|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did congress make a law? (Establishment Clause) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
In the 1987 Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, SCOTUS ruled that teaching creationism alongside evolution in state classrooms was "establishment" and therefore unconstituional.
Edwards v. Aguillard
quote: But, the 1st Ammendment to the US Constituion reads:Bill of Rights | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute quote: I'm definitley no lawyer, but I'd like to know how the Justices interpreted "Congress shall make no law..." as "No state legislature may pass a law..." or the actual wording "The Establishment Clause forbids the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion" Is there something I'm missing here?
added Establishment Clause to title - The Queen This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-25-2005 17:47 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
That clause doesn't seem to affect the phrase "Congress shall make no law..."
What that clause says to me is that when Congress does make a law, then all the states have to abide by it. If a state enacts a law, Congress (US Congress) wasn't involved in the slightest. Congress made no law and that's the only thing that the 1st ammendment forbids. It forbids Congress from establishing a religion, but it doesn't say anything about individual states establishing them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
I really apologize, but I'm not following your post one bit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
mikehager writes:
And the precept only states that when it comes to establishment of a religion, the US Congress shall make no law to do so. In the 1987 case, congress made no law. The state law was not in conflict with the constitution because it is not the US Congress. Congress did not make a law prohibiting teaching of creationism in state schools, so the Louisiana law was not in conflict with the supreme law of the land by the second clause of Article VI.
What isn't clear? The clause clearly states that it is the supreme law of the land, and that the state laws, whatever they may choose to say, can't break the precepts of the constitution. mikehager writes:
See, that's what's not so clear. There's no explicit statement in the Constitution that says that state legislatures are extensions of Congress. Congress is the only body explicitly restricted from establishing a religion.
Thus, when the national congress is (thankfully) prohibited from taking part in religion, so by extension are state legislatures. mikehager writes:
Right, because in that situation the constituion explicitly mentions the states:
It is exactly this clause that disallows a state from, for instance, passing a law that says that only adult white males can vote.quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
jar writes:
Right, and the La. law was not in conflict because the La. legislature is not Congress. What it does say is that a State cannot pass any laws that are in conflict with the Constitution, Federal Laws or Treaties. The 14th. extended that protection to include State Legislatures under the Equal Protection Amendment. Yes, I'm afraid it appears that the other cases are also examples of the Supreme Court legislating from the bench. From LEMON v. KURTZMAN, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) quote:So what if there is an intimate relationship between church and state? As long as it's not a church owned state or a state owned church, there's no conflict with the 1st ammendment. Actually, now that I think of it, that STILL wouldn't be a conflict. Congress was STILL not involved. quote:Well, than maybe we should ammend the 1st ammendment because nothing in it states that the court has a right to strike down state laws just because it sees the potential for political division along religious lines. quote:Here is more legislating from the bench. Nothing in the constitution says anything about "there should be as little entanglement of govt and religion as possible." No, it says "Congress shall make no law..." That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. It seems the Supreme Court in this situation is reading more into it than there is. This one is worse:
LEE v. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), quote:The Establishment Clause, at a minimum, only applies to laws that Congress makes. It says NOTHING about "a government." It does refer to its own precedent ruling LYNCH v. DONNELLY, 465 U.S. 668 (1984)Here they overturn a court of appeals ruling that said exactly what the framers intended: quote:They overturn this ruling and make up their own version of the first ammendment. quote:Right, it's highly improbable that you will ever separate the two completely. But, they say that the establishment clause is there to prevent the intrusion of state into church or vice versa. WRONG. That's not what it says at all. It only restricts the laws that congress can make, period. Not state laws, not local laws, not school regulations, only congress.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
brennakimi writes:
The 14th ammendment does say that every person gets equal protection under the law in each jurisdiction. Ok, what law says that a state legislature can't pass a law involving teaching creationism in public schools? There is none. Unless you re-work the 1st Ammendment to say what it does not say.
14th ammendment. incorporation. applying federal constitution to the states. the same reason states can't forbid minorities etc from voting or allow polygamy and so forth.the supreme court has made a habit of slowly incorporating this and enforcing the principle on a case by case basis rather than making all the states simply ammend their constitutions to include the federal articles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
crashfrog writes:
That is a classic example of re-working the 1st ammendment to say what it doesn't say. The Bill of Rights isn't just a description of what the government can't do. It's an open-ended list of what rights we, as citizens of the United States, have that cannot be abridged.So when the First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law", it's saying that we have an inalienable right. Therefore a law by any government organ that abridges that right is unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights isn't just a description of what the government can't do. It's an open-ended list of what rights we, as citizens of the United States, have that cannot be abridged. So when the First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law", it's saying that we have an inalienable right. Therefore a law by any government organ that abridges that right is unconstitutional. "When it says this what they really mean is that. Don't you see?" Any fundamentalist christian is not going to see it that way, since they are so used to reading things literally. And in the case of the constitution they are right. There is no reason to suppose that the very deliberate wording of the constitution doesn't mean precisely what it says, word for word. They don't like to make metaphors out of things unless it has something to do with saying that we are in "end times."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
holmes writes:
This is apples and oranges, really. Now add... in theory. I wish it was true in practice but we do have congressional ministers, "under God" placed in the pledge of allegiance, and the ability of Congress to alter free speech rights based purely on moral concerns. This last point I made in a recent thread which has gone almost completely unnoticed. In 1998 the Congress proved it has the ability to censor, and at least one major organization has been pressed into censoring, scientific literature in order that all scientific results fit popular moral views and political policy. This is a done deal, and with the gov't completely able to alter science (repress free speech) to reinforce policy, there is no stopping them from riding over any and all other rights. And that is at the national level. Now states can use this precedent to easily dismiss evolution and accept ID theory. I think the objections raised by people came from the paper's assertions about what jargon should and should not be used in the psychological field:From: The Paper quote:I think many people were reading this as if it were a law telling people how they should see sex between a person >18yo and someone <18yo. It was merely a suggestion on how to clear up psych jargon and not to lump cases together that don't belong together. I think certain people took it to mean that they themselves should change the way they view the world. Was there some law passed that actually said that this paper had to be retracted and couldn't be published, or that future research could not be published if they had certain findings? I couldn't find anything that said that. They were "condemning" the findings, which is a pretty funny thing to do, like in the evo case. The reason I say that this is apples and oranges is that here Congress IS involved. They may make a law, or they may not. If they make a law that restricts free speech, and especially scientific findings, then it would be unconstitutional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
Percy writes:
Hi Gnojek,Your avatar once appeared here as a Picture of the Month: Oh, really? That's cool. I was really looking for one of the artist's renditions on the National Geographic website, but I came across this one and went with it. I think it's one of those pictures that says everything. Well, not the little avatar sized one. But if a creationist were to see the real fossil up close (as I have not) and could be shown the microscopic structure of the quite modern looking feathers on this therapod dinosaur (which I just totally buy and swallow without seeing it myself), then what other explanation could there be but that birds evolved from dinosaurs? (Except, of course, that it was a species that didn't make it in the flood.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
jar writes:
I did address it, just not with you. Sorry, reading those long court cases distracted me.
I see you did not address the 14th. Amendment. Any particular reason you're ignoring it? I'll say it again. The 14th says that every citizen will have equal protection under the law. There is no law restricting the La. legislature from forcing schools to teach creationism so there is no protection to be equally distributed. If the 14th ammendment is saying that all laws are in effect federal laws (which it's not), then what's the point in having states? Why not just do away with them all and have one centralized govt since all citizens should have the exact same laws? But that's not what the 14th says. It says that within whatever jurisdiction you are in, you are equally "protected" by the laws of that jurisdiction. No law applies to a black person that does not also apply to a white person. The 14th really has nothing to do with this, unless there would be some kids in La. not under the "protection" of the creationism law.
jar writes:
And that doesn't matter, because discrimination has nothing to do with teaching creationism in public schools, unless teaching evolution is also discrimination somehow.
Doesn't matter. The 14th. Amendment made it quite clear that State Courts or Legislatures could not discriminate against its citizens. jar writes:
If you didn't live in louisiana (as I actually did in 1987) then you needed no protection from its laws. I think you are reading the 14th like it's the first Clause you quoted. They are two different things. One says that US laws are supreme over state laws. The other says that all citizens are to be treated equally by the law in each jurisdiction. Now, that doesn't mean that a law in Louisiana can't be opposed to a law in another state. So, the La. Law, which is not in conflict with the 1st ammendment and not in conflict with any federal law is also not in conflict with the 14th. There is nothing in it that says that some students have to be taught creationism while other students do not, so everyone still has "equal protection."
That's the 1st.. Fortunately, there is also the 14th. to protect us from acts like the La. Law. jar writes:
Actually, it seems they are re-writing it.
So the rulings from SCOTUS were simply upholding the Constitution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
Forcing someone by law to believe or to testify that they believe Creationism would be discrimiation. Merely teaching it in class as an alternative "theory" to evolution doesn't in itself make it discrimination. A lot of what we learn in school is plain wrong, especially when it comes to history. Should we teach multiple revisionist versions of the history of the American Revolution because teaching that George Washington was a great man discriminates against current members of the Native American nations that he decimated?
Just teaching something that someone doesn't agree with isn't discrimination.
jar writes:
Well, see above. It doesn't matter how "right" the lesson is when it comes to deciding whether it is discriminatory or not. Teaching one, two, or three of the numerous versions of "biological theory" is limiting the scope of the lesson, discriminating (in the general sense) between the two versions. This may be a matter of opinion, but there is still no violation of the Establishment Clause, which is the reason behind the 1987 ruling. It had nothing to do with the 14th Ammendment either, which is also not violated by merely teaching inaccurate lessons in school.
Nonsense. There is at least a vast body of evidence in support of the TOE and Evolution itself is a fact. Teaching Creationism though presupposes that there is a GOD. It's pretty obvious that the GOD is the Raven but still, it's discriminatory to teach kids that humans exist only because witelin Tsta mated with poyan T'Chu.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
brennakimi writes:
Yes, it is establishment of a religion BUT it doesn't violate the 1st ammendment as it is worded. the school system is a government body. the state government decides what is taught in schools. by law. teaching christian-based creation science in schools is equal to the state establishing christianity as a preferred religion. I know the supreme court would never allow this but if a state decided that it did want a state-run church or a church-run state, the way the 1st Ammendment is worded, it would not be un-constitutional simply because the 1st ammendment is worded the way it is.
brennakimi writes:
It sure does. And, if a state establishes it's own church, congress doesn't have to lift a finger.
the first ammendment says that congress can make no law establishing a religion. brennakimi writes:
Well, sort of. But, as I keep saying, a state would not break the constitution by establishing a religion. Only congress would.
the 14th ammendment says that states cannot break the federal constitution brennakimi writes:
Would teaching evolution, no matter how "right" it may be, be an example of not allowing the free exercise of religion? It's the same both ways. If a fundie kid wants to exercise his religion by not attending classes where evolution is taught, would he be freely exercising his religion? Maybe.
teaching public school children about christianity is not an example of the free exercise of it. it is imposing one's beliefs on others. brennakimi writes:
No offense, but you might want to brush up yourself before the test! if you do not understand how this works, i suggest you take a conlaw class or one on civil liberties. i'm about to start my masters in political science.Nah, what am I saying? The profs probably read the same thing into the 1st ammendment that most people do, which totally re-writes it in their head for them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
gnojek writes:
There is no law restricting the La. legislature from forcing schools to teach creationism.crashfrog writes:
What? I think you may be reaching here. Yes, exactly. The lack of that law is an unequal protection under the law. Because there is no law preventing the La. legislature from doing that, there is unequal protection - people subject to that action by the La. legislature are less protected than others, and less protected than they would be if it was Congress trying to do that. Thus, the 14th Amendment prevents the legislature from doing that.I can think of countless laws that don't exist. Does that mean I can't do the things those non-existent laws don't forbid because of the 14th ammendment? I mean, you are making a case for the abolishment of states in favor of one federal government. Why bother with any state laws?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
holmes writes:
Sorry for mixing threads. I'm totally flabergasted (sp?) by Congress's behavior here. It truly is ridiculous.
While this is true, it was going to have an effect on those that thought they based their moral and legal classifications on "harm". Many people wanted to pretend that they did just that, and certainly the Congress wanted to have a legal argument that their policies were based on actually protecting people from harm, and so this paper did have an effect, even if they were mainly concerned with how Psychology should treat that issue. If you want to talk more about that case, you can go to the thread. I didn't want to get into the actual specifics of it here, just point out that it is an example of Congress defying the Constitution's theoretical limitations on their power. holmes writes:
Oh, I get it now. Wow, that really is wierd. So by banning the findings of a scientific study from discussion they basically are saying that there would be no way for the findings to be used as justification of any law. I think this, along with all the gay marriage BS is an example of people legislating on how icky something makes them feel. Ick-factor morals. Cuz all the Bible says is that you have to be married. It doesn't say anything about how old you have to be, so they can't be basing it on something in the Bible. Please read my thread for further info. They did not pass a law, but instead passed a resolution stating that the gov't should reject any findings such as these. That has the indirect effect of "banning" the speech before lawmaking bodies, and thus is as good as killing it outright. Man, I would go over and discuss this stuff, but I'm pushing it doing this thread. I just happened to find this forum that debates almost exclusively my favorite debate topic right when stuff started getting crazy at work. I have all this crap to do before the 17th and I won't have time to take a decent , uh, nap, yeah that's it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
Hmm, it is interesting, though. I had no idea.
I don't know if any contemporary school district would start a school for christians, one for jews, and one for others, but it might be a way to skirt around the establishment clause, even if it did forbid it directly.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024