Why does Ron Paul oppose the incorporation doctrine?

[adwads]

So, let me get this straight...as a resident of California, for example, my right to practice whatever religion I want is granted by the state consitution of California, not by the 1st amendment to the United States Constitution?

Because the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Consitution only prohibits the federal government from interfering in religion, not the state? So technically, a state could pass a law compelling me to be muslim, for example, and the federal government could do nothign about it because the 1st amendment prohibits the federal government from doing anything about what a state decides to do about religion?

In this interpretation, the 1st amendment actually seems to be DENYING me the right to practice religion freely by granting the states power over religious issues.

 

[parocks]

So, let me get this straight...as a resident of California, for example, my right to practice whatever religion I want is granted by the state consitution of California, not by the 1st amendment to the United States Constitution?

Because the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Consitution only prohibits the federal government from interfering in religion, not the state? So technically, a state could pass a law compelling me to be muslim, for example, and the federal government could do nothign about it because the 1st amendment prohibits the federal government from doing anything about what a state decides to do about religion?

In this interpretation, the 1st amendment actually seems to be DENYING me the right to practice religion freely by granting the states power over religious issues.

I don't know what's in California's consitution.

The First Amendment places limits on the United States Government.

It's the principle of Federalism. The idea that we have different states with different laws, and that's a good thing.

If I lived in California, I'd vote against the Governor who compelled me to be muslim, or I'd move to one of the 49 other states, to one that had the set of laws that I liked the most. Freedom of choice, gotta love it.

But, right now, incorporation doctrine applies, apparently the 14th amendment has voided the right of states to establish their own state religions, as explicitly stated in the 1st amendment.

An argument could be made that the free exercise clause and incorporation doctrine are logically compatible.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - Original

"Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion." - Just the Free Exercise clause

"Government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion." - Just the Free Exercise clause with incorporation.

The last one does make sense, and I don't think that RP has the same problem with that. It's not the "free exercise" + "incorporation" that's the problem, it's the
"establishment" + "incorporation" that's the problem.

In theory, California could become officially muslim, and as long as California doesn't pass a law prohibiting you from freely exercising your own religion, it's all good.

Establishment + incorporation simply makes no sense at all.



This is interesting, and on topic - http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2004/06/no_law_respecti.html

 

[adwads]

I think I have a good grasp of it now...I'm definetly on the side of full incorporation, however...I don't want a local school district requiring kids to go along with a certain type of prayer, etc.

 

[rekced]

Was this brought up in the context of state anti-abortion and homosexual sodomy laws?

No.

 

[0zzy]

1) Would he allow states to segregate public schools, separate but equal, jim crow-type laws in public, taxpayer-paid public institutions?

2) Would he allow the states to ban homosexuality/sex?

3) If the constitution is just for the national government, can the states pretty much ignore all of it if they wanted it?

 

[Gorgy]

1) Would he allow states to segregate public schools, separate but equal, jim crow-type laws in public, taxpayer-paid public institutions?

2) Would he allow the states to ban homosexuality/sex?

3) If the constitution is just for the national government, can the states pretty much ignore all of it if they wanted it?

1) NO. Because the 14th was written specifically to take care of these things.

2) Presumably YES because that's their rights as states (the term is "police power" which is reserved solely for states in issues like crime, morality, health, etc.). I am 100% against restrictive laws like that, but the entire idea of federalism was encapsulated on the first page in my long-ish post. The benefit of allowing states to do things like that is that it keeps the people on their toes, involved, and highly skeptical of the government around them. It also lets each state reflect the values of its people instead of having laws at odds with their needs dictated from a central authority. It's called the states as "laboratories of democracy" principle.

3) Not all of the Constitution is only for the national government. There are specific -- though few -- provisions that discuss states. The general idea is that the federal government was to be a limited and enumerated government since it is very hard for people to interact with and alter it given that they have a 1/50th constituency at best (less in the house for smaller states). States wrote their own Constitutions and almost all guaranteed speech and religion and the like just like the Constitution (some even more strongly). It's not like the states have unlimited ability to do anything they want because it is a million times easier to keep a state government honest than it is a federal one.