1. The KillerFrogs

Ohio State wants to trademark "THE"

Discussion in 'Scott Nix Frog Fan Forum' started by CryptoMiner, Aug 14, 2019.

  1. #61 Purp, Aug 16, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2019
    Disagree. I agree that SCOTUS has interpreted it that way, but disagree that it's a correct reading

    The Bill of Rights was supposed to protect us and the states from the federal government. I've read Patrick Henry, George Mason, Madison, and Jefferson's (though he wasn't there) writings to one another and notes of the ratification convention and at no time was the Bill of Rights proposed to protect the minority from the majority. I also read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. The Anti-Federalists, to whom the Bill of Rights was a concession in order to secure ratification in Virginia, were adamant that the new constitution granted too broad a power to the new government to not have explicit checks against it. Mason and Henry especially were quite prophetic.

    The Bill of Rights was fashioned heavily after Virginia's Declaration of Rights (authored by George Mason), which was also intended to protect Virginians from their new government and not from one another. Each bill places an expressed limitation on the government and not on any person or group of people.

    The structure of the federal government and the electoral college system is designed to protect us from tyranny of the majority, but the Bill of Rights is not.
     
  2. To-may-to/to-mah-to. The government reflects the majority. I agree that the bill of rights shouldn’t apply to states, but that genie’s not going back in the bottle.
     
    YA, TX_Krötenechse and Purp like this.
  3. I was going to trademark "[ Orgeron ]", but Baylor has that logo registered already.
     
  4. It’s interesting that you mention Virginia precedent, because the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom is much more applicable here:

    “That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;
    [....]
    Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion...”

    This touches on the other aspect, namely, that people should not be compelled via taxation to support one religion over another. State buildings using state funds to add the Commandments definitely qualifies.
     
  5. [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

    Peacefrog likes this.
  6. #67 Froglaw, Aug 17, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2019
    Agreed.

    What if Tarrant County wanted to use tax dollars or simply allow a group to construct a Minaret or a Buddhist Shrine with prayer wheels on the courthouse grounds?

    Same violation of the US Constitution. Makes no difference when it comes to state supported religious celebrations.

    The old Europeans persecuted non-Catholics and non-church of England sects. Many of those Protestant christians came to the New World to obtain religious freedom.

    Just because the majority of the USA is Judeo/Christrian does not give them the constitutional right to a State Sponsored Religion.

    We've kinda fought a few wars for religious freedom.

    To insist on a state sponsored nativity scene is not within the American fabric.

    Edit:

    If that's a problem then move back to Waco! I kid!

    That would be cruel.
     
    YA and TX_Krötenechse like this.
  7. Wrong. Targeting. See my post above.

    Hoosier has to sit out the first half of the next thread.
     
  8. Sigh!

    Except for the last part.

    Freedom of religion is an individual right, not a state right.

    Arkansas cannot make you cheer for the Hogs because it is their new State of Arkansas official religion.

    Wanting a Christian based State government is unconstitutional as well as Un-American.

    I don't see why the concept is that hard.

    Put up your Nativity Scene on the Church front lawn next to the live Moses holding the Ten Commandments.

    Don't bother my Muslim, Native American, and Buddists clients with your message you're trying to send as I walk with them into the hopefully neutral courthouse.
     
    TX_Krötenechse likes this.
  9. Was Baphomet in Return of the Jedi, or The Empire Strikes Back? Can’t remember?
     
  10. Quite a lot wrong here. Several states had official state religions/denominations when the Constitution was ratified and that document did not compel them to jettison those affiliations. IIRC the last state with an official religion changed in the 1820s, but not because the 1st amendment prohibited it or because it was un-American.

    Your Buddhist and Muslim clients have no protection from the 1st amendment from being "bothered' as you put it. As I said earlier, the 1st amendment protects our right to practice our religion freely from the federal government only; it does nothing to protect us from religion or from the states. State constitutions are supposed to do that and the 10th amendment supports that. Nowhere does the Constitution restrict states in any way from establishing a religion. I understand SCOTUS disagrees, but it's no secret SCOTUS has made many egregious errors before. This is among them.
     
  11. Where, specifically, does the Constitution restrict states from establishing a religion? Absent that the 10th amendment preserves that right to the various states.

    And which wars were fought for religious freedom?

    To be clear, I'm not saying I want to live in a state with an established state religion. I'm merely making the case that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit it.
     
  12. I’m not sure how you don’t understand that the Constitution supersedes state laws and state constitutions. The first amendment is very clear that the government cannot make a law to promote any particular religion (or prohibit one). The fact that a given state may have had an official religion at some point in its early history is not relevant.
     
  13. It's counterintuitive that a founding document can supersede the states that created it. I know the reconstruction amendments dented that notion quite a bit, but states were always supposed to be part of the compact until or unless they believed it no longer served their interests. Believe it or not, several New England states nearly seceded before the southern states ever moved to do so and well before "Civil War" was fought to prevent the southern states from seceding.

    Moreover, it doesn't make sense that the U.S. Constitution would supersede state governments when the U.S. government and the separate state governments have authority over totally different aspects of governance. The U.S. government only has authority over those things the Constitution says it does. Everything else is left to the states to govern after those states transferred those other rights to the general government. Since their jurisdictions can't possibly overlap it doesn't make sense that it's possible one could overrule the other on any singular issue. The U.S. Constitution should only be a limit on the U.S. government and no other government.

    Finally, the 1st amendment is, indeed, very clear that "Congress shall make no law" and "Congress" refers only to the U.S. Congress and not that of any state. Consequently, no state falls under the jurisdiction of the 1st amendment. States can only be restricted from establishing an official religion if the states' respective constitutions forbid it. The fact that many states did have official religions after the Constitution was ratified (and it was totally legal) is absolutely relevant.
     
  14. Are you just scheissing with me? Federal law always supersedes state or local law. You claim to have read the Federalist papers, but you’re not aware of the Supremacy Clause?

    States never had the right to secede, federal laws always have primacy over conflicting state laws, and thanks to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment has been applied to state governments and state laws.

    That is abundantly clear, even if you ignore 150 years of SCOTUS precedent specifically contradicting your point.

    Edit: the reason state constitutions having an official religion is not relevant is that those existed before the Fourteenth Amendment.
     
  15. Just to drive the point home a little harder, here is the specific opinion wherein the First Amendment was incorporated, from Everson v. Board of Education (1947):

     
  16. How and why is the supremacy clause pertinent? If the Constitution doesn't expressly grant the U.S. legislature authority to establish a national religion or prohibit the establishment of a state religion how can a law pursuant to that constitution have supremacy over a conflicting law from a "subordinate" legislature?

    There shouldn't ever be a conflicting law between state governments and the federal government bc only the general government can legislate on items granted to it by the Constitution and only the states can legislate on items not granted to the U.S. government in the Constitution. Those are two distinctly different areas of authority and inherently can't conflict. The only time the supremacy clause should strike down a state is if a state attempts to legislate on an area in which the federal government has been granted authority by that state. Otherwise it's irrelevant. In this case, the federal government has no authority on the matter of religion so the supremacy clause should not apply to the states.

    I get it and stated already that SCOTUS has screwed this up like a lot of other things throughout history. It doesn't make it right.

    Regarding secession, states most certainly reserved the right to secede during ratification. Virginia most famously reserved the right to secede as a condition of ratification, but a few other skeptical states did too. Virginia would not have ratified (Mason and Henry were winning the argument) had secession not been reserved as a right during ratification. Patrick Henry still didn't support ratification. Rhode Island was another such state. It wasn't until Lincoln that this notion was ever challenged.

    Regarding the due process clause, that's the most famous bastardization of words in our legal history. The 14th amendment specifically applied to the freedmen emancipated by the 13th. Initial court decisions agreed with that limited scope. It has since been broadened and broadened again and again to what you accept now. The due process clause is supposed to only ensure all people emancipated by the 13th amendment were treated the same as states treated their citizens prior to emancipation. It did not, nor was it intended to, incorporate the 1st or any other amendment into its umbrella. SCOTUS did that many years later after overturning a prior court precedent.
     
  17. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists is another grossly misconstrued piece of language. The Danbury Baptists wanted a newly elected President Jefferson to intercede on their behalf and Jefferson stated that there was a wall of separation between church and state meaning, as an agent of the federal government, he could not and would not intervene. In other words, though he was sympathetic to their cause, he contended that the state of Connecticut had sole authority on the matter. In other words, Jefferson's letter in response to the Danbury Baptists was in direct contravention of the point most people make when they rely on his famous "wall of separation" phrase.
     
  18. Your inability to grasp the concept of evolution of law is impressive

    The Constitution, the SCOTUS, the federal government, every state government, every constitutional law professor, and centuries of jurisprudence all disagree with you
     
  19. I mean, that's just not true. It might have, but we have amended the law since then, as is the design of a Constitutional system. That is the nature of our system. You can say "Well I disagree with the SCOTUS" or "I disagree with subsequent Amendments" all you like, but that has zero impact on the force of law and the clear interpretation for 150+ years has been the opposite of what you say here. The Civil War fundamentally shifted the role of the federal government in the US, and the amendments made to the US Constitution as well as the Common Law precedent set on those opinions are pretty clear on that matter.

    This was a debate that went back to the founding of the nation. See Madison's comments on New York's requested condition, and Virginia's claim that you mention. From the founding of the nation there was debate as to whether it was a perpetual union or one that where the states had a right to withdraw if they so desired. It was not settled. While those who try to argue the Confederacy didn't secede over slavery are obviously wrong, it's true that if it wasn't slavery we probably would have ended up fighting a war over some other point of contention leading to secession. After 1865 that matter was settled, and the perpetual union side won out clearly both in force and in common law.

    Should probably be careful with our language here. The 14th Amendment did not 'specifically' apply to freedmen. The word "freedmen" nor "emancipation" is not found in the text of the Amendment at all, certainly not in Section 1 that is the basis for the legal rulings that you might object to. That may be the context that led to its ratification or the original intention of the Amendment, but there's a reason that language was used, and there's a reason that text was not limited to former slaves.
     
    TX_Krötenechse likes this.

Share This Page