I see I'm going to have to teach Beastie "basic English" comprehension again.
The statements are not saying they have the right to establish a "state religion", it's stating that the state "may make laws respectingan establishment of religion".
In other words, it's stating that the state may determine HOW religion may be established.
Remember the whole point of this bill? Was to ban the Federal Government from interfering in the "exercise" of religion within that state.
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
Darth J wrote:This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. What the North Carolina bill purports to do would give the state's courts the ability to disregard the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the Supremacy Clause in article VI of the Constitution. Besides being de facto secessionist, the bill, if enacted into law, would give the State of North Carolina the power to restrict the free exercise of any religion the legislature or a court determined to be non-Christian. Had you the slightest idea of the background in this controversy, you would be aware that Mormonism has been specifically mentioned as one of the non-Christian religions that North Carolina's state constitution allegedly does not have to recognize as legitimate.
If this bill actually is signed into law, it has a 100% chance of being struck down by the federal courts, because the bill obviously violates the Supremacy Clause. How the hell you think concern about everyone's freedom of religion---including specifically your religion---is part of some liberal/atheist is beyond the hope of rational understanding.
You are entirely wrong.... The purpose of the bill is to get the Federal government out of the hair of the state leaders so they and exercise their faith, no matter the faith in public in government. Your Mormonism comments are more liberal editorializing misrepresenting the issue.
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
I see I'm going to have to teach Beastie "basic English" comprehension again.
The statements are not saying they have the right to establish a "state religion", it's stating that the state "may make laws respectingan establishment of religion".
In other words, it's stating that the state may determine HOW religion may be established.
Remember the whole point of this bill? Was to ban the Federal Government from interfering in the "exercise" of religion within that state.
Oh, right. That's so much better.
Please explain, in detail, the significant difference between the two.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
For example....allowing same-sex marriage under DOMA would be a conflict for a State, correct?
No, you have the concept completely convoluted. Refusing to recognize same-sex marriages that are valid under state law is a conflict for the federal government under the 10th Amendment, because Congress has no authority to define marriage for the states. That has to do with the 10th Amendment, not the Supremacy Clause.
(emphasis mine) Which is the point in NC...they have stated that Congress has no authority to define religion for the states...thereby, as with same-sex marriage, a State may recognize or not recognize a religion.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
It is mindboggling that some here appear to be arguing that this:
31 SECTION 1. The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution 32 of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws 33 respecting an establishment of religion.
does not mean that North Carolina, if it should so choose, has the right to establish a state religion and any pertaining laws.
It was shot down by a republican, by the way, but that doesn't change the fact that some here are willing to justify and rationalize such nonsense.
It does always amuse me to see Mormons so willing to get into bed with EV, half of whom don't even think Mormonism is a Christian religion. LOL.
For example....allowing same-sex marriage under DOMA would be a conflict for a State, correct?
No, you have the concept completely convoluted. Refusing to recognize same-sex marriages that are valid under state law is a conflict for the federal government under the 10th Amendment, because Congress has no authority to define marriage for the states. That has to do with the 10th Amendment, not the Supremacy Clause.
subgenius wrote:(emphasis mine) Which is the point in NC...they have stated that Congress has no authority to define religion for the states...thereby, as with same-sex marriage, a State may recognize or not recognize a religion.
Congress doesn't purport to define religion for the states. Anyway, is it your understanding that at some point in the history of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution was ratified which says that the states cannot deprive persons of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny persons equal protection of law?
Last edited by Guest on Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Darth J wrote:This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. What the North Carolina bill purports to do would give the state's courts the ability to disregard the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the Supremacy Clause in article VI of the Constitution. Besides being de facto secessionist, the bill, if enacted into law, would give the State of North Carolina the power to restrict the free exercise of any religion the legislature or a court determined to be non-Christian. Had you the slightest idea of the background in this controversy, you would be aware that Mormonism has been specifically mentioned as one of the non-Christian religions that North Carolina's state constitution allegedly does not have to recognize as legitimate.
If this bill actually is signed into law, it has a 100% chance of being struck down by the federal courts, because the bill obviously violates the Supremacy Clause. How the hell you think concern about everyone's freedom of religion---including specifically your religion---is part of some liberal/atheist is beyond the hope of rational understanding.
You are entirely wrong.... The purpose of the bill is to get the Federal government out of the hair of the state leaders so they and exercise their faith, no matter the faith in public in government. Your Mormonism comments are more liberal editorializing misrepresenting the issue.
Ldsfaqs, please explain what the following two things are:
1. Article VI, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States; 2. Amendment 14 to the Constitution of the United States.
Also, if you could cite specific examples of the federal government prohibiting the free exercise of Christianity in North Carolina, that would be great.
subgenius wrote:Congress has no authority to define religion for the states...thereby, as with same-sex marriage, a State may recognize or not recognize a religion.
I see that I am dealing with a true scholar of the Constitution here. Subgenius, what do the following underlined words mean?
Section 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.
Section 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.
Section 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.
Section 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.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
subgenius wrote:Congress has no authority to define religion for the states...thereby, as with same-sex marriage, a State may recognize or not recognize a religion.
I see that I am dealing with a true scholar of the Constitution here. Subgenius, what do the following underlined words mean?
Section 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.
Section 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.
Section 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.
Section 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.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
it appears that "due process" has commenced....
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent