Muslim Indiana

[Justified Saint]

That is how the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted at least, as the text itself doesn't enumerate any specific rights like the freedom of religion, but only the guarantee of "equal protection" and "due process." I would guess that has to do with Soc's reference to liberal courts "raping" the Constitution.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1304404' date='Jun 28 2007, 12:33 PM']Actually it would not. The Fourteenth Amendment applies all the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. The Incorporation Clause, it's called. Therefore the First Amendment, including establishment of religion, applies to states.[/quote]
The Fourteenth Amendment itself is ambiguous and does not explicitly apply the [i]Bill of Rights[/i] to the states.

That said, the Supreme Court has interpreted the amendment that way since 1968, but that is only one way of reading the text, and in our political system the court could easily reverse its more recent decisions.

Nevertheless, prescinding from the modern arguments about the Fourtheenth Amendment, the original intention of the framers of the Constitution was that the [i]Bill of Rights[/i] applied only to the Federal government.

[dairygirl4u2c]

what you said also crossed my mind justified saint.

If the bill only applied to the federal, then due process isn't infringed if hte State simply decides to throw you in jail for no reason. Not saying that should or shouldn't be possible, just pointing it out.

[Apotheoun]

The states have constitutions too, and they include provisions for due process.

[Resurrexi]

no and no

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1304404' date='Jun 28 2007, 01:33 PM']Actually it would not. The Fourteenth Amendment applies all the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. The Incorporation Clause, it's called. Therefore the First Amendment, including establishment of religion, applies to states.[/quote]
Actually, that is not in fact what the Fourteenth Amendment states.

The clause you are probably referring to states:[quote]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.[/quote]

This says nothing one way or the other about having an official state religion, so long as the people of the state are allowed to practice their own religion freely, and their rights are not otherwise abridged.

As I've said earlier, if Indiana (or whatever hypothetical state) wanted to practice Shariah Law, that would be a constitutional issue. But simply aknowledging an official religion would not, so long as no constitutional rights are violated.

Of course the 14th Amendment (made after the War Between the States, ratified 1868) has been rather loosely "interpreted " by federal judges, who wish to impose their will on the individual states, whether the people of those states will it or not. This has lead to such perversions of law as federal courts ordering religious symbols such as the 10 Commandments forcibly removed from [i]state[/i] courtrooms against the will of the people of that state.
Such rulings are tyrannical, and directly violate the principle of subsidiarity, as well as being a slap in face to Christian piety.

That is my point here, not that I am a fan of the state of Indiana being declared Muslim (an unlikely scenario, anyway).

[hoosieranna]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1304812' date='Jun 28 2007, 08:53 PM']That is my point here, not that I am a fan of the state of Indiana being declared Muslim [b](an unlikely scenario, anyway).[/b][/quote]

(emphasis mine) I did wonder about the original poster's demographic knowledge of the state. There have been some odd debate topics in the past. This is one of the stranger, or more absurd, ones.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1304406' date='Jun 28 2007, 01:35 PM']Oddly enough, liberals would say that conservatives have had a similar effect.
Perhaps the truth is somewhere in between.[/quote]
Perhaps not.
Liberals say all kinds of asinine things.

That statement is absurd, because American conservatism (in its true meaning), by its very definition, seeks to preserve both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, as invisioned by the framers.

It is liberals, not conservatives, who view the Constitution as an "evolving document," to be reinterpreted and amended beyond all recognition.

It is liberals, not conservatives, who go into hissy fits every time a proposed SCOTUS candidate is said to believe in a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

(And please keep in mind that Republican does not necessarily mean conservative.)

Your statement here is as vacuous as your earlier statements in other threads blaming conservatism for the spirit of dissent and liturgical/theological abuse in the Church.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Nadezhda' post='1304816' date='Jun 28 2007, 08:59 PM'](emphasis mine) I did wonder about the original poster's demographic knowledge of the state. There have been some odd debate topics in the past. This is one of the stranger, or more absurd, ones.[/quote]
I think the scenario was proposed as something entirely hypothetical, rather than likely. Indiana was probably just randomly pulled up.

However, with current immigration/demographic trends, who knows? (Though Indiania would not likely be the first state to do this.)

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1304817' date='Jun 28 2007, 09:00 PM']Perhaps not.
Liberals say all kinds of asinine things.

That statement is absurd, because American conservatism (in its true meaning), by its very definition, seeks to preserve both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, as invisioned by the framers.

It is liberals, not conservatives, who view the Constitution as an "evolving document," to be reinterpreted and amended beyond all recognition.

It is liberals, not conservatives, who go into hissy fits every time a proposed SCOTUS candidate is said to believe in a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

(And please keep in mind that Republican does not necessarily mean conservative.)

Your statement here is as vacuous as your earlier statements in other threads blaming conservatism for the spirit of dissent and liturgical/theological abuse in the Church.[/quote]
Amazingly, I can challenge conservative opinions without referring to them as asinine, absurd, or vacuous. I recognize that reasonable people can view the same body of evidence and come to different conclusions about it.

I obviously don't agree with you on more than one point, but I can respect your position. If you can't respect the opinions others hold which are in opposition to your own, you don't belong in any serious debate.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1304828' date='Jun 28 2007, 09:12 PM']Amazingly, I can challenge conservative opinions without referring to them as asinine, absurd, or vacuous. I recognize that reasonable people can view the same body of evidence and come to different conclusions about it.

I obviously don't agree with you on more than one point, but I can respect your position. If you can't respect the opinions others hold which are in opposition to your own, you don't belong in any serious debate.[/quote]
I call a spade a spade.

You haven't given an argument here, merely referred vaguely to what "liberals would say."
Can you provide an example of how judicial conservatism has "mucked up" the Constitution?

The statement is objectively absurd, because conservatism seeks to preserve the original meaning of the Constitution, while liberals think the Constitution and its interpretation should constantly change to "fit the times."

[Sojourner]

nm

Edited June 29, 2007 by Terra Firma

[dairygirl4u2c]

as far as interpretation goes, i would call them conservatives who stick to the dead black letter, insteado fthe spirit of the law, as evidenced by the fact that the current court ruled as it did regarding the 14 day deadline mentioned in the other thread. you can define conservative as you want to fit your own wish, but that's the way things actually are.

as far as this topic goes, i think soc has got it going, and those who say that the 14th amendment says more than it does.