Traditional Values Defined

deaddude said:
This is a question, I am seeking information, it is in no way rhetorical. I tried to find this on the internet but could not find anything.

If a state did repeal their freedom of religion clause, would they then be violating their conditions of statehood?

Do conditions of statehood apply to the original states?
I dont think so.

I have never researched conditions of statehood. I would be surprised if any conditions could be forced permanently upon other states that arent imposed upon the original states. Did the original states have conditions of statehood?

Your question is quite interesting.

Of course there are many issues up for interpetation, but the thing that bothers me is when todays justices make a ruling that is clearly opposed to what the writers of the Constitution wrote into it. Abortion laws for example. How could roe v wade stand, when in fact the writers intended for abortion laws to be in the hands of the states, as they did THE EXACT SAME THING WITH ABORTION LAWS in individual states as they did with "establishment of religion" laws. They clearly never intended the issue to be decided by the feds.
 
musicman said:
I don't see how; in fact, it might make an interesting test case against the bizarre interpretative excesses perpetrated by liberal social engineers, in the name of the XIVth Amendment. I wish a state would do it for just that reason; I believe a clarification in constitutional principle is in order, and long overdue.

That said, I believe states would find "establishment" difficult as a practical matter - as they did almost two centuries ago. Still, states' rights - an absolutely fundamental facet of our system of government - have suffered horrible abuse in our lifetimes. As distasteful as I find political gamesmanship, this might be one case where the long-term good would be served by a bit of tactical belligerence.

I would have repped this post if I could have.

The signers of the COTUS never invisioned the judiciaries getting so out of hand. Its a difficult situation, because the only way to reign them in is with actual Constitutional, federal, amendments. Thats a difficult proposistion at best.

It used to be the "interpetation" differences between the parties was only in "gray" areas of the Constitution, not in cut and clear areas, such as the establishment clause. But then when the liberals had enough power, they declared the COTUS a "living and breathing" document. Thats just another way of saying its useless, and we will make law as we wish.

I see this as a much greater threat to our democracy than any other. The president doesnt make or write law. Thats in the hands of the Congress. WIth so many people representing congress, its entirely impossible for it to get to out of control and make dangerous law, not to mention the president can veto anything they put into law anyways.

Now the Supreme court, on the other hand, only requires , what, five people to make new law? It wasnt intended to be that way. But that is what is occuring.

The other most dangerous threat to our democracy is the use of govt agencies to enforce "rules and regulations" that arent actually law, but in effect become law. They are the "pc" police, who deteremine what you can put in a newspaper ad or not. If thats not GOVERNMENT censorship, I will eat my shoes. They infiltrate via the EPA, IRS, OSHA, etc, etc, etc.
 
LuvRPgrl said:
Not only that, but using the 14th to enforce the 1st in they way they do and want to, proves that such a method is contrary to what the writers and signers of the constitution intended and wrote into it.

Exactly. The lie that the XIVth applies to the establishment cause of the 1st, and somehow - retroactively - magically - makes "Congress" and "the states" mean the same thing - is one of the dirtiest tricks ever played on the American people.
 
GunnyL said:
You do not feel THIS violates one's constitutional rights? Say I own a house and want to rent it. I'm going to discriminate in whatever manner I see fit against potential tenants to ensure to the best of my ability I don't get screwed.

I, not the government, am ultimately responsible for the property.

I agree. The only time I feel the govt has the right to step in is in essential services, such as selling gasoline, food, etc.

I believe rental discrimination is wrong, however, using the govt to correct it is a bad idea. The private sector would have eventually come along and got it right, it would have taken longer, but usually doing something the right way does. By giving the govt the authority to make such declarations is EXACTLY what has lead to the private property seizure by imminent domain for economic reasons palatable by the courts and the people. Its long term effects, if not countered, will be disasterous and lead the the downfall of this country much sooner than otherwise.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top