Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,332 Year: 3,589/9,624 Month: 460/974 Week: 73/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did congress make a law? (Establishment Clause)
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 10 of 103 (188699)
02-26-2005 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by gnojek
02-25-2005 9:09 PM


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.
This message has been edited by brennakimi, 02-26-2005 12:06 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by gnojek, posted 02-25-2005 9:09 PM gnojek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by gnojek, posted 02-27-2005 6:10 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 11 of 103 (188700)
02-26-2005 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
02-25-2005 10:27 PM


yeah... what you said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 02-25-2005 10:27 PM jar has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 25 of 103 (189069)
02-27-2005 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by gnojek
02-27-2005 6:10 PM


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. the first ammendment says that congress can make no law establishing a religion. the 14th ammendment says that states cannot break the federal constitution. therefore. this education is unconstitutional. teaching public school children about christianity is not an example of the free exercise of it. it is imposing one's beliefs on others.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by gnojek, posted 02-27-2005 6:10 PM gnojek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by gnojek, posted 03-01-2005 7:15 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 26 of 103 (189071)
02-27-2005 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by gnojek
02-27-2005 6:17 PM


since when are fundamentalists literalists? they don't read the bible for what it says, they read it for what pastor bob says it says.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by gnojek, posted 02-27-2005 6:17 PM gnojek has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 37 of 103 (189585)
03-02-2005 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by gnojek
03-01-2005 7:15 PM


the consitutution cannot be a document frozen in time. it must evolve (sorry) along with the people it protects.
anyone can sign his child out of an evo class just as anyone can sign his child out of a sex ed class. that is free exercise. observable demonstrable science is not a religion no matter how people who believe in it behave nor how people who don't, respond to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by gnojek, posted 03-01-2005 7:15 PM gnojek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by gnojek, posted 03-30-2005 12:43 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 61 of 103 (195476)
03-30-2005 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by gnojek
03-30-2005 12:43 PM


no, you're wrong. the 14th ammendment has been interpretted to mean that no right quarranteed by the federal government can be denied by the state government. thus, freedom from the government establishing a religion, is thus incorporated (or applied to) the states. the states cannot break the federal constitution. therefore, they cannot establish a religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by gnojek, posted 03-30-2005 12:43 PM gnojek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by gnojek, posted 04-01-2005 6:48 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 72 of 103 (196147)
04-01-2005 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Brad McFall
04-01-2005 7:07 PM


i appreciate his point, however. the united states ceased to be such and became a federal state somewhere around world war 2. so while his point is valid under a union it is not under federalism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Brad McFall, posted 04-01-2005 7:07 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Brad McFall, posted 04-02-2005 7:28 AM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 78 by gnojek, posted 04-07-2005 4:43 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 74 of 103 (196222)
04-02-2005 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Brad McFall
04-02-2005 7:28 AM


well. the perfect union thing is in the constitution.
we the people of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america.
(mostly from memory hehe. i just forget the order.)
but the idea then was that the states reigned supreme and the federal government was only around to, you know, do the above, not to rule the people. obviously, the state is very different now. the switch happened in 1922 (ok first world war) with Meyer v Nebraska when the court struck down a law forbidding the teaching of foreign languages in schools. gee. this seems like pretty solid precedence. in other words. governments cannot withold our children in the search for knowledge be it of language or science. now maybe evolution is just a theory, but so are a ton of huge math problems that we know have to be true but we haven't yet solved. but yes. now you know. gee whiz it's good to open up my conlaw books This message has been edited by brennakimi, 04-02-2005 12:54 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Brad McFall, posted 04-02-2005 7:28 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Brad McFall, posted 04-02-2005 1:55 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 82 of 103 (197660)
04-08-2005 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by gnojek
04-07-2005 4:21 PM


U.S. Constitution - Amendment 14
Amendment 14 - Citizenship rights
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
thus no state can make a law infringing on the federal constitution. the state governments exist to care for local state matters, not to determine all the rights and responsibilities of their citizens. "CONGRESS" as you put it, has enough trouble getting all it needs to do done, much less if it had to micromanage EVERYTHING that states need (like which roads to fix etc). what if there was no separation? then during the first four years bush could have denied any road improvement (or anything else) to florida. anyways. yeah. abolishing states is a foolish idea. stop it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by gnojek, posted 04-07-2005 4:21 PM gnojek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by gnojek, posted 04-15-2005 2:21 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 98 of 103 (201304)
04-22-2005 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by gnojek
04-22-2005 8:35 PM


the only things that a state cannot make laws on are those things specifically forbidden by the constitution (including reserved powers of the fed). among those things are the rights guaranteed to citizens. thus. the same thing that keeps the states from preventing minorities from voting is the same thing that keeps them from forbidding the teaching of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by gnojek, posted 04-22-2005 8:35 PM gnojek has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024