nor anything similar should be the law or if something similar but more specified should be. No, it's not up to you to rewrite it, but neither is it up to you to determine if it was ratified correctly. We are interested in your opinion.

Somerville said:

There was that ever so inconsequential event some call the Civil War and others label as the War of Northern Aggression which led to the ratification of the 14th Amendment in a manner which some like to complain about. The South lost the war, southern states were told - "ratify the 14th or remain under federal control, your choice"

Today, we have several groups who believe what you believe: White supremacists like the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan who say "the Fourteenth Amendment was never legally ratified but pronounced 'law' by the 'Radical Reconstruction' Congress in July 1868." and 'sovereign citizens' who believe African-Americans, who do not have inalienable rights but only the limited statutory civil rights that Congress granted them under the 14th Amendment. Such "Fourteenth Amendment citizens" are subject to federal law because their very citizenship emanates from the rights granted by the federal government, whereas the "sovereign citizens" are not subject to federal laws.

Click to expand...

The Point is, my good Sir, that the War of the Rebellion only occurred, because the confederate States were infidel, protestant, and renegade to our federal Constitution, which were ratified by the People of the several States.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Click to expand...

Since the several and sovereign and faithful, States of the Union, ceded their former States' right over immigration in favor of the general government for the Union in 1808, there was no basis to deny State citizenship to natural born Persons within any State of our more perfect, Union.

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

Click to expand...

The Confederacy had a clear case for abolishing slavery through Eminent Domain. Who's fault is it, the South did not "harass the Judicature" to secure their Constitutional rights?

Our Second Amendment clearly proved, that Only well regulated militias of the (more Perfect Union of the) United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;

regardless of even the well regulated militias of the confederacy, not just anarchic gun lovers.

danielpalos said:

would worshipers of Lord Satan be afforded the same public accommodations?

Click to expand...

No, because we can't make a law allowing them. :lol:


Just kidding. The real answer should be that Congress cannot make a law addressing that question, which means it should be perfectly legal to worship Satan; unless you interrupt the game, which means you have angry fans on your hands.

RabidAlpaca said:

You've understood the constitution exactly backwards. The first amendment prevents the government from creating a national religion and it prevents it from hindering others in their religious activities. No christian in this country is hindered in any way, shape or form in practicing their religion. The people who complain that they're persecuted (like you so often) want special rights and the establishment of a christian government.

The beauty of our country is that we, the people, come from all walks of life, all religious creeds, and all skin colors. The diversity is unparalleled. As such, the government needs to be representative of the people and not take religious stances. It's not a weapon for you to use to punish sinners, Logicman.

Click to expand...

No where does the govt have the power to determine where one practices their religion. On the contrary, the House even has a chaplain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

American said:

No where does the govt have the power to determine where one practices their religion. On the contrary, the House even has a chaplain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

Click to expand...

I guess you missed the part where I said:

RabidAlpaca said:

You've understood the constitution exactly backwards. The first amendment prevents the government from creating a national religion and it prevents it from hindering others in their religious activities. No christian in this country is hindered in any way, shape or form in practicing their religion. The people who complain that they're persecuted (like you so often) want special rights and the establishment of a christian government.

The beauty of our country is that we, the people, come from all walks of life, all religious creeds, and all skin colors. The diversity is unparalleled. As such, the government needs to be representative of the people and not take religious stances. It's not a weapon for you to use to punish sinners, Logicman.

Click to expand...

You have a right to be religious as much as you want and anywhere you want. What you don't have a right to do is commandeer public classrooms to force your religion on other students and waste precious educational time with your shenanigans.

Somerville said:

To fight the 14th Amendment today is to reveal one's self as a new-Confederate who doesn't want to accept the results of that war which killed so many.

Click to expand...

One need not be a "new-Confederate," nor even against the principle of the 14th Amendment, to note that it was ratified under highly-suspect conditions, and that arguments it was never properly-ratified can't be dismissed out of hand.

pinqy said:

I have. So I have the first clue. yay.

Click to expand...

Appreciate the effort, but do you think that truly sufficient? Beyond a quick wiki look up perhaps? This was a very contentious issue, lots of moving parts to consider, with myriad usurpations and applications of duress.

pinqy said:

Method 1: 2/3s of each house agree to an amendment which is then ratified by 3/4 of the states. Method 2: 2/3s of the states petition for a convention during which 3/4s of the states vote for the proposed amendment.

Click to expand...

You have the basics... sure.

pinqy said:

Method 1 was used. 3/4 of the Senate and 4/5s of the House voted for the 14th and it was submitted to the States. By July 9th, 1868 28 states (the required 3/4ths) had ratified. Ohio and New Jersey had rescinded their ratification, but even if those were valid (they weren't) Alabama and Georgia had both ratified by July 21st, making the ratification valid regardless.

Click to expand...

A total of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed to legally to ratify the "Fourteenth Amendment."
Under Constitution Article I, Section 3. "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State" Article V provides: "No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

The fact that 28 Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U. S. Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following State Legislature:

The New Jersey Legislature [recall, a Union state ] by Resolution of March 27, 1868:
"The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent the three-fourths of the states, which is necessary to make it valid, the natural and constitutional right of this state to withdraw its assent is undeniable ".

"That it being necessary by the constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty representatives from eleven states of the union, upon the pretence that there were no such states in the Union: but, finding that two-thirds of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in palpable violation of the constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this state, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two-thirds of the said houses."

pinqy said:

I have 2 clues!

Click to expand...

What is your basis with the assertion that states cannot legally rescind prior to obtaining the ¾ required for ratification?

pinqy said:

But it was amended properly. 2/3ds of each house and ratified by 3/4 of the states.

Click to expand...

Sorry, just not so. As illustrated by the Resolution from Texas Oct 15, 1866 :

"The amendment to the Constitution proposed by this joint resolution as article XIV is presented to the Legislature of Texas for its action thereon, under Article V of that Constitution. This article V, providing the mode of making amendments to that instrument, contemplates the participation by all the States through their representatives in Congress, in proposing amendments. As representatives from nearly one-third of the States were excluded from the Congress proposing the amendments, the constitutional requirement was not complied with; it was violated in letter and in spirit; and the proposing of these amendments to States which were excluded from all participation in their initiation in Congress, is a nullity."

pinqy said:

That is a cop-out.

If you believe the amendment is a good amendment but was simply not ratified correctly, say so. If you are opposed to the 14th for other reasons, please state those reasons and whether you think neither it nor anything similar should be the law or if something similar but more specified should be. No, it's not up to you to rewrite it, but neither is it up to you to determine if it was ratified correctly. We are interested in your opinion.

Click to expand...

No cop out, I think I expressed myself sufficiently as to the limited scope of amendments, This is a non-amendment being not legally ratified. As a citizen of the US I can demand that all done under the aegis of our Constitution be done in a proper manner.

The proofs of the improper nature of this impostor amendment are explicit and numerous.

danielpalos said:

would worshipers of Lord Satan be afforded the same public accommodations?

Click to expand...

?? afforded the same accommodations? Do i hear a tinge of jealousy? Would you like to be seen around flag poles praying and doing your 'religious' rights by the public ? Because if you did, according to the Constitution, noone can stop your peaceable assembling...

“Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble …”

First Amendment to US Constitution: Right to Peaceable Assembly | David J. Shestokas

But is it not clear that all of the Amendments, have the words, 'Congress shall', 'Congress shall', 'Congress shall'.....

The House of Representatives
State District Name Party
Alabama 1 Jo Bonner R
Alabama 2 Martha Roby R
Alabama 3 Mike Rogers R
Alabama 4 Robert B. Aderholt R
Alabama 5 Mo Brooks R
Alabama 6 Spencer Bachus R
Alabama 7 Terri A. Sewell D
Alaska At Large Don Young R
American Samoa Delegate Eni F. H. Faleomavaega D-NV
Arizona 1 Paul A. Gosar R
Arizona 2 Trent Franks R
Arizona 3 Benjamin Quayle R
Arizona 4 Ed Pastor D

Arizona 5 David Schweikert R
Arizona 6 Jeff Flake R
Arizona 7 Raul M. Grijalva D
Arizona 8 Gabrielle Giffords D
Arkansas 1 Eric A. Crawford R
Arkansas 2 Tim Griffin R
Arkansas 3 Steve Womack R
Arkansas 4 Mike Ross D
California 01 Mike Thompson D
California 02 Wally Herger R
California 03 Daniel E. Lungren R
California 04 Tom McClintock R
California 05 Doris O. Matsui D
California 06 Lynn C. Woolsey D
California 07 George Miller D

Members of Congress - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


With all of those congress persons, are we still not able to do anything??

There are 435 representatives in the U.S. Congress. Their terms are 2 years long. Here is a list of the current members. -The Editors.

How Many Representatives in Congress - Infoplease
How Many Representatives in Congress