MISSISSIPPI: NULLIFY unconstitutional federal acts and decisions. The feds have NO constitutional authority to interfere with private or state freedom of religion. Instead, the feds are instead SPECIFICALLY BARRED from such action.
The so-called Incorporation Doctrine, which should be renamed the Corruption Doctrine, which the feds use as an excuse for federal tyranny, and has no valid constitutional basis. Neither the federal judiciary nor the federal legislature may constitutionally interfere with state, local or individual freedom of religious exercise nor freedom of speech.
Unconstitutional federal acts and decisions are acts of tyranny and MUST be resisted and nullified at every level. MISSISSIPPI and STATES: RECLAIM AND FIGHT FOR YOUR FREEDOM: no one is going to reclaim it for you.
If the District takes any Federal money, either directly, or funneled through the State, the Federal courts would have a say.
The so-called Incorporation Doctrine, which should be renamed the Corruption Doctrine, which the feds use as an excuse for federal tyranny, and has no valid constitutional basis.
Neither the federal judiciary nor the federal legislature may constitutionally interfere with state, local or individual freedom of religious exercise nor freedom of speech.
I agree with you on the first point, but not on the 2nd point if I understood you correctly. Please allow me to explain.
Regarding the first point, not only does the 14th Amendment’s “privileges and immunities” language indicate that the northern states had committed all the states to respect all the Constitution’s enumerated protections, including the few not listed in the Bill of Rights, but also consider the following.
The post-Civil War congressional record shows that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had clarified that the 14th Amendment applied ALL constitutionally enumerated protections to the states, not just those listed in the Bill of Rights.
"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly [emphasis added] defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States." — John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe
Regarding your 2nd point, please consider the following. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the specific power to protect our constitutionally enumerated protections from abridgment by the states. So contrary to the 1st Amendment prohibiting Congress altogether from making laws dealing with our 1st Amendment protected freedoms, please consider the following.
In cases like marching bands playing hymns, the 14th Amendment now gives Congress the power to make laws dealing with our 1st Amendment protected rights, and and all other constitutional rights as well including the 2nd Amendment, but only to protect such rights from abridgment by the states.
In fact, the Supreme Court had reflected on Congress’s 14th Amendment power to strengthen our enumerated rights as the following excerpt shows.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
The bottom line is that the judge referenced in this thread is doing just the opposite of what the federal lawmakers who proposed the 14th Amendment had intended imo, the institutionally indoctrinated judge wrongly legislating restrictive “laws” from the bench.