Families of Louisiana schoolchildren who sued over a law requiring a Ten Commandments display in every classroom are now asking a court to block the law before children return to school in August.
That being said, the precedent here is very straightforward, and any ruling in favor of the law would be a huge shift in how the separation of church and state is applied.
Good thing the Supreme Court respects precedent. Otherwise they could decide to just change the interpretation of the Constitution to allow states to establish their own state religion, since the Constitution specified “Congress”.
It’s amazing to me how many people don’t realize that’s EXACTLY how it was originally meant. The first 10 Amendment, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, didn’t originally apply to the States and that most definitely included the 1st (and the 2nd for those of you keeping track at home.)
That didn’t happen until SCOTUS created the “Incorporation Doctrine” some years after the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, over 100 years after the founding of the United States.
The United States was built from the ground up to function as a collection of sovereign States moderated by a relatively weak Federal Government, nearly the opposite of how things work today. Its a good chunk of the reason why our Government and Judiciary are such a mess, they weren’t designed for what they’ve become.
Oh I’m not saying we should go back to the 1800s or that the States shouldn’t be held to the 1A. My comment is bemused / sad because you were attempting to make a dramatic argument without releasing that it was unironically correct. People need to be taught a LOT more details about how our Government works and how it came to be what it is today.
…and how can any government be of the people if it disregards what the people want
Overall I don’t think it can, at least not for too long. At some point a Government must either adapt to its Citizens wishes or it becomes illegitimate. There are a couple of “gotchas” though, the first being who is a citizen and the other is which or how many of them the Government should listen too.
The original setup of the United States with it’s Federalist structure was actually quite good, if somewhat inhumane, at answering those two questions. It’s a shame we busted the fuck out of it.
Youre missing the point. Whether or not that was actually the intention is completely irrelevant in the modern day, because only fascist assholes actually want to go back
But how does Federalism line up with fascism? What the other user is talking about in the original setup where if you don’t like the State you live in being stuck in the 1800’s, you can leave if you want, the Federal Government guarantees your safe passage to a State living in modern times.
You understand these people arent going to stop at federalism, yes? Please take a look at Project 2025. They want to force their own values onto the majority at the federal level, and our ancient electoral system will enable them to do so. And even if they did, that would still be condemning the populations of their own states to repression
That is true, I hadn’t considered that. Project 2025 does indeed call for curtailing the sovereignty of the individual States. Perhaps not explicitly, but they will leverage the Supremacy Clause as well as the Commerce Clause to usurp the powers of States they don’t like.
Which wouldn’t be very “muh states rights” of them, but they don’t care.
Precisely. The “Originalism” of the court- backward as it would be- isnt even that. Its a front to sell out federal policy to the highest bidder. Because its not enough to live in Gilead, they have to fuse it with Night City too.
Good thing the Supreme Court respects precedent. Otherwise they could decide to just change the interpretation of the Constitution to allow states to establish their own state religion, since the Constitution specified “Congress”.
It’s amazing to me how many people don’t realize that’s EXACTLY how it was originally meant. The first 10 Amendment, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, didn’t originally apply to the States and that most definitely included the 1st (and the 2nd for those of you keeping track at home.)
That didn’t happen until SCOTUS created the “Incorporation Doctrine” some years after the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, over 100 years after the founding of the United States.
So yeah, before 1930ish it would have been entirely legal for the State of Louisiana to establish a State religion and in fact some of the original States actually levied Religious Taxes and distributed the money to various Christian Denominations.
The United States was built from the ground up to function as a collection of sovereign States moderated by a relatively weak Federal Government, nearly the opposite of how things work today. Its a good chunk of the reason why our Government and Judiciary are such a mess, they weren’t designed for what they’ve become.
Most of us dont wanna live in the 1800s though, and how can any government be of the people if it disregards what the people want
Oh I’m not saying we should go back to the 1800s or that the States shouldn’t be held to the 1A. My comment is bemused / sad because you were attempting to make a dramatic argument without releasing that it was unironically correct. People need to be taught a LOT more details about how our Government works and how it came to be what it is today.
Overall I don’t think it can, at least not for too long. At some point a Government must either adapt to its Citizens wishes or it becomes illegitimate. There are a couple of “gotchas” though, the first being who is a citizen and the other is which or how many of them the Government should listen too.
The original setup of the United States with it’s Federalist structure was actually quite good, if somewhat inhumane, at answering those two questions. It’s a shame we busted the fuck out of it.
Youre missing the point. Whether or not that was actually the intention is completely irrelevant in the modern day, because only fascist assholes actually want to go back
But how does Federalism line up with fascism? What the other user is talking about in the original setup where if you don’t like the State you live in being stuck in the 1800’s, you can leave if you want, the Federal Government guarantees your safe passage to a State living in modern times.
You understand these people arent going to stop at federalism, yes? Please take a look at Project 2025. They want to force their own values onto the majority at the federal level, and our ancient electoral system will enable them to do so. And even if they did, that would still be condemning the populations of their own states to repression
That is true, I hadn’t considered that. Project 2025 does indeed call for curtailing the sovereignty of the individual States. Perhaps not explicitly, but they will leverage the Supremacy Clause as well as the Commerce Clause to usurp the powers of States they don’t like.
Which wouldn’t be very “muh states rights” of them, but they don’t care.
Precisely. The “Originalism” of the court- backward as it would be- isnt even that. Its a front to sell out federal policy to the highest bidder. Because its not enough to live in Gilead, they have to fuse it with Night City too.
Or as we saw in Bremerton, they will just straight up lie about the facts of the case to issue the ruling they want.
Average Lemon Test appreciator.