Did congress make a law? (Establishment Clause)

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.

Well, yes. Unfortunately, in practice, the Constitution doesn't interpret itself; it has to be interpreted by the Supreme Court, who decide what is consistent with it, and what is not.And since almost all politicians are Christians, its no surprise to find that the rights of atheists count for shit when it comes to the Supreme Court. Combined with the fact that we don't have a free press in this country, and you may very well be right about where we're headed.

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.

Anarchy seems kind of stupid. I mean, it falls apart (falls up?) into government at the slightest touch. And so, to maintain an anarchic state, you need an overriding authority to enforce anarchy, and doesn't that rather defeat the purpose?

I'm not sure you understood what I meant. Imagine three people in an "anarchic" state. That is, they stand around doing whatever they want to do, because there's nobody to tell them differently. No rules, etc.One of the three - the physically largest - gets it into his head that the other two are going to do what he says. He bullies them into going along, and presto - instant government. The only thing that can stop this is some force to bully the bully, and that's government too, so how can anarchy work?

Why? That's an interpretation of judicial powers that's neither supported by the constitution nor has enjoyed any serious support since the 1800's.I mean, what's the point in having an enormous judiciary just to read words on paper? I mean, if I want to see what the Constitution says by itself, I can download it in seconds. What's the purpose of the judiciary if not to fill their constitutional role to interpret the law in the context of history?AbE: Did you ever play the card game Magic: The Gathering? It's like training camp for lawyers. And not just because you have to be rich to win at it. Maybe later I can pose an example of how restricting yourself to the letter of the rules in front of you, and failing to consider the larger context, hamstrings you.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-30-2005 03:47 PM

Supreme Court rulings cannot be unconstitutional as they are not laws. Yes, it has. The right to equal protection under the law, as outlined in the 14th amendment. Yes, it does - the equal protection under the law as laid out in the 14th amendment. Technically, it's not. But the 14th amendment is violated.

"Congress shall make no law..." What did you think that means? Right. Which means that the states can't make a law that Congress wouldn't be able to make. Right. And the 14th amendment means that the first amendment applies to the state governments, as well, or else people aren't equally protected under the law.

Yes, there is. The first and 14th amendments. That's obviously not what "equal protection under the law" means. It means that the state governments can't make any laws that would infringe on rights granted to people by the US Constitution. Oh, "technically", eh? And this stems from your extensive training and practice as a lawyer and constitutional scholar?

Yes. And that reason is because an American citizen has a right not to have their legislature enact laws establishing religion. But at the time, before the 14th Amendment, the Constitution itself could only apply to the Federal government. Hence, the stipulation of "Congress."Well, we amended the Constitution so that it applies to all American governments with the 14th Amendment, so indeed, the First Amendment protection against laws establishing a religion applies at all levels. Different states - indeed, different entities at every level - have different local legislative needs, and it would paralyze Congress to have to legislate from that basis. But that consideration doesn't outwiegh the fact that no government has the power to circumvent the civil rights of citizens, and one of those rights is the right not to be mandated to worship in a certain way, which is what an establishment of religion is. Indeed it does. If they were to establish a religion, that would violate the civil right to not be subject to an established religion, and the 14th Amendment makes it a violation of the Constitution for a state to do that.

The First Amendment. Look, you can even read it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," etc. Why do you think they would need to stipulate that Congress shall establish no religion if you don't have a right to the freedom of your religion?If you don't have that right, then what's the basis for its inclusion in the First Amendment? The 14th Amendment, and its stated quite clearly. So you say, but why are you the only one in this conversation that can't understand the clear meaning of the words?

Indeed, due to the 14th Amendment. Not so. I'm merely drawing inescapable conclusions from the legal wording of the amendment. If there was no right to free speech, Congress would not be abjured from infringing on that right. We already have it - the First and 14th amendments. As I've said, its the first amendment. If that right did not exist, then Congress would not be abjured from infringing on it. This is reinforced by the continued wording of the First amendment:

quote:

---

...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...

---

which makes it absolutely clear that we're referring to the rights of the people throughout. If that's not enough, the Ninth amendment reinforces the conclusion that these amendments imply rights for the people of the United States, by directly stating that the Bill of Rights is a non-exhaustive enumeration of rights. Then they would have to amend the US and probably the state constitutions as well to achieve that. As it stands, the First and 14th amendments absolutely forbid it. Additionally the 9th amendment states that you can't use "it's not in the Constitution" as a legal argument to deny rights.

Because at the time, the US Constitution only applied to the Federal government, since our country was federally structured.We've since abandoned federalism; instrumental to this change was the 14th amendment guarantees of equal protection under the law. That made all levels of government subject to the restrictions of the Bill of Rights.Furthermore I think you're missing the point that the Bill of Rights doesn't enumerate your rights, or grant you your rights. Your rights need not be "granted"; in the words of the Declaration of Independance, these rights are inalienable and stem from your humanity and citizenship, not because the government or even the Constitution decides that you have them. The Bill of Rights does not grant you your rights; it prevents the government from infringing them. The First Amendment forbids Congress from infringing on your rights to free speech and other rights; the 14th extends that prohibition to all levels of government.And also, you've yet to explain why absolutely no Constitutional scholar nor legal authority subscribes to your "interpretation" of the US Constitution.