Did congress make a law? (Establishment Clause)

Hehe, I think it means exactly what it says.
It doesn't say "no state legislature shall make a law" or
"no metro council will enact an ordinance"
it says "CONGRESS!" very specifically and for a reason! Then let's abolish all state legislatures. Obviously there is no need for them. The 1st ammendment does apply to state legislatures.
It says "Congress shall make no law" and the state legislatures abide by those words. They make laws without congress all the time.

No and no. Then please show me the right granted in the consitution that says you have freedom of religion. Nope, not there. All it says is what congress can do with regard to religion. That's all. The constitution DOES NOT provide "freedom of religion", despite the phrase being part of our upbringing. I think it was part of the judges upbringing too and that's why they read the words through their mental filter. I can read, and apparently better than these judges.
I said I wasn't even close to a lawyer (and I suppose you are :rolleyes but the document says what it says in no uncertain terms. It is QUITE PLAINLY STATED what congress can't do with regard to religion. It is not stated at all what a state legislature can do with it. The only way it says anything with regard to a state legislature and religion is if you reword the first ammendment to make it say something that it doesn't.

Again, another apeal for the abolishment of states!

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?

Since the constitution is the supreme law of the land and congress is the legislature set up under the constitution, any powers denied to congress are also denied to any inferior legislature.

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.

No American is explicitly granted the privileges or immunities of freedom of religion, speech, or press by the US constitution. The US consitution only restricts what Congress can do wrt to these "rights." It does not grant citizens immunity or priveledge wrt to these rights.The concept that Americans are granted the rights to "free speech" or "freedom of religion" by the constitution is a deeply entrenched misconception that everyone in this country has grown up with.When someone says "That violates my 1st ammendment right to free speech" they are misguided. There is no such right granted.If you have that right granted in your state consitution, then you should say "That violates my random article or ammendment rights to free speech," but reference to the US constitution is unwarranted. No state did. The La. law was not in conflict with the 1st ammendment. Where did you get that?They may not be able to determine ALL the rights and responsibilities. They can't make a law saying that all their citizens don't have to pay federal income taxes.But, state laws (any laws really) are precisely there to dictate the rights and responsibilities of citizens. And as "The Fist Ammendment" puts it. So to you, this is why there are states? To fix the roads?
O-K! Then with separation, his brother could do the same by EO? Is that what you are saying? I don't know what powers are granted to each governor wrt what they can do with an EO. Maybe roads are in there or not, but this has got jack to do with the first ammendment. It's not MY idea. It's anyone's idea who agrees with these supreme court rulings. The court can just go ahead and make up whatever it wants as long as it's pretty close to what the wording says.Ok, I'll just go ahead and break it down.There are 2 main ways judges have interpreted the constitution.
There are originalists who believe, as I, that judges do not make the law. When legislators make the law, they spend a long time working on the wording, especially in the drafting of a constitution. If the people want the law changed, they do it through legislation, not through litigation.Then there is the living consitution crowd who believe that laws should be interpreted as the times change, as society changes. They believe that the law should be loosely interpreted to fit the current social climate, as if there was one opinion held by the people at any given time. The wording of the law isn't so important to them as much as the "spirit" of the law, as they see it.I just happen to agree with the originalist perspective. It only makes sense to have a separation of powers. One body makes the law, the other enforces it fairly as it is written. The enforcement branch should not interpret the law so loosley that it no longer fits its original wording. This is the case with these supreme court rulings.

The stipulation of "congress" was to make room for states' rights.
We no longer recognize states' rights apparently. Then they should have had another ammendment to change the wording of the 1st ammendment. Without this the ammendment cannot apply to state legislatures. See, you're doing it to.
You are reading what you want to read when your eyes pass over the words "Congresss shall make no law." Then we need an ammendment to the US consitution explicitly protecting these rights you speak of. Or at least a federal law. Until then, these rights are not protected, except through judicial proxy.Hey, I'm the one arguing FOR states' rights. You guys want to abolish them and have the supreme court legislate from the bench. You have yet to show me where this "civil right" is codified.
You don't have that right. You've just been "lucky" so far.
We've all lucked out with this living consitution stuff.
But, what if the zeitgeist changed? What if 30 years from now, the society has the opinion that a state should establish a religion. Too bad the law doesn't explicitly protect us from that happening.

If you had that right then why didn't they chose the wording "The rights of the people for free speech, press, and religion shall not be restricted." and leave it at that? What is the need to mention congress at all?Look at some of the others in the Bill of Rights:
Example:

quote:

---

Amendment IV

​

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

---

It explicitly says that the people have these rights. It doesn't specify anything about congress or any law-making body. It just says that the people have these rights and these rights are not to be violated. Now do you see that your "right" to free speech or religion is NOT mentioned in the constitution.What IS mentioned is what congress can do wrt to speech and religion.
That's it.

What great choice in wording.If only it were true.It is the supreme law of the land, but that in no way implies that restrictions on congress should be applied to the states.This message has been edited by gnojek, 04-15-2005 01:58 PM

You know,maybe we should interpert the constitution by the gnojek test... that being that it means what gnojek wants it to say. Wait, no, that would be disastor.It has been explained to you over and over what the framers of the Constitution and the courts and citizens of the United States mean by the first and fourteenth amendments. You simply can't or won't understand. Oh well. No great loss. Just one more frustrated would-be theocrat.Whether you like it or not, or if you understand it or not, it is unconstitutional for any level of government, from municipal to federal, to pass any law regarding an establishment of religion.By the way, that is a good thing, but I'm sure that fact will escape you also.I'm surprised people have been so patient.So are we to understand that you think it would be all right for Iowa (to pick a state at random) to pass a law saying the state religion is Christianity and you must follow it to vote, attend school or work? Or do you just want a good Christian prayer in the schools along with some readings from the KJV? Maybe you would be a generous tyrant and let the jewboys and heathens leave the room so all the good kids would know who to deride and attack on the playground.I am so thankful to the wise and prudent men who wrote the amendments and the sober and reasonable judges who interpert them that those who agree with you are suitably controlled.

Forget the first amedment. Pretend it's not even there.Can we start with that.Now a State tries to establish a religion.Whoops, that violates the 14^th. Amendment. It has nothing to do with the First, it is passing laws that discriminate against certain segments of the population. You can't make blacks sit in the back of the buss and you can't have a State Religion.

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.