1st amendment jurisprudence

John Hall johnhall@evergo.net
Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:01:49 -0700


And, of course, there is also the 'which Constitution'.

The one we ratified, and that the First Amendment was part of, did not
restrict such things.  An early Supreme Court decision _pointedly_ said
that the amendment did not restrict a State from recreating the
Inquisition if it so chose.  It was a restriction on the Federal
Government, and even then it was held to apply to such things as
mandating prayer books and paying the salaries of priests.  Indeed, it
was there to _protect_ the ability of states like Mass. to do the things
you now abjure.

The freedom of religion decisions you are fond of are a judicial
invention based on the "incorporation theory" of the civil war
amendments.  I may not have the name for the theory exactly correct.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On Behalf Of
Tom
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:56 AM
> To: carey
> Cc: fork@xent.com
> Subject: Re: Fw: US war, libertarianism, FoRK, and voices in
opposition
> 
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, carey wrote:
> 
> --] Yea. It goes back to strange other religious edict.    (I will
scream,
> that
> --]i'm nto a history major, but I'd be willing to bet good money that
vice
> +
> --] government control thereof is religiously motivated).
> 
> 
> Heck, the count is pretty high for a supposed nonreligously run
country.
> 
> Blue laws in some states that ban the sale of certian things on
sunday,
> laws against homosexuality, tax breaks for religions, isnt there a
chaplan
> on the books on the hill....
> 
> round and round, we think like this and act like that.
> 
> 
> -tom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork