Why just the establishment clause and not the free exercise clause, the free speech and press clauses, and the assembly and petition clauses? Further, if a state were allowed to pass a law that established Christianity as its recognized religion wouldn't a state also be allowed to establish Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, Scientology, etc.?
the free exercise clause, the free speech and press clauses, and the assembly and petition clauses are Not limited by the language to the actions of Congress
Grammatically (my mom was an English teacher and drove me nuts with constant criticism of my grammar) The or and and between phrases simply prevents redundancy. It means the same as writing Congress shall make no law respecting..., Congress shall make no law prohibiting... etc.
they were-several States had official denominations
True. Madison managed to get the Episcopal establishment in Virginia ended in 1786 when he got Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom through the legislature. Massachusetts was the last state to eliminate taxation to support the institution of public worship in 1833. During the days of religious establishment minority Christian sects such as Baptists, Anabaptists, Quakers, and Roman Catholics were often discriminated against. In Virginia, for instance, Baptist ministers were subject to arrest if they attempted to preach. Quakers were subject to hanging in Virginia and Massachusetts.
finally, the clause says nothing about establishing religions-"an establishment" is a noun-it is a synonym for institution or denomination
"Experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, June 20, 1785
"The genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs." -- Justice William Brennan: Speech to the Text and Teaching Symposium at Georgetown University,(October 12, 1985)
Why just the establishment clause and not the free exercise clause, the free speech and press clauses, and the assembly and petition clauses? Further, if a state were allowed to pass a law that established Christianity as its recognized religion wouldn't a state also be allowed to establish Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, Scientology, etc.?
the free exercise clause, the free speech and press clauses, and the assembly and petition clauses are Not limited by the language to the actions of Congress
they were-several States had official denominations
and yes, yes they would
finally, the clause says nothing about establishing religions-"an establishment" is a noun-it is a synonym for institution or denomination
I know the history-the mini-lecture was superfluous. My point was by not limiting that portion of the Amendment to its plain language : a) either the Judiciary was ignoring the legislative intent or b) the 14th had unintended/unforeseeable consequences.
I guess it could be argued that the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention of 1785 exceeded their authority by scrapping the Articles of Confederation and writing the Constitution since the Convention was intended only to revise the Articles. I feel that the 14th is important because it insured civil rights and liberties to certain groups of citizens that were denied to them by several states. Without the concept of incorporation would legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1973 be of any use if states could ignore its provisions?
granted that incorporation of the Bill of rights to the States was a good thing overall-legally and linguistically it should have excluded what is now called the establishment clause
Why just the establishment clause and not the free exercise clause, the free speech and press clauses, and the assembly and petition clauses? Further, if a state were allowed to pass a law that established Christianity as its recognized religion wouldn't a state also be allowed to establish Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, Scientology, etc.?
"The genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs." -- Justice William Brennan: Speech to the Text and Teaching Symposium at Georgetown University,(October 12, 1985)
granted that incorporation of the Bill of rights to the States was a good thing overall-legally and linguistically it should have excluded what is now called the establishment clause
I don't know why you think that. Do you really suppose that state governments would be better at protecting religious liberty without it?
Have you never lived in the Bible Belt?
This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
I know the history-the mini-lecture was superfluous. My point was by not limiting that portion of the Amendment to its plain language : a) either the Judiciary was ignoring the legislative intent or b) the 14th had unintended/unforeseeable consequences.
I guess it could be argued that the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention of 1785 exceeded their authority by scrapping the Articles of Confederation and writing the Constitution since the Convention was intended only to revise the Articles. I feel that the 14th is important because it insured civil rights and liberties to certain groups of citizens that were denied to them by several states. Without the concept of incorporation would legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1973 be of any use if states could ignore its provisions?
granted that incorporation of the Bill of rights to the States was a good thing overall-legally and linguistically it should have excluded what is now called the establishment clause
I know the history-the mini-lecture was superfluous. My point was by not limiting that portion of the Amendment to its plain language : a) either the Judiciary was ignoring the legislative intent or b) the 14th had unintended/unforeseeable consequences.
I guess it could be argued that the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention of 1785 exceeded their authority by scrapping the Articles of Confederation and writing the Constitution since the Convention was intended only to revise the Articles. I feel that the 14th is important because it insured civil rights and liberties to certain groups of citizens that were denied to them by several states. Without the concept of incorporation would legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1973 be of any use if states could ignore its provisions?
"The genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs." -- Justice William Brennan: Speech to the Text and Teaching Symposium at Georgetown University,(October 12, 1985)
Yes; SCOTUS ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal government. The establishment clause was incorporated through the due process clause in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) Link
I know the history-the mini-lecture was superfluous. My point was by not limiting that portion of the Amendment to its plain language : a) either the Judiciary was ignoring the legislative intent or b) the 14th had unintended/unforeseeable consequences.
Yes; SCOTUS ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal government. The establishment clause was incorporated through the due process clause in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) Link
"The genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs." -- Justice William Brennan: Speech to the Text and Teaching Symposium at Georgetown University,(October 12, 1985)
