Dismantling Civil Society

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

Remember, it was the War between the States or the War of Northern Agression because there weren't plumb nothin' civil about it...

 

So, thanks to Beavah and Merlyn for a demonstration of a civil disagreement and discussion.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Well Ed, if schools had regular classes on, say, political/religious quackery, creationism might get talked ABOUT in such a class, but that's still distinct from teaching creationism per se. As of now, people who advocate creationism in public schools want it taught as science, and they're losing on those grounds.

 

As for schoolteachers not being able to teach religion in class, see my earlier reply to PeteM, or look up actual court cases like McCollum v. Board of Education, Engel v. Vitale, Abington Township School District v. Schempp, or McClean v. Arkansas

[TheScout]

Merlyn,

 

If the 14th Amendment meant to incorporate the Bill of Rights, why didn't it say so? "Privleges and Immuniites" is a rather vague term. If that was the intent, it could have been much better worded. Could it not apply simply to the Privleges and Immunities Clause of the original Constitution.

 

Recall the first case interpreting it, Slaughterhouse gave a thrashing to your incorporation doctrine.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

It's not my incorporation doctrine, it's the supreme court's. And Justice Black said the Slaughterhouse cases did not involve a right directly enumerated in the constitution.

 

Are there people in this thread who think states ought to have official state religions, or at least have the power to do so?

[Venividi]

OGE writes: So, thanks to Beavah and Merlyn for a demonstration of a civil disagreement and discussion.

 

I add my thanks too.

 

It now appears that there are some other posts that seem to be baiting to try and get a reaction. I will offer up that perhaps I unintentionally started it with my previous post that included loose wording about prayer in school. I had meant school sanctioned prayer, not personal prayer. Ed picked up on that - Ed, I appreciate your pointing that out, and will try to be more careful in the future.

But now, in this thread on civil society, there are some posts that appear to be calling on Merlyn to defend the constitution, the bill of rights, and the supreme court's interpretation of them, and explain once again, why the courts have ruled that creationism cannot be taught as science.

 

I think that is unfair, though I am amazed at his level of knowledge. In addition to dismantling civility by going to loggerheads, I think it just as uncivil to continue asking the same questions in sarcastic manners (whether intended or not, the "hoot" and "Lucy" comments come across very sarcastic to me, and, given the number of times that the same people have asked the same types of questions in multiple threads, I can think of no useful purpose to continue to do so.)

[TheScout]

It is the Supreme Court's doctrine, because they just made it up! They engineered a coup in the wake of the vagueness of the amendment designed to protect the rights of negros to seize the rights of states and massively expand the federal power in a way never intened by the the authors of the 14th Amendment. Incorporation is arguably one of the worst examples of judical activism.

 

Why should a state not have the power to have a religion if it wished? As you mention, for many years several states did so. They turned out fine. Its actually a principle called self-determination, that people assembled through their government can do what they want. If people from another state, say Oregon decide to declare Catholicism as their state religion, I could not care less. It is one of their rights of self government. That is why we have a federal system.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

States don't have rights, only individuals have rights. As you mention a bit later, states have powers.

 

I don't agree that the supreme court just "made it up"; the congressional debate at the time shows that they intended first amendment rights to be among the immunities covered by the 14th. If anything, the supreme court didn't get around to interpreting the 14th amendment the way congress intended until decades later.

 

And I suppose states like Massachusetts turned out fine once they stopped hanging Quakers, but I kinda think they don't have that power now.

[packsaddle]

Just curious, The Scout, about how far your 'states rights' views go. Do you think Dred Scott should not have been overturned?

Do you support a state's power to make slavery legal?

Do you support a state's power to establish, say, Sharia Law?

Where do you draw the line where a state's power is limited in some way?

Just curious.

 

Edited part: state's "right" evolved into state's "power", thanks Merlyn.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Beavah]

Yah, it's interestin' how Merlyn drives us back to constitutional law all the time, eh?

 

But I'm really not talkin' about law.

 

Fact is, if every dispute or disagreement becomes a matter of law and litigation, our system would come apart. As it is, we spend way too much of our time and resources litigatin' stuff that really could and should be handled with some understandin' and civility. The legal system isn't built to referee every dispute between neighbors, or every complaint that a citizen has about each decision of each level of government.

 

I disagree with a lot of tax abatements, which go to all sorts of silly purposes and special interests because they supported the majority that won the last election. Fact is, no government grants or contracts are available to "any or all groups." Grants and contracts are given for reasons (good or bad), to specific groups.

 

Merlyn, if I'm hearin' yeh right, you're sayin' that the Boy Scouts receivin' reduced rent in return for giving the city a free building is the same thing as Stormtroopers comin' for your family. Every impingement on your "rights" is "serious", eh?

 

Imagine a world in which every time the neighbor's kid cut across our yard I filed for trespass (gotta protect every one of my property rights!!).

 

Some things hurt neighborliness or society if they are pursued with too much vigor. Spend your time on warrantless wiretappin' or such, the rent of a kids' service organization ain't worth the damage caused by being disputatious. But certainly, I think arguin' the extreme is not a way to win hearts or minds.

 

Beavah

 

[TheScout]

Merlyn, states don't have rights? Please. What about the 10th Amendment?

 

"The poweres not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

Seems like the States have the right to exercise quite a few powers there. This would include the right to make a police force. The right to create parts. The right to creat local government. Need I go on?

 

They also have rights stemming from the federal constitution. The right to appoint presidential electors. The right to equal representation in the Senate. The right to elect a certain number of reprentatives to the House.

 

The congressional debate on the 14th amendment is far from clear. In 1875 Rep. James Blaine, who was also a member of the Congress that approved the amendment proposed another amendment to bar states from establishing religions stateing:

 

"No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect, nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations."

 

Clearly Mr. Blaine was one who didn't see the 14th Amendment incorporating the 1st. And besides the writers. It is obvious the states would not approve an amendment if they thought it so limited their own powers. The purpose of the amendment was to protect the rights of negros in the South.

 

I state religion does not mean a state is dysfuntional. The Denmark, Norway, and Sweden all have established churches and are regarded as among the most tolerant nations in the world.

 

 

Packsaddle,

 

I wonder what you think was wrong about Dred Scott? I think the case gets an unfair hearing often. The decideing issue was that Scott did not have standing to sue as he was not a citizen. At the time slaves were not regarded as citizens. It would make no sense to allow states to sue in federal courts.

 

I would have left slavery to the states. The lives of a lot of American citizens would have been saved.

If a state had a majority Muslim population and wanted to start Sharia law, it would be there right. People have the right to self-determination.

 

If a state wants through its democratic process to have Slavery or Sharia, it is their right. It is easy to believe in democracy when you believe in the results. It is a lot harder when you don't. The true measure of whether one believes in democracy is whether one believes in it when the people come up wth decisions you think are abominable.

 

How would I limit the powers of the states? It is really not up to me. It is up to the people of each of the states. As the people protected themselves from the federal government in writing the federal constitution, they also protected themselves from that of the states in the state constitutions. For example, mine in New York copies almost verbatim the federal Bill of Rights, therefore even without the 14th Amendment's "incorporation" New York citizens are thus protected.

 

So obviously even proponents of states rights to not belive in the unrestrained power of state governments. They just want the people of each state to determine the powers of their state and not have a one size fits all national solution. That is why are country has a federal structure.

 

That was my rant for today.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout writes:

Merlyn, states don't have rights? Please. What about the 10th Amendment?

 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

Seems like the States have the right to exercise quite a few powers there.

 

No, they HAVE powers granted to them by the people.

 

Now compare the 9th amendment:

 

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

 

Notice how the 9th amendment talks about rights that the people have, while the 10th talks about powers that the states (or the people) may have.

 

They also have rights stemming from the federal constitution. The right to appoint presidential electors.

 

No, states do not have the right to appoint electors. If they did, wouldn't they be able to exercise this right as often as they pleased for an election?

 

The right to equal representation in the Senate. The right to elect a certain number of reprentatives to the House.

 

Again, the constitution does not term them "rights".

 

It is obvious the states would not approve an amendment if they thought it so limited their own powers.

 

I'll stick with the supreme court, thanks, not with what you find "obvious".

 

I state religion does not mean a state is dysfuntional.

 

It doesn't mean it's egalitarian regarding other religions, either.

 

The Denmark, Norway, and Sweden all have established churches and are regarded as among the most tolerant nations in the world.

 

Iran, El Salvador, and Pakistan all have state religions, too.

 

 

Beavah writes:

Merlyn, if I'm hearin' yeh right, you're sayin' that the Boy Scouts receivin' reduced rent in return for giving the city a free building is the same thing as Stormtroopers comin' for your family.

 

No, you aren't hearing me right. And from what I've read about the Philly building, that isn't what the deal was.

 

What I'm saying is you can't DISMISS lesser infringements by simply pointing to much worse hypothetical infringments and saying "so shut up about your [insert lesser infringement here]".

 

I stole $5 fron you? Well, don't have me arrested, bank robbers steal much more!

 

Don't complain about getting punched in the nose, do you know how many people were killed at Virginia Tech?

 

It's a completely invalid and nonsensical "argument".

 

Every impingement on your "rights" is "serious", eh?

 

I'm certainly not going to allow YOU to decide which infringements on MY rights are unimportant. You can decide which infringements on YOUR rights you'll ignore, and I'll decide the same for me.

 

Imagine a world in which every time the neighbor's kid cut across our yard I filed for trespass (gotta protect every one of my property rights!!).

 

Well, you could do that, and there are probably some people who do.

 

Some things hurt neighborliness or society if they are pursued with too much vigor.

 

Would that include a private organization going to court for the right to exclude gays and atheists?(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[TheScout]

Merlyn,

 

First I have a question for you. What is your problem with the idea that states have rights?

 

The easiest one to prove is he equal represntation in the Senate. The federal constitution clearly grants each state equal suffrage. That is a right that each state has. Just because the constitution doesn't call it a right doesn't mean it is not so. That is, with all do respect, the worst argument I have ever heard. You know, the 4th Amendment does not include the word 'right' either. Does that mean its guarentees are not rights?

 

I would also venture to say that Denmark and Norway are pretty darn egalitarian despite having state churches. (Self Correction- Sweden no longer has a state church)

 

Lastly, your reliance on it is a shame that every argument you make about the constitution flows from the rulings of a court. Why is it that you can hardly ever explain your views through what the peoople want as decided by their elected representatives in legislatures?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout writes:

What is your problem with the idea that states have rights?

 

Because rights can't be infringed; saying that a state has "rights" implies that the state has some power that cannot be restricted or removed. Under the constitution, states only have powers granted to it, which implies that any of them may be removed. I much prefer the power of states always being subject to the will of the people.

 

That is a right that each state has. Just because the constitution doesn't call it a right doesn't mean it is not so.

 

Look, words mean things. "Rights" are different from "powers". You can't arbitrarily interchange them. They imply different things in when & how they can be changed or limited.

 

You know, the 4th Amendment does not include the word 'right' either. Does that mean its guarentees are not rights?

 

You mean the 4th amendment that starts "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"?

 

For one fairly well-known example, there is no "right to vote" in the US. Felons can be barred from voting. If it was a right, they probably couldn't lose it.

 

I would also venture to say that Denmark and Norway are pretty darn egalitarian despite having state churches. (Self Correction- Sweden no longer has a state church)

 

So what? Iran's state religion is pretty horrible.

 

In any case, whether it's a good idea or not has no bearing on whether it's constitutional or not. It hasn't been constitutional for states to have a state religion for quite a while now.

 

Lastly, your reliance on it is a shame that every argument you make about the constitution flows from the rulings of a court.

 

Yeah, it's much better to rely on non-lawyers on the internets, who can't find the word "right" in the 4th amendment.

 

Why is it that you can hardly ever explain your views through what the peoople want as decided by their elected representatives in legislatures?

 

For one thing, I like dealing with reality, and under US law, the courts interpret the laws. That's why I think the 14th amendment applies the 1st to the states. And, as far as reality goes, it does. You can rant and rail against it, but until the supreme court reverses it or a later amendment changes things, it's true that the 14th actually DOES apply the first to the states.

[PeteM]

For those that are interested, here is a link to the 14th amendment:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

quote >>>>>>>Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

 

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

 

Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

[TheScout]

Merlyn, you write,

 

"Because rights can't be infringed; saying that a state has "rights" implies that the state has some power that cannot be restricted or removed. Under the constitution, states only have powers granted to it, which implies that any of them may be removed. I much prefer the power of states always being subject to the will of the people."

 

Obviouisly all agree that the perogatives of any government come from the people. The state is merely a manifestation of the people. The right of the state comes into play when people try to deny the people of the state the power to enact certain measures, which is the right of the people of that state, and hence the state itself to do. Our constitution leaves particular powers to the people of the several states, and it is their right to use them.

 

I mentioned that Denmark and Norway and pretty darn egalitarian becaue you said that places with state churches are not egalitarian. Well there are instances when that is not true.

 

I errored with my mention of the 4th Amendment. I meant to say the 5th does not inculde the word 'right.' You could also add the 3rd and the 8th to that as well.

 

Your apparent elitism regarding US politics is indeed quite unfortunate. To me the dream of America is not that we have to look to some far distant court to tell us how to interpret our own constitution. It is that each and every citizen can help interpret it through their own elected legislatures. No one has a problem with courts making legitimate court decisions. However when they stretch vague phrases like those of the 14th Amendment to radically alter the way this country it is run, that is sham and that is not the dream that the founders had of America.

 

Whether we like it or not, the Supreme Court's interpretation has radically changed the nature of our government in the United States. The federal character, and the relationship between citizens of their governments. I think it is morally and constitutionally wrong for such decisions to be made at the whim of 9 men.

 

Remember Merlyn, just because the Supreme Court says something, does not mean it is true. This is the same court that came up with Plessy vs. Ferguson and Brown vs. Board of Education, just to name the most famous overturned decision. So did the fickle court just change its rulings, or did the constitution change? I don't think the constitution changed. Its text stayed the same. It was a contract agreed upon by the people of each of the states. It can't legitimatley change.

 

The Supreme Court errors. And in my judgement, it errors quite often.