Socrtease
Verified User
I will type slow so you understand. YOU ASKED HOW A RELIGIOUS TEST VIOLATED THE COTUS. I TOLD YOU.
APP - “One Nation Under God”
- Thread starter DamnYankee
- Start date
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
We are discussing North Carolina's religious test, so my question was obviously in that context. Please try to keep up.
Socrtease
Verified User
But as Damo has pointed out, subsequent case law makes it unconstitutional on a state level. REGARDLESS of what you think of court precident. But I know, you don't think that the fourth amendment should apply to the states either. Or that the Federal Government had any right to desegregate schools. Generally you believe that the States can violate all the rights of the people because they are sovereign. In your world the US Constitution is a document with no force.
You don't care about the constitution either. Amendment 14 is a very real part of our constitution whether you want it to be or not.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
yes, we do. you think your rights can be set aside in cases that involve suspected terrorism. in such cases, you have no rights. you, therefore, are a totalitarian.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Not for states.
that 14th Amendment could really suck for you now, eh?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I enjoy listening to your baseless accusations.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Not at all. I see no conflict with that and NC's religious test for office holders.
Then you simply ignore reality to fit into your fantasy land. Fine, but this argument is worthless. I've shown you direct related case law from the SCOTUS who has repeatedly ruled exactly as I have stated they have.
At this point you're Al Gore talking about the same old tired "hockey stick"...
SmarterthanYou
rebel
and theres no conflict with calling the national guard a 'well regulated militia'.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Again, SCOTUS has erred before, and I prefer original intent over judicial precedent.
It's more than precedent here, this has repeatedly been ruled. It is far more than just precedent, it is consistent with the actual constitution with Amendment 14. What is inconsistent with that Amendment is the "incorporation" rule with Amendment 2, they just decided to make crap up to fit whatever they wanted with that ruling.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
A plain language interpretation of Amendment XIV in the context of 1868 as well as the Founding is clear that they are not trying to restrict States from making reasonable requirements of its office holders.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you ever read the history behind the 14th?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
With regards to the earlier SCOTUS decisions, I have said in the past that the party with the more expensive legal team is typically the winner. NC has significant resources to fight a legal challenge which is why the ACLU won't challenge us. They know they won't win and thus their previous gains against Christianity will be erased.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Yes.
Again, every time any state has tried to go against the 1st (and any local government too) they have simply lost. Period. Ruling after ruling, dozens of times, consistently and without reservation the states and local governments lose when they try to restrict atheism or support any religion (even generically if it isn't neutral towards belief and non-belief).
Your interpretation is based in fantasy, not on the reality of what the constitution actually says. Your government cannot cross that line any more than the Feds can because we have Amendment 14.
No matter how much you dislike that restriction (probably as much as the left hates the restrictions on gun control), it is simply reality and it shouldn't be ignored.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
And here I am thinking we are talking about the 14th.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
doesn't show.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
That's your opinion. Perhaps you've been reading "A Peoples History..." instead of real history.