Should states outlaw Scientology?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It's not a religion. It's a cult.

The Romans believed Christianity was a cult.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yeah, but that's wrong. It only applies to ex slaves. See....

BS Filter is clogged.

He is wrong, and so are you!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

But the constitution does say that the states aren't allowed to pass laws about religion. It only says that Congress cannot pass such a law. So the states are free to outlaw Scientology.

“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.” - 14th Amendment

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Look, repeating yourself doesn't change anything. Go and read it yourself. The first amendment says CONGRESS. It says nothing about the states.

Again, read the 14th Amendment.

You are suck a fucktard!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It's true that the states cannot pass an unconstitutional law. But the constitution says CONGRESS is prohibited from passing laws about religion.

Look, the Supreme Court has even said so.

The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of individual States.

Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)

Overturned by the 14th Amendment.

 

[BackAgain]

In other words, you cook up an idea that didn't exist before, and now the constitution means something different. Using fancy names doesn't change things.

Wrong again. Are you seriously contending that the Constitution disallows only the Federal government from prohibiting free speech, or freedom of the press or freedom of religion; but the States are and were intended to be free of such restrictions? Your contention is facially ridiculous.

The Supreme Court, actually.

Flatly false, actually. The first amendment is also incorporated, you ignorant lummox. incorporation doctrine

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Wrong again. Are you seriously contending that the Constitution disallows only the Federal government from prohibiting free speech, or freedom of the press or freedom of religion; but the States are and were intended to be free of such restrictions?

Yes. That's exactly what the constitution was created to do. This isn't even in dispute by anyone other than uneducated fools like you. It is fully settled law.

Flatly false, actually. The first amendment is also incorporated, you ignorant lummox. incorporation doctrine

Look, I've already pointed out Supreme Court precedents going back nearly 200 years on this. Under the constitution as originally created, the Bill of Rights was only pressing upon the federal government. The people had to look to their state governments to create constitutions that satisfied the people of the individual states. It was only after the passage of the 14th amendment that incorporation doctrine appeared. And even then, it's been a long and drawn out process.

Incorporation doctrine is nothing more than changing the constitution's meaning over time when it suits the judiciary to do so.

It's quite revealing how angry you are about this.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Scientology!!! Lol. Why would you want to ban them? Are they killing the unborn?

 

[buckeye45_73]

See, this is where you are wrong. The constitution only says that the federal government is prohibited from enacting those restrictions. There is no contradiction with the constitution when a state restricts those things, because it's only the federal government that is limited.

Geez, this isn't even a disputable fact. It was always widely known and understood that the Bill of Rights only applied restrictions upon the federal government. The Supreme Court itself affirmed this fact repeatedly. The very essence of states' rights is that the states can enact restrictions that would be out of bounds for the federal government, because state governments are much closer to the people, and the people can therefore exercise far greater control of the state legislatures.

It's only been relatively recently when activist judges enacted this crazy incorporation doctrine where they have stripped away the states' rights to enact laws as the people of those states see fit.

Huh? No, The Constitution is supreme, again name me one state law that is unconstitutional? Just like the New York law, it was struck down, meaning the US Constitution has supremacy. I can't believe I have to explain this over and over again. No wonder the left is full of idiots. First learn how the government works please.

I'll post it again

Supremacy Clause

www.law.cornell.edu

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect.


I'm trying to be patient, but it's right there, If you cant read that or you have something opposite to that let me know, otherwise I can't help you.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Scientology!!! Lol. Why would you want to ban them? Are they killing the unborn?

It was an attempt to slam the constitution, but I showed her the supremacy clause.....case closed.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Huh? No, The Constitution is supreme, again name me one state law that is unconstitutional? Just like the New York law, it was struck down, meaning the US Constitution has supremacy. I can't believe I have to explain this over and over again. No wonder the left is full of idiots. First learn how the government works please.

I'll post it again

Supremacy Clause

www.law.cornell.edu

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect.


I'm trying to be patient, but it's right there, If you cant read that or you have something opposite to that let me know, otherwise I can't help you.

You are wrong.

The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone.

 

[buckeye45_73]

You are wrong.

The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone.

I am not wrong. Show me a state law that is unconstitutional and could survive a court challenge?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

I am not wrong. Show me a state law that is unconstitutional and could survive a court challenge?

The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone.

How many times does it have to be said before you accept it?

 

[buckeye45_73]

The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone.

How many times does it have to be said before you accept it?

Because after the Civil WAr, they ratified the 13the amendment..why? So no state could allow slavery. So no states cannot pass a law that is unconstitutional......that's why these amendments have been added.

1) Womens right to vote......no state can deny a woman the right to vote
2) Voting at 18......again an amendment was passed, so no state can say you can't vote at 18...not a single one


I have others, but you know I'm right, I don't believe you're this stupid.......The US Constitution is supreme, no state law or State Constitution has authority over it.....ZERO

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Because after the Civil WAr, they ratified the 13the amendment..why? So no state could allow slavery. So no states cannot pass a law that is unconstitutional......that's why these amendments have been added.

1) Womens right to vote......no state can deny a woman the right to vote
2) Voting at 18......again an amendment was passed, so no state can say you can't vote at 18...not a single one


I have others, but you know I'm right, I don't believe you're this stupid.......The US Constitution is supreme, no state law or State Constitution has authority over it.....ZERO

Bam!!

 

[washamericom]

Let's say 25 states outlaw Scientology. That's fine, right? Anyone who wants to be a Scientologist can just move to another state, right?

There is no deeply held tradition in this country to engage in Scientology, so it's actually fine to outlaw it.

I live near clearwater fl.
Every state should have a modern day ghost town like this.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Because after the Civil WAr, they ratified the 13the amendment..why? So no state could allow slavery. So no states cannot pass a law that is unconstitutional......that's why these amendments have been added.

You are comparing apples to oranges. The 13th amendment explicitly states that slavery shall not "exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." All of the states are within the United States, therefore slavery cannot exist in any of them.

That's not what the first amendment says. The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone.

 

[buckeye45_73]

You are comparing apples to oranges. The 13th amendment explicitly states that slavery shall not "exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." All of the states are within the United States, therefore slavery cannot exist in any of them.

That's not what the first amendment says. The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone.

So wait, you're saying the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states, but the 13th amendment does? Is that the argument?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

So wait, you're saying the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states, but the 13th amendment does? Is that the argument?

Now you're starting to get it. The constitution only means what it actually says. You cannot insert things into the constitution just because you want them to be there. Unless a provision of the constitution explicitly says it applies to the states, then the provision only applies to the federal government.

I understand that you collectivist liberals hate the fact that states have rights, but that's the way the founding fathers made it.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Now you're starting to get it. The constitution only means what it actually says. You cannot insert things into the constitution just because you want them to be there. Unless a provision of the constitution explicitly says it applies to the states, then the provision only applies to the federal government.

I understand that you collectivist liberals hate the fact that states have rights, but that's the way the founding fathers made it.

Oh, I'm no lefty, but the US Constitution is supreme, It even states in the 10th Amendment, if it's not in THIS Constitution, it goes to the states.