While I know it would make Jim happy, North Carolina cannot have a theocracy

North Carolina State Capitol.
North Carolina State Capitol. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Craig posted the news this morning, followed by Christian, and then Jim’s gleeful refrain. While the law may even get passed in North Carolina, allowing for a return when States had State religions, it will be struck down in the Supreme Court.

The bill says the First Amendment only applies to the federal government and does not stop state governments, local governments and school districts from adopting measures that defy the Constitution.

The legislation also says that the Tenth Amendment, which says powers not reserved for the federal government belong to the states, prohibits court rulings that would seek to apply the First Amendment to state and local officials.

The bill reads:

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.

The North Carolinian legislators are absolutely correct… if they were in 1861. The 14th Amendment passed, albeit under force and with failed promises, secures citizenship under the U.S. Constitution. Before this, you were note a citizen of the U.S. of A., but of your individual State. Therefore, what the Constitution did was to limit Federal powers. This is the reason States had state churches and could do as they desired.

It reads, in part:

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.

Let me add this real quick — had North Carolina done their part in the little dust up between 1861 and 1865, the could have their own Episcopal Church of North Carolina. Just saying.

Anyway, while the Tenth Amendment is used in this refrain, it only reserves the rights to the States no otherwise allotted to the Federal Government. In the 14th amendment, the entirety of the Constitution is now applied to the States. In other words, States aren’t allowed to do what Congress is not allowed to do. This is why we have the Civil Rights acts following the Supreme Court decisions centered on State’s actions.

I swear, these people are blooming idiots…

Enhanced by Zemanta

You Might Also Like

17 Replies to “While I know it would make Jim happy, North Carolina cannot have a theocracy”

    1. It’s not that I want to rain on your parade, but because you singled out Methodists on twitter, I have to stop this before you get the guillotine out. I heard you were already packing up the car to move.

  1. I can’t see this as a line of argument that the Republican party would want to see successful. IF it did then the 2nd amendment also only applies to the Fed and individual states could begin to pass anti-gun laws…

    That knife cuts both ways…

    1. Though I’m not taking sides, it appears to me that many states and also local governments believe that they already have a right to pass anti-gun laws. Has anyone takes this to court yet?

  2. Ken,
    I’m not sure where your comment is directed but from my point of view there is little clear thinking from anyone on any viewpoint. It seems that most have a fixed viewpoint and filter everything through their views and don’t bother to listen to anyone they don’t agree with. As a matter of fact most listen only to what their kindred thinkers say about the those of an opposite viewpoint rather reading and listening to the subject of their disdain. Then, worse yet are the vast majority of voters who just accept what they are told w/o thinking at all and unfortunately they will reap the results they sow.

    1. I agree with everything you said.

      While, yes, I’m being critical of Republicans at this moment, just about every other group disappoints me profoundly in turn.

      It’s not even just disagreeing with me … that, I understand and appreciate. It’s being silly and/or stupid that bothers me.

  3. Joel,
    Yes, but I said that they believe they have the right and they still do. They just have to get it worded correctly and the courts will change for the better. All indications suggest they are probably right to believe such. The idea is that all will change if small enough steps are taken. Often referred to as the slippery slope.

    1. Skid, I don’t quite understand what you are saying here?

      There is no right under the constitution to allow for individual states to violate any part of the entire Constitution.

  4. Joel,
    Sorry that I wasn’t clear to you. All I am saying is that despite what the interested parties think, it appears that many state and local governments believe that they can make any laws they please concerning gun control, whether they want to limit gun ownership or enhance gun ownership. I am not trying to predict right or wrong. I thought you said that the states have no such powers and it appears to me that they think they do and the courts haven’t really decided yet.

    1. Many think they do, but as SCOTUS has said, they do not. Of course, being unconstitutional is not a crime — and fortunate for these NC elected officials, neither is being stupid. It just takes a higher court to strike down the law

  5. I have several responses as to why a state or local government might attempt to enact a law or an ordinance that would be unconstitutional. First, ignorance. But that should not hold water because they should consult with the lawyer or legal scholar to get a good opinion. Second, there may be a genuine unsettled area of constitutional law. Still, get a good legal opinion. Finally, it’s sometime done with knowledge of the law’s uncontitutionality, but it’s hoped that it the law will stop gun crime, cyber bullying or any other such societal issues. This is worst excuse as it usually ensnares innocent people.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.