32 replies to this topic

[Cait]

Posted without a comment.  I need to digest this before I make any comments.

http://www.huffingto..._n_3003401.html

The bill reads...

Quote

SECTION 1. The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.
SECTION 2. The North Carolina General Assembly does not recognize federal court rulings which prohibit and otherwise regulate the State of North Carolina, its public schools, or any political subdivisions of the State from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

[QueenTiye]

I sure hope when a republican is president again, that these lawmakers continue their secessionist frenzy.  Else it might look like extreme partisanship, or even racism...

On the specific case - I hope they do it.  Every Muslim or Buddhist or Jewish person in the state will have standing the challenge the law and take it directly to the Supreme Court. As much as Justice Kennedy favors federalism - I'm pretty certain he'd side with a majority in hacking this nonsense to bits.

QT

[Balderdash]

Got to love those Constitution protecting Republicans...

http://www.ncleg.net.../Chapter_11.pdf

Quote

11-7. Oath or affirmation to support Constitutions; all officers to take.
Every member of the General Assembly and every person elected or appointed to hold any office of trust or profit in the State shall, before taking office or entering upon the execution of the office, take and subscribe to the following oath:
"I, ___________, do solemnly and sincerely swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States; that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of North Carolina, and to the constitutional powers and authorities which are or may be established for the government thereof; and that I will endeavor to support, maintain and defend the Constitution of said State, not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, to the best of my knowledge and ability; so help me God." (1781, c. 342, s. 1, P.R.; R.C., c. 76, s. 4; Code, s. 3312; Rev., s. 2358; C.S., s. 3194; 1985, c. 756, s. 5.)

[Tricia]

Some days I just have to wonder if people aren't just throwing a giant hissy fit because it's their way or the highway. Their way or no way.

And that they freely violate or uphold their Oath of Office as they see fit...which is only when it serves them.  So their word isn't worth squat either.

ETA--please let me make it clear here....I would say this about the people involved no matter what their political party.  Of you take an oath and then do things that go against it, that is WRONG, and a violation of your word.

Edited by Tricia, 04 April 2013 - 06:07 AM.

[Balderdash]

QueenTiye, on 03 April 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

I sure hope when a republican is president again, that these lawmakers continue their secessionist frenzy.  Else it might look like extreme partisanship, or even racism...

On the specific case - I hope they do it.  Every Muslim or Buddhist or Jewish person in the state will have standing the challenge the law and take it directly to the Supreme Court. As much as Justice Kennedy favors federalism - I'm pretty certain he'd side with a majority in hacking this nonsense to bits.

QT

You posted while I was typing but I wanted to note (and it should be noted) that we don't agree that often but I agree with this.

[Cait]

What amazes me is the lack of appreciation for what this could mean in the long run.  The First Amendment and the US Constitution aside, what is to stop those Jews, or Muslims or Scientologists, Hindu's or Buddhists from gaining a majority and declaring their religion the state religion?  That's why the First Amendments exists.  To avoid the declaration of one religion as state approved and all others?  What?  

If there was anything the Founders knew beyond a shadow of a doubt it was the tyranny of a state religion.  Ask any Quaker.  Ask a Catholic after Mary Tudor.  Or a Catholic in Ireland--like ever.  Everyone is pleased as punch to declare Christianity a state religion [I'll bet], but which sect?  Which brand of Christianity? It's a ludicrous idea, but that's not what worries me the most.

It's the premise of the law.  The foundation.  That the Sates are sovereign and that the Constitution doesn't prohibit states, only congress.  There's probably a long list of cases that addressed this concept, but we have a very conservative court right now.  If it were challenged, this court has shown that it will not bow to precedent

I have to do some research on cases that addressed this.  I seem to remember there was a big one [that is escaping me right now] that states that the sovereign states cannot pass laws that violate the US Constitution, but I'm just not sure that is real or if it is common sense on my part and I think it should be real.

And, the idea that states would even think of doing this. Well, it's a modern day succession isn't it.  Refusing to enforce the laws of the land is succession.  Isn't this what these states are really trying to do, only without an army.  

Refusing to institute ObamaCare in some states, refusing to follow Federal immigration laws, declaring sovereignty over Congress and declaring state religions.  What happens when the Court decides the gay marriage thing, or the civil rights cases?  What will some states do then?  Where does it end?  In the collapse of the Union?

I believe this is the most reckless idea to come along in a long time.

[Balderdash]

Quote

The North Carolina state constitution disqualifies those who do not believe in God from public office. The provision has been unenforciblesince the 1961 Supreme Court decision in Torcaso v. Watkins, which prohibited such bans.

It's not NC but it is a State: http://supreme.justi...7/488/case.html

[QueenTiye]

^^While the court is very conservative at present, it also tends to be somewhat deferential to the federal government.  Its conservatism is such as doesn't much like upsetting the apple-cart and divesting the President (for instance) of authority.  I can't see the courts upholding this law, and as I said, that's even with Justice Kennedy's famed federalism at play.  I don't think he would find that federalism goes that far.

QT

[QuiGon John]

This is some really impressive wing-nuttery, here. No, honestly, this is top-notch.

I mean, first we have to talk about incorporation, which the courts have held for a long time to extend the protections in the Bill of Rights to the state government, via the Fourteenth Amendment. ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.). Then you can go back and talk about Nullification, which no less a rough-and-tumble Southerner than Andrew Jackson considered to be a hanging offense.

That's before you even get to the part about the establishment of any sort of state religion being completely incompatible with our form of democracy. I mean, sheesh. Do we really want to set a precedent which could lead to comedians going to jail for insulting the state religion, like that fellow in Egypt recently? Anybody? Really?

I have to agree with QT on this-- Anthony Kennedy is a serious man as well as a conservative, and serious people of any bent are not going to hold with this. The only reason I don't find it actively terrifying is because I can't imagine even the writers of the bill thought it would actually fly.

This is an attempt to ruffle feathers, and little else.

Edited by QuiGon John, 03 April 2013 - 04:44 PM.

[Cait]

QuiGon John, on 03 April 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

This is some really impressive wing-nuttery, here. No, honestly, this is top-notch.

I mean, first we have to talk about incorporation, which the courts have held for a long time to extend the protections in the Bill of Rights to the state government, via the Fourteenth Amendment. ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.). Then you can go back and talk about Nullification, which no less a rough-and-tumble Southerner than Andrew Jackson considered to be a hanging offense.

**bangs head against the wall.**  D'uh, the 14th Amendment.  Yep, that's big enough for me to have remembered.  *shakes head*  At least if I didn't remember something so obvious, I knew it should exist.  LOL

[Orpheus]

QueenTiye, on 03 April 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

I sure hope when a republican is president again, that these lawmakers continue their secessionist frenzy.  Else it might look like extreme partisanship, or even racism...

With the greatest of deference, I think even hinting at the racism card, is not applicable here. I honestly think that this move would suit the transient and self-serving political goals of its advocates, regardless of the race of the President or the ethnic skew of Islam. it's little more than flag-waving. The majority of Bible-belters may disagree with this measure on the basis of what they learned in grade school history and civics ( *er- why is it that the Pilgrims came here?), but speaking as a Georgian, I think many might find some indirect solace that someone is fighting for Christianity, in whatever misguided fashion.

I'm sure many who variously support[ed]/oppose[d] gun control, sexual orientation rights, budget reforms, marijuana legalization, the [former] 55 mph  national speed limit, birth control rights, various elements of foreign policy and trade relations, etc.  feel the same way about the "nutjobs" who "make us look bad, but at least they mobilize their wrong-headed sector of the citizenry" -- supporting something in which "we" may find some small merit stands a league apart from opposing it, even if we think they're idiots/scoundrels.

Balderdash, on 03 April 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

Got to love those Constitution protecting Republicans...

http://www.ncleg.net.../Chapter_11.pdf

Quote

11-7. Oath or affirmation to support Constitutions; all officers to take.
Every member of the General Assembly and every person elected or appointed to hold any office of trust or profit in the State shall, before taking office or entering upon the execution of the office, take and subscribe to the following oath:
"I, ___________, do solemnly and sincerely swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States; that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of North Carolina, and to the constitutional powers and authorities which are or may be established for the government thereof; and that I will endeavor to support, maintain and defend the Constitution of said State, not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, to the best of my knowledge and ability; so help me God." (1781, c. 342, s. 1, P.R.; R.C., c. 76, s. 4; Code, s. 3312; Rev., s. 2358; C.S., s. 3194; 1985, c. 756, s. 5.)

I honestly have to say that I find AMPLE leeway in the reading of that oath, if taken in its entirety ourside the bolding to permit them to wholeheartedly support this action, even if I personally think the action itself is completely inappropriate and unlawful. In fact, I would say that the oath seems to have been *specifically* crafted to that interpretation. Re-read it and see if you don't agree.

Supporting the Constitution of the US is no contradiction to saying that the Constitution doesn't apply here [I happen to think it does]. I don't think ANY laws in Georgia apply to me (30+ years after I left), even if Georgia has some law saying they do. That's for the Supreme Court to decide -- and I'm not worried.

No more worried than I am about this measure. It's just political grandstanding and haymaking. TBH, I feel the same about the CT gun control law signed today. It's not like CT, one of the 1776 original colonies, just heard of the issue this year.

[Nonny]

Sigh.

[DarthMarley]

QuiGon John, on 03 April 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

This is some really impressive wing-nuttery, here. No, honestly, this is top-notch.

I mean, first we have to talk about incorporation, which the courts have held for a long time to extend the protections in the Bill of Rights to the state government, via the Fourteenth Amendment. ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.). Then you can go back and talk about Nullification, which no less a rough-and-tumble Southerner than Andrew Jackson considered to be a hanging offense.

That's before you even get to the part about the establishment of any sort of state religion being completely incompatible with our form of democracy. I mean, sheesh. Do we really want to set a precedent which could lead to comedians going to jail for insulting the state religion, like that fellow in Egypt recently? Anybody? Really?

I have to agree with QT on this-- Anthony Kennedy is a serious man as well as a conservative, and serious people of any bent are not going to hold with this. The only reason I don't find it actively terrifying is because I can't imagine even the writers of the bill thought it would actually fly.

This is an attempt to ruffle feathers, and little else.

Sums it up.
Strict construction allowed states to have a state religion before the 14th was ratified.
Now, it is a matter of settled law.
Hey, these kind of conservatives are an embarassment to conservative who actually have informed opinions.
I can admit that among "conservatives" are racists and theocrats looking to piggy-back their pet agenda onto the conservative bandwagon.
Pretty much like there have been socialists and communists doing the same with the liberals.

[EChatty]

Frankly, as a Republican, conservative and a Christian, I find the idea of an 'official' state religion to be totally left-field and not what this country was founded on. It was what the Pilgrims ran from in the first place and I can't see where it will do anyone any good to repeat that (even at a state level).

[Bad Wolf]

The proposers of this bill are full of sh*t.   But hey, I'm in California...it's not like they're wasting MY money and resources with this nonsense.  I wonder how the citizens of NC feel about this well thought out and not at all hysterical and reactionary seeming use of their state's resources.  Sheesh.

[Bad Wolf]

I don't think it's racism.  I think it's stupidity.

[EChatty]

I have to agree with Bad Wolf there, it's stupidity, plain and simple.

[Bad Wolf]

Lot of that going around this country.

[Nonny]

DarthMarley, on 04 April 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

Pretty much like there have been socialists and communists doing the same with the liberals.

Yeah, darn that socialist who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, as it should be.

[Balderdash]

DarthMarley, on 04 April 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

QuiGon John, on 03 April 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

This is some really impressive wing-nuttery, here. No, honestly, this is top-notch.

I mean, first we have to talk about incorporation, which the courts have held for a long time to extend the protections in the Bill of Rights to the state government, via the Fourteenth Amendment. ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.). Then you can go back and talk about Nullification, which no less a rough-and-tumble Southerner than Andrew Jackson considered to be a hanging offense.

That's before you even get to the part about the establishment of any sort of state religion being completely incompatible with our form of democracy. I mean, sheesh. Do we really want to set a precedent which could lead to comedians going to jail for insulting the state religion, like that fellow in Egypt recently? Anybody? Really?

I have to agree with QT on this-- Anthony Kennedy is a serious man as well as a conservative, and serious people of any bent are not going to hold with this. The only reason I don't find it actively terrifying is because I can't imagine even the writers of the bill thought it would actually fly.

This is an attempt to ruffle feathers, and little else.

Sums it up.
Strict construction allowed states to have a state religion before the 14th was ratified.
Now, it is a matter of settled law.
Hey, these kind of conservatives are an embarassment to conservative who actually have informed opinions.
I can admit that among "conservatives" are racists and theocrats looking to piggy-back their pet agenda onto the conservative bandwagon.
Pretty much like there have been socialists and communists doing the same with the liberals.

Agreed!