USA Constitution and 1st Amendment (questions).

[.Shane.]

True, but remember, up until the Civil War the states held the power in the US, not the national government. When the Constitution was written people still feared control from a central government, hence possibly the reason why the 1st Amendment states about establishing a religion. This IMO doesn't stop the states from establishing a state religion, and in fact didn't as history shows us.

I'm not sure the point of your post. You're essentially agreeing w/ me. The only thing I differ on is your last sentence. I'd change "doesn't" to "didn't" and we're fine.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

It's really a stretch of federal power in my opinion, based on just reading the amendment. I guess that's why I would be considered an originalist.

I think the term you are looking for is "strict constitutionalist."

 

[.Shane.]

I think the term you are looking for is "strict constitutionalist."

No, he doesn't understand the 14th Amendment and how it expands federal jurisdiction.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

No, he doesn't understand the 14th Amendment and how it expands federal jurisdiction.

The 14th Amendment has to do with citizenship, citizen's rights, and representation in congress. What does that have to do with the expansion of federal jurisdiction?

I think that Keshik is describing himself as a strict constitutionalist because he thinks that the first amendment should be interpreted based on what it actually says instead of what judges think it should say.

 

[.Shane.]

The 14th Amendment has to do with citizenship, citizen's rights, and representation in congress. What does that have to do with the expansion of federal jurisdiction?

"Citizen's rights" = civil rights

Many (most?) religious issues are civil rights issues. For example, if California wanted to make Scientology the state religion, no doubt that would be an issue involving the civil rights of the people of the state. The 14th Amendment has made the Fed the arbiter of CR issues. Thus, no state can do something to or for you that is not allowed at the Fed level.

As to what the 1st amendment "says", its a bit ambiguous. And, it is the charged duty of judges to resolve ambiguities in the law.

However, I'l give the caveat that I'm not trained in the law. I'm trained in US and political history, so if someone more versed in Constitutional Law can help a brother out, that's fine with me.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

"Citizen's rights" = civil rights

Many (most?) religious issues are civil rights issues. For example, if California wanted to make Scientology the state religion, no doubt that would be an issue involving the civil rights of the people of the state. The 14th Amendment has made the Fed the arbiter of CR issues. Thus, no state can do something to or for you that is not allowed at the Fed level.

Now that I think about it, you are right. I was thinking more of 14th amendment=more rights to the people. But that does not mean Federal Jurisdiction is not increasing.

As to what the 1st amendment "says", its a bit ambiguous. And, it is the charged duty of judges to resolve ambiguities in the law.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What it says:
1. Congress cannot make laws that support a religion.
2. Congress cannot make laws that hinder a religion.
3. Congress cannot make laws that disallow any form of speech, written work, or other medium of communication.
4. Congress cannot make laws that disallow the congregation of people as long as they do so in a peaceful manner.
5. Congress cannot make laws that disallow protest of the government.
6. Congress cannot make laws that disallow people from telling the government what is wrong with it.

What it does not say:
1. Politicians can't be religious.
2. People can't display their religon (public prayer, ornaments, etc)

However, I'l give the caveat that I'm not trained in the law. I'm trained in US and political history, so if someone more versed in Constitutional Law can help a brother out, that's fine with me.

Don't worry, I doubt many of us are. But it would be very wrong if people like you and me couldn't read the Constitution and not be able determine what it means.