North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill

Threedee said:
Good thing NC isn't Congress, then - which is the whole whole point of the Establishment Clause. MA and CT could establish Congregationalism, PA and RI could guarantee religious freedom across the board, and people could live free provided the Federal government didn't act with a respect to an establishment of religion.
Click to expand...

What's your opinion on this? Has the SCOTUS ever upheld nullification?

Howey said:
That's why we're called the United States, not the Fifty But Separate States. Our United States are governed by a singular federal constitution. Each state is governed by a state constitution. If that state passes a law that is later deemed unconstitutional under the US Constitution, they may no longer enforce such law.

What you're talking about is nullification, a pipe dream of idiots like you that the SCOTUS has rejected, citing Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and Article III of the Constitution.

May I suggest moving to North Korea once it's a hole in the ground? You can set up your own little government any way you want.
Click to expand...
 
As I said earlier, all that needs to happen is the Court rule that the Establishment Clause is incorporated through the 14th, and the matter is settled.
 
Howey said:
What's your opinion on this? Has the SCOTUS ever upheld nullification?
Click to expand...

How is that nullification? Has the 1st Amendment been abolished or rewritten in a manner which would enable Congress to act or prevent NC from acting in this matter?
 
I agree with Mott that the way it was set up was stupid. Someone kindly tell James Madison and the 1st Congress that they are utter retards.
 
The Lemon Test

In 1971, the Supreme Court heard the case of Lemon v Kurtzman (403 US 602). In the case, the Court decided that a Rhode Island law that paid some of the salary of some parochial school teachers was unconstitutional. The case is discussed in more detail on the Constitution and Religion Page. One of the results of this case is the Lemon Test. The Lemon Test is used to determine if a law violates the 1st Amendment.

The Lemon Test is not immutable - there is discussion in the general public and on the current Court about the Lemon Test. However, it has stood as a good guide for lower courts ever since 1971.

The following paragraph is taken from the Lemon v Kurtzman opinion and establishes the rules of the test:

Three ... tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.
 
Which only applies if a school receives federal funds. Similarly, if a state chose to stop receiving federal funds, it could repudiate the vile and fascistic national 21 drinking age, thus allowing all of its adult citizens and residents to drink.
 
Which it wouldn't bother performing if the school was a parochial religious institution that eschews federal funds in favor of autonomy. The application of the Lemon Test presumes the possibility of federal funds being abused.
 
Threedee said:
Which it wouldn't bother performing if the school was a parochial religious institution that eschews federal funds in favor of autonomy. The application of the Lemon Test presumes the possibility of federal funds being abused.
Click to expand...

Sigh, whatever...
 
Now, back to NC. It probably cannot establish a religion in light of the 14th and the doctrine of incorporation. Are we all agreed on that?
 
Rana said:
The Lemon Test

In 1971, the Supreme Court heard the case of Lemon v Kurtzman (403 US 602). In the case, the Court decided that a Rhode Island law that paid some of the salary of some parochial school teachers was unconstitutional. The case is discussed in more detail on the Constitution and Religion Page. One of the results of this case is the Lemon Test. The Lemon Test is used to determine if a law violates the 1st Amendment.

The Lemon Test is not immutable - there is discussion in the general public and on the current Court about the Lemon Test. However, it has stood as a good guide for lower courts ever since 1971.

The following paragraph is taken from the Lemon v Kurtzman opinion and establishes the rules of the test:

Three ... tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.
Click to expand...
Thanks, you beat me to the punch!!
 
Threedee said:
Which it wouldn't bother performing if the school was a parochial religious institution that eschews federal funds in favor of autonomy. The application of the Lemon Test presumes the possibility of federal funds being abused.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. She just posted it. It doesn't mention a damned thing about funding.
 
What prompts us to apply the Lemon Test, and in which type of locations, again? Pretty sure it's never applied to parish schools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top