Government, religion, and "secular" vs. "religious"

[Snowball]

What is the first word of the First Amendment?

You could pick any word because Federal justices are supposed to interpret the Constitution in full.

The right if there is one which is relevant to the case is: does the STATE of Lousiana have the authority, not the Congress.

Congress is irrelevant.

 

[Invisible Man]

What if a judge such as myself does not even assess this as a First Amendment issue?

No matter how you assess it, the essence of your ruling would be a question of what should Congress do about this? It is either that it should do something about it, or it should do nothing about it. If SCOTUS rules (on whatever basis) that Louisiana is not to display the !0 Commandments in its schools, that means that SCOTUS rules that Congress ought to do something to prevent Louisiana from doing that. If Congress does nothing about it, then Louisiana can go on doing what it wants.

The Court itself has neither sword nor purse, only judgment.

 

[Invisible Man]

You could pick any word because Federal justices are supposed to interpret the Constitution in full.

Congress is irrelevant.

The two above sentences contradict one another.

 

[Snowball]

The two above sentences contradict one another.

Only if it were Congress that put up the 10 Commandments.
But it was the State of Louisiana. The court has to rule on the case vis-a-vis the plaintiff(s) and the State.
Not Congress!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Invisible Man]

Only if it were Congress that put up the 10 Commandments.
But it was the State of Louisiana. The court has to rule on the case vis-a-vis the plaintiff(s) and the State.
Not Congress!!!!!!!!!!!

If the federal government were somehow to stop Louisiana from putting up the 10 Commandments, then that would have to be done by way of some law passed by Congress and executed by funding provided by Congress.

The opinion of SCOTUS that the federal government should stop Louisiana from putting up the 10 Commandments would necessarily be an opinion that Congress (and the Executive branch pursuant to whatever law Congress would pass pursuant to that court opinion) should interfere.

 

[Invisible Man]

Only if it were Congress that put up the 10 Commandments.
But it was the State of Louisiana. The court has to rule on the case vis-a-vis the plaintiff(s) and the State.
Not Congress!!!!!!!!!!!

Read the 14th, 15ht, 19th, 24th, and 25th Amendments, and notice what the last section of each of them says.

It is the nature of the system of government set up by the US Constitution that in order for federal courts to interfere in state laws, they must do so through the mediation of the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

If SCOTUS rules that some state law is unconstitutional, then until the legislative and executive branches of the federal government do anything to act on that court opinion, it is as empty as a Donald Trump promise.

 

[Snowball]

If the federal government were somehow to stop Louisiana from putting up the 10 Commandments, then that would have to be done by way of some law passed by Congress and executed by funding provided by Congress.

The opinion of SCOTUS that the federal government should stop Louisiana from putting up the 10 Commandments would necessarily be an opinion that Congress (and the Executive branch pursuant to whatever law Congress would pass pursuant to that court opinion) should interfere.

wrong. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. It was NOT contrived by Congress.

adios.

 

[Invisible Man]

Posting a decalogue on a school wall doesn't establish any religion in the government.

If this is true, then that's unfortunate for Louisiana. Because if it did establish religion, then the First Amendment would protect Louisiana from any federal interference in such a matter.

 

[Invisible Man]

wrong. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. It was NOT contrived by Congress.

adios.

Who said anything about the Constitution being contrived by Congress?

But, if you accept the premise that the Constitution is the Law of the Land (a tenuous premise to be sure, but the premise of this discussion nonetheless), then the Constitution dictates what Congress can and cannot do, including whether it can or cannot interfere in the laws of Louisiana.

Any federal court case concerning a Louisiana law would necessarily be a case over whether or not the federal government (i.e. Congress) should do anything about that Louisiana law. That would be the whole point of trying that law in a federal court.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I don't think posting the ten commandments, in and of itself, rises to the level of "establishing" a state religion.

Merely posting them doesn't.

Mandating that they be posted does (or at least heavily smacks of it).

But forbidding that they be posted does, as well.

 

[Occam's Banana]

A few months ago, I made the argument that a local/state government cheating in an election, clearly affected the nation as a whole, and I was immediately dogpiled by staunch defenders of state's rights.

—Yes, defending cheating on the grounds that states should be free to do whatever they want with 'their own' elections.

I found it quite peculiar, but eventually relented and bowed out of the debate. And yet, now . . .

If we will twist ourselves into pretzels to defend cheating as an inherent right of a state but make no such allowance for displaying the 10 commandments, then it speaks volumes about the condition of our society.

[I have no interest in rehashing that debate here, I simply ask that people pause and consider that the same logic could be applied in this instance, and as the state of Louisiana's mandate has no impact on any other of the 49 states in any way similar to who ends up as president of the entire country, perhaps the state's rights argument could be even more easily applied]

 

[oyarde]

What is the first word of the First Amendment?

im guessing Congress

 

[Anti Federalist]

Merely posting them doesn't.

Mandating that they be posted does (or at least heavily smacks of it).

But forbidding that they be posted does, as well.

So the solution is simply to neither prohibit nor mandate.

C'était facile, non?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Freedom of religion doesn't include the right to have government promote a particular faith (i.e., theism).

It most certainly does.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Merely posting them doesn't.

Mandating that they be posted does (or at least heavily smacks of it).

But forbidding that they be posted does, as well.

"Mandating" is no different than the state "merely posting them".

Establishing a religion is requiring everyone to be a member and pay tithes to a religion, that's what some colonies were doing at the time of the adoption of the BoR and what the BoR allowed states to continue to do.
It can be argued that the prohibition on Congress doing the same has since been imposed on the states through incorporation doctrine, but no states are doing it now anyway.

 

[Occam's Banana]

So the solution is simply to neither prohibit nor mandate.

C'était facile, non?

Oui bien sûr!

 

[Swordsmyth]

Who said anything about the Constitution being contrived by Congress?

But, if you accept the premise that the Constitution is the Law of the Land (a tenuous premise to be sure, but the premise of this discussion nonetheless), then the Constitution dictates what Congress can and cannot do, including whether it can or cannot interfere in the laws of Louisiana.

Any federal court case concerning a Louisiana law would necessarily be a case over whether or not the federal government (i.e. Congress) should do anything about that Louisiana law. That would be the whole point of trying that law in a federal court.

Article 6:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


The original 1stA specifies that at least part of it only applies to congress, but the 14thA may make all of it apply to the states as well.
But no state is establishing a religion.

 

[Swordsmyth]

If SCOTUS rules that some state law is unconstitutional, then until the legislative and executive branches of the federal government do anything to act on that court opinion, it is as empty as a Donald Trump promise.

LOL

 

[Swordsmyth]

By making mandatory, or to "require", especially when "all" classrooms [or whatever it is] is stated, is to "establish".

False.
And the 10 commandments are not even exclusive to one religion anyway.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

It most certainly does.

Really? Is your faith so unpersuasive that it needs the power of government to promote it?

And while you're at it, point to the language of the Constitution (assuming you believe it has some sort of legal effect) that enshrines a particular faith with a preferred status, especially given its prohibition of religious tests for federal offices and the Free Exercise Clause's guarantee that one can be a polytheist or idolater, both of which violate the Ten Commandments.

In discussing Article VI's no religious test in the debate of the North Carolina Convention on the adoption of the Federal Constitution, James Iredell, later a Justice of the Supreme Court, said ". . . t is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for?"

And another delegate pointed out that Article VI "leaves religion on the solid foundation of its own inherent validity, without any connection with temporal authority, and no kind of oppression can take place."