From: ‘Charlie Kirk Miracle’ - the Authoritarianism discussion

[canpakes]

If the DoE is dismantled at the Federal level by Trump, allowing the State of Oklahoma - via a legislature controlled by Republicans - to mandate the purchase of Trump Bibles (this was actually proposed) along with requiring that all students are forced to take Bible Study classes and be taught creationism, is that authoritarian, or does the State Republican Party somehow get a pass on that because they worked to strike down the Federal department that guaranteed a wider choice for all students?

Please help a poor confused foreigner. If the State of Oklahoma decides to make laws or regulations to compel all school students "to take Bible Study classes and be taught creationism", that is surely a law establishing a religions, viz. a particular version of Christianity, the one with literal belief in Genesis.

Now the First Amendment to the US constitution begins "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...". So presumably Congress could not make a law that would compel all school students "to take Bible Study classes and be taught creationism"", because that would be unconstitutional.

But is the constitution binding on state governments? On the face of it, it might seem not, since the constitution only refers to the US Congress. Can a state insist that a particular religion is taught, and also "prohibit the free exercise" of their religion to Muslims or any other religion they don\t happen to like?

It depends on who is in charge at what level.

If Republicans control the Federal Government, then they claim the right to control the State.

If Republicans control a State government, then they’ll claim the right to ignore the Federal law, under the guise of ‘State’s Rights’.

A good example of this is how the Trump Administration demanded - at the Federal level - that Harvard University hire what the Administration characterized as ‘conservative’ teachers along with demanding a full review of Harvard’s curriculum in order to add more ‘conservative viewpoints’. There was, of course, no actual criteria provided as to whatever that meant.

So, even using one of Whiskey/Binger’s own examples, we can see the Republican Trump Administration flexing authoritarian demands on a university in order to press the Administration’s ideology and viewpoints.

[Chap]

Please help a poor confused foreigner. If the State of Oklahoma decides to make laws or regulations to compel all school students "to take Bible Study classes and be taught creationism", that is surely a law establishing a religions, viz. a particular version of Christianity, the one with literal belief in Genesis.

Now the First Amendment to the US constitution begins "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...". So presumably Congress could not make a law that would compel all school students "to take Bible Study classes and be taught creationism"", because that would be unconstitutional.

But is the constitution binding on state governments? On the face of it, it might seem not, since the constitution only refers to the US Congress. Can a state insist that a particular religion is taught, and also "prohibit the free exercise" of their religion to Muslims or any other religion they don\t happen to like?

It depends on who is in charge at what level.

[...]
If Republicans control a State government, then they’ll claim the right to ignore the Federal law, under the guise of ‘State’s Rights’.

[...]

So the answer to my question is, in effect, that despite the First Amendment "a state [can] insist that a particular religion is taught, and also "prohibit the free exercise" of their religion to Muslims or any other religion they don\t happen to like". They do so in virtue of 'state's rights'.

Presumably, to take it to an extreme, they could ban me from entry to their state unless I agreed to stop being an atheist and started attending Hegseth's favourite church. Nice to know.

[Res Ipsa]

If the DoE is dismantled at the Federal level by Trump, allowing the State of Oklahoma - via a legislature controlled by Republicans - to mandate the purchase of Trump Bibles (this was actually proposed) along with requiring that all students are forced to take Bible Study classes and be taught creationism, is that authoritarian, or does the State Republican Party somehow get a pass on that because they worked to strike down the Federal department that guaranteed a wider choice for all students?

Please help a poor confused foreigner. If the State of Oklahoma decides to make laws or regulations to compel all school students "to take Bible Study classes and be taught creationism", that is surely a law establishing a religions, viz. a particular version of Christianity, the one with literal belief in Genesis.

Now the First Amendment to the US constitution begins "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...". So presumably Congress could not make a law that would compel all school students "to take Bible Study classes and be taught creationism"", because that would be unconstitutional.

But is the constitution binding on state governments? On the face of it, it might seem not, since the constitution only refers to the US Congress. Can a state insist that a particular religion is taught, and also "prohibit the free exercise" of their religion to Muslims or any other religion they don\t happen to like?

Hi Chap. Before passage of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court had generally held that the rights described in the bill of rights did not apply to the states. Afterward, the Court developed the incorporation doctrine, which holds that the limitations on the federal government found in the bill of rights also apply to state governments. So, the establishment clause in the First Amendment applies to state governments today.

When the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, several states had established churches. In a relatively short period of time, those states chose to prohibit established churches through their own laws and constitutions.

[Whiskey]

It does not fail. In fact, you have made my point. From here, shall we conclude that there are no other examples where one party or side or whatever is calling for more federal authority and the other is asking the feds to opt out?

Shall we assume, given honor's handed-to ass on the matter, that there really are not countless other examples like these that you have detailed? No others, correct?

You can conclude whatever you would like to conclude. The essence of your approach is quite Trumpian: repeat the same distraction, falsehood or straw man in an attempt to inject a false reality over the legitimate concerns of other observers.

You’re still pretending that federal authority = authoritarianism. You can’t even support your own statement past that conflation. No one here seems to be buying it.

No. That is not at all what I am doing or pretending. I am making the point, a simple one, that the parties both expect the federal authority to do their bidding, with the exceptions of abortion and education, which many Americans prefer that the feds opt out of leadership and control.

[canpakes]

It depends on who is in charge at what level.

[...]
If Republicans control a State government, then they’ll claim the right to ignore the Federal law, under the guise of ‘State’s Rights’.

[...]

So the answer to my question is, in effect, that despite the First Amendment "a state [can] insist that a particular religion is taught, and also "prohibit the free exercise" of their religion to Muslims or any other religion they don\t happen to like". They do so in virtue of 'state's rights'.

Presumably, to take it to an extreme, they could ban me from entry to their state unless I agreed to stop being an atheist and started attending Hegseth's favourite church. Nice to know.

They could try. It may not be legal, but they may do it anyway and hope that either no court challenge will be issued, or that a favorable court would rule in their favor under some sort of convoluted legal reasoning.

This is how the Trump Administration operates now. They will commit to certain actions that are arguably outside of the law or normal legal procedures, then try to wait out the courts, or simply ignore the courts and - by extension - the law. That’s what they were doing with the Garcia situation and they’ve done it numerous other times in other unrelated situations, as can be reviewed at the Just Security website listing those court challenges.

https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tra ... istration/

You are witnessing authoritarianism being forced upon and through the American government system, in ways that are unprecedented in modern times.

[Res Ipsa]

It depends on who is in charge at what level.

[...]
If Republicans control a State government, then they’ll claim the right to ignore the Federal law, under the guise of ‘State’s Rights’.

[...]

So the answer to my question is, in effect, that despite the First Amendment "a state [can] insist that a particular religion is taught, and also "prohibit the free exercise" of their religion to Muslims or any other religion they don\t happen to like". They do so in virtue of 'state's rights'.

Presumably, to take it to an extreme, they could ban me from entry to their state unless I agreed to stop being an atheist and started attending Hegseth's favourite church. Nice to know.

No, states are bound by the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment.

As a non-citizen, you don’t have the same rights as we citizens have, and the federal government has broader powers when it comes to border enforcement than it does in other areas of law enforcement. But, if I recall correctly, Trump’s original “Muslim ban” during his first term was fought based in part on the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. That leads me to think that even the broad border enforcement powers are subject to the First Amendment’s religion clauses.

[Kishkumen]

He’s not, and that distraction is intentional, because Binger is doing his best to take eyes off of the authoritarian tendencies of the folks he prefers, by conflating authority with authoritarian.

It’s weak dodge, for several problematic reasons.

The obvious issue is that Binger doesn’t escape authoritarianism by shifting the source of the authority. In other words, what happens when the authority to regulate abortion or education is passed one step down to the States? All this does is shift the authoritarian tendencies or actions of one party over another to an arguably more favorable ‘home advantaged’ playing field.

If the DoE is dismantled at the Federal level by Trump, allowing the State of Oklahoma - via a legislature controlled by Republicans - to mandate the purchase of Trump Bibles (this was actually proposed) along with requiring that all students are forced to take Bible Study classes and be taught creationism, is that authoritarian, or does the State Republican Party somehow get a pass on that because they worked to strike down the Federal department that guaranteed a wider choice for all students?

The same example applies to abortion. If the Republican Party works to kill Roe v. Wade so that there is nothing stopping the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature from demanding that no abortion access is allowed for any circumstance, does that make the Republican Party more authoritarian than the alternative, or less?

Authoritarianism will always be more about what a party or a person does with the power that they have (or think that they have) as opposed to the power granted equally to both (or multiple) parties.

In short, Binger’s argument fails. Recognize it for what it is … an intentional conflation of terms in service to distraction.

So, I don't think that particular issues like abortion and education make straightforward examples of authoritarianism.

Much of Trump's authoritarianism is expressed in his takeover of the Executive Branch and all of its agencies to wield power in ways previous presidents have not.

As far as education goes, Trump's authoritarianism is in his dismantling of the Department of Education. His MAGA followers love this because they view federal authority in the area of education to be a bar to the realization of things they wanted to do on the state level, such as defund public education, create or exacerbate inequality, and introduce Christianity into the classroom.

Populists seek authoritarians because through authoritarians they are able to accomplish goals the existing system is preventing. An authoritarian ignores or runs over the system that exists in order to magnify his power. The goals of the populist following are just a means to the end of grabbing the power the authoritarian wants. That's the symbiotic relationship between the two.

Trump's Christian populist following is theocratic in nature. They want to foist their special doctrines, like the sanctity of the union of sperm and egg, on everyone around them, and they don't care whether the tool they use to get there is a federal or state mechanism. Christian theocrats are still hard at work trying to eliminate access to abortion through all means at their disposal. So, no doubt they will continue to use their political ascendance in the Trump era to attain their theocratic objectives.

As a serial philanderer who has seduced and/or allegedly raped countless women, Trump may have paid for one or more abortions, and he doesn't give a fig about the abortion debate. All he knows is that his most radical Christian marks are crazy about it, and he has done what he could to please them by handing them the Supreme Court they wanted. That is a purely transactional arrangement.

Clever supporters of Trump know that most people are incapable of grasping complex situations, so they will pick individual issues like sending abortion back to the states to argue that Trump is not an authoritarian. Bullocks. Trump's consistent move to grab power wherever he can is not negated by those instances in which his reach only goes so far. He has no philosophy or values regarding issues like DEI, abortion, or anything else of the sort. He believes in the attention he receives, and the wealth and power he accrues. If he can't make abortion illegal for his Christian marks right away, and he is embarrassed by that, he will use the handiest excuse he can find, such as "sending it back to the states."

[canpakes]

You can conclude whatever you would like to conclude. The essence of your approach is quite Trumpian: repeat the same distraction, falsehood or straw man in an attempt to inject a false reality over the legitimate concerns of other observers.

You’re still pretending that federal authority = authoritarianism. You can’t even support your own statement past that conflation. No one here seems to be buying it.

No. That is not at all what I am doing or pretending. I am making the point, a simple one, that the parties both expect the federal authority to do their bidding, with the exceptions of abortion and education, which many Americans prefer that the feds opt out of leadership and control.

That point has nothing to do with authoritarianism, which may or may not be exercised by an entity at the Federal level.

Neither is authoritarianism demonstrated by a Federal law that allows all citizens access to abortion, because such a federal law grants the right to make that decision to the individual, as opposed to the State.

Apply the same reasoning to the 2A.

This distraction isn’t working for you.

[Res Ipsa]

Right now, I think the authoritarianism of the Trump Regime is best demonstrated by what he’s done to the DOJ.

[canpakes]

No, states are bound by the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment.

They are, but Republican-controlled states were quite eager to challenge the Biden Administration several years back. This Guardian article link below discusses some of that.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... reme-court