Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tpaine
By using the term "grandfathered" you are suggesting that these churches were allowed to operate with the states' blessings despite the fact that the constitution forbade them to do so, only because they so operated before the Constitution and were "grandfathered in." Not so.

He agrees that except for 'establishment', the rest of the First applies to State/Local governments.

Exactly so. Thus the establishment clause does not restrict the powers of the states, while the rest of the BOR, including the second amendment, does.

Hillary Clinton would be very proud of your tyrannical nationalism.

And you clowns are a bunch of 'States Rights' zealots, not federalists.

You liberaltarians are a bunch of terrorist-loving anarchist dope-fiends.

64 posted on 07/11/2004 12:15:13 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]


To: Tailgunner Joe
At the time the Bill of Rights was adopted there were states with their own official state churches.

Yep, they were 'grandfathered' in. --- These 'state churches' existed from Colonial days.
However, the fact that Utah was later refused Statehood until they abandoned their state approved religious establishments proves my point.
New 'establishments' were NOT to be part of a "Republican Form of Government", guaranteed to every State by Art. IV.

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:

" 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."

By using the term "grandfathered" you are suggesting that these churches were allowed to operate with the states' blessings despite the fact that the constitution forbade them to do so, only because they so operated before the Constitution and were "grandfathered in."
Not so.

You are simply denying historical fact. -- Feel free to do so, but it makes your position look foolish.

Hillary Clinton would be very proud of your tyrannical nationalism. You liberaltarians are a bunch of terrorist-loving anarchist dope-fiends.

Whatever. Such silly comments belong in the backroom.

66 posted on 07/11/2004 12:43:33 PM PDT by tpaine (A stupid person causes losses to another while himself deriving no gain, or even incurring loss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson