No they were not. The First Amendment was specifically crafted to protect state churches from the threat of a national church.
The Establishment Clause does not purport to protect individual rights...This textual analysis is consistent with the prevailing view that the Constitution left religion to the States. History also supports this understanding: At the founding, at least six States had established religions, Nor has this federalism point escaped the notice of Members of this Court. Quite simply, the Establishment Clause is best understood as a federalism provision--it protects state establishments from federal interference but does not protect any individual right...
But even assuming that the Establishment Clause precludes the Federal Government from establishing a national religion, it does not follow that the Clause created or protects any individual right...
It would prohibit precisely what the Establishment Clause was intended to protect--state establishments of religion. (noting that "the Fourteenth Amendment has somehow absorbed the Establishment Clause, although it is not without irony that a constitutional provision evidently designed to leave the States free to go their own way should now have become a restriction upon their autonomy")...
As strange as it sounds, an incorporated Establishment Clause prohibits exactly what the Establishment Clause protected--state practices that pertain to "an establishment of religion." - THOMAS, concurring
Yep, and using the same arguments, "the Constitution should not be interpreted to incorporate the 2nd Amendment and apply it to the states."
No, because as you pointed out in post 29 the First amendment says Congress shall make no law whereas the second amendment refers to the rights of the people which are of course, God-given and inalienable.
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound spouting off about "statism" to a bunch of federalists when your own argument is so intensely nationalist?
Yep, they were 'grandfathered' in.
Utah was later refused Statehood until they abandoned their state approved religious establishments.
No they were not. The First Amendment was specifically crafted to protect state churches from the threat of a national church.
Yep that's more or less what Justice Thomas writes, here:
"I accept that the Free Exercise Clause, which clearly protects an individual right, applies against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
But the Establishment Clause is another matter.
The text and history of the Establishment Clause strongly suggest that it is a federalism provision intended to prevent Congress from interfering with state establishments.
Thus, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, which does protect an individual right, it makes little sense to incorporate the Establishment Clause."
However, - Thomas's point makes litte difference to the States 'rights' issue.
He admits just above that the rest of our BOR's applies to State/Local governments.
_____________________________________
At #52, I wrote;
Today, the State of CA claims it can prohibit 'assault weapons'. Do you agree?
'Cal' replied:
A strong argument can be made that, even after the 14th Amendment, the Constitution should not be interepreted to incorporate the 1st Amendment and apply it to the states.
Yep, and using the same argument, -- "the Constitution should not be interpreted to incorporate the 2nd Amendment and apply it to the states." --
-- Do you approve, 'CalRepublican'?
'Joe' replies:
No, because as you pointed out in post 29 the First amendment says Congress shall make no law whereas the second amendment refers to the rights of the people which are of course, God-given and inalienable.
Reread the Thomas quote just above joe. -- He agrees that except for 'establishment', the rest of the First applies to State/Local governments.
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound spouting off about "statism" to a bunch of federalists when your own argument is so intensely nationalist?
My arguments defend our Constitution, not a "nationalist" view. -- And you clowns are a bunch of 'States Rights' zealots, not federalists.