Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill

   
Author Topic: North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Link

quote:

The bill says the First Amendment only applies to the federal government and does not stop state governments, local governments and school districts from adopting measures that defy the Constitution. The legislation also says that the Tenth Amendment, which says powers not reserved for the federal government belong to the states, prohibits court rulings that would seek to apply the First Amendment to state and local officials

In other news:

Let's put more pressure on poor children


quote:

The bill, "as amended, it would not apply when a child has a handicap or learning disability or when the parent takes steps to try improving the youngster’s school performance — such as signing up for a “parenting class,” arranging a tutoring program or attending a parent-teacher conference."

quote:

Dennis told the House Health Subcommittee the measure now only applies to “parents who do nothing.” He described the measure as “a carrot and stick approach.”


Posts: 12446 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Mike Turner of Nashville said parents of children with “undiagnosed learning disabilities” could suffer because of the bill...
Well, then the bill has the added feature of encouraging parents to correctly have their children's learning disabilities diagnosed.
Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is all much ado about nothing. There are literally thousands of bills presented to state legislatures and the federal government calling for Jesus to be declared the Lord and Savior of the United States or to declare Christianity the official state religion. But most people are blissfully unaware of this because it's been going on for decades.

Picking just one attempt to do an article about seems designed to drum up page views more than relay the news.

Posts: 14193 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The bill says the First Amendment only applies to the federal government and does not stop state governments, local governments and school districts from adopting measures that defy the Constitution.
Tendentious much? In fact the First Amendment does only apply to Congress, and therefore, a state having a state religion is not a measure that defies the constitution, it is perfectly constitutional. At any rate that was the original interpretation, under which (for example) Massachussetts had a state church until 1833, Connecticut until 1818, and Georgia until 1789. I admit that it's a bit of a question whether the Supreme Court would let it pass nowadays, but at any rate it's not a settled question as the quote would like you to believe.

In addition to which, as BB noted, it's not going to pass, so it'll never be a question for the courts anyway.

Posts: 10589 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are already multiple Supreme Court rulings stating that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment restrictions on religious establishment to state governments. It's possible that a future ruling could diverge from this but it would be very unlikely.
Posts: 3263 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes; I just learned a bit more about constitutional law, and it seems the original interpretation is now gone. Additionally, North Carolina's state constitution separately forbids a state religion, so the Federal constitution needn't even come into it.

All of which, of course, is still just noise and fury, signifying nothing, since nothing will come of this.

Posts: 10589 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gilnar
Member
Member # 12931

 - posted      Profile for Gilnar   Email Gilnar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)

This is the first case to apply the 1st Amendment (in this case the Free Speech Clause) to state government, adopting the "incorporation doctrine"

That doctrine, in short, states that the 14th Amendment(due to its repetition of the Due Process Clause from the 5th Amendment) means that state governments (and their political subdivisions) are also prohibited from violating most of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights. The Establishment Clause was specifically incorporated in the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1.

And, as noted, most (possibly all) state constitutions now also ban establishing a religion (even in Texas).

Posts: 7 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thesifer
Member
Member # 12890

 - posted      Profile for Thesifer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess 'nothing will come of it' but I've thought that about other laws, even ones where it was already clearly defined that the law is illegal. I see them on abortion, passing. Etc.

But it's not really a story anymore, until it passes.

It's like that guy that submits a bill to the new Congress like clockwork to 'abolish term limits' (I believe that one is going on it's 6th or 7th iteration) of which the paranoid crazies jumped on and said it must be Obama's attempt to have a third term and become a dictator.

Until bills pass, or seem to have broad political support, I don't really worry too much about them anymore.

Posts: 155 | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Heh.

The states have been so declawed by the federal government that my first thought upon reading this headline wasn't of a mandated religion or any other quasi-totalitarian image.

I imagined a state religion the same way we have state flowers, and state birds, and state guns. A quaint affirmation of some special fondness or historic affinity, but with no real significance or teeth.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok, so firstly it seems it wasn't a bill but a "resolution", that is, it would not have force of law. (So, basically Dan is right even if by some miracle it should pass.) Secondly, the sponsor apologised. Thirdly, NC's speaker blocked it from even getting heard.
Posts: 10589 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The obvious attempts at voter disenfranchisement in order to keep afloat were definietly more noteworthy anyway!
Posts: 14067 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would be concerned if any government official or politician suggested or wrote laws, even if they had knowledge it 100% would not pass that are as regressive and backwards as the NC example.
Posts: 12446 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tittles
Member
Member # 12939

 - posted      Profile for Tittles           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe concerned enough to vote for the other guy, sure. Concerned enough to run around screaming that the Constitution is dead and the Man is coming for you? Nah.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2