Ban on same sex marriage ruled unconstitutional by Texas Judge

USFREEDOM911 said:
And there's the rub.
It's all about "feelings".

The Constitution does not prohibit the freedom to "feel" insulted.

I'm beginnig to believe that you're the kind of person that want's children's games to be scoreless.
We sure wouldn't want someone to feel "inadequate", by losing.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Keep scores, keep grades, and keep religion out of schools completely.

And save the analysis, you are 0-2 in guessing so far.
 
WinterBorn said:
Its not so much heavy handed. It is simply following the rules against the gov't advocating for a single religion (or any religion).
Click to expand...

Your interpretation of the 1st doesn't fit well with history. Hell, they had church services in the Capitol building in the early days, i.e. Jefferson and Madison administrations.
 
Tabasco said:
Your interpretation of the 1st doesn't fit well with history. Hell, they had church services in the Capitol building in the early days, i.e. Jefferson and Madison administrations.
Click to expand...

And we recited the Lord's Prayer before the pledge when I was in elementary school.

I am not saying that any of this is right or wrong, I am saying I understand why the school officials made the choices they made.
 
Damocles said:
Do you believe this to be enforceable? According to your previous posts you must because it is in the constitution of the state and therefore is "official law"...
Click to expand...
Yes I do. However its a moot point because an atheist would never get elected into high office in NC.
 
Southern Man said:
Yes I do. However its a moot point because an atheist would never get elected into high office in NC.
Click to expand...
I have some links for you, it is totally unenforceable...

In 1961 in Torcaso v. Watkins the Supreme court ruled this way:
This first part here quotes a previous ruling which we will get to later...
The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
Click to expand...

Writing for the court, Justice Black said this:

There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us - it sets up a religious test which was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public "office of profit or trust" in Maryland. ... We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

Rebuffing the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals, Justice Black added:

The fact, however, that a person is not compelled to hold public office cannot possibly be an excuse for barring him from office by state-imposed criteria forbidden by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely and totally unenforceable, left in the constitution solely as a historical reference yet to be removed. Not only can an atheist hold office in North Carolina, the state cannot even ask them to profess any belief at all.

Now as to a ruling on official State religions (and showing that North Carolina cannot have an official religion any more than any other state) we have Everson v. Board of Education ruling in 1947.

Here is what they wrote in their ruling:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.
Click to expand...

Now the state won the lawsuit in that case, as the law did none of the above. However since this time official State Religions have been removed from any power. North Carolina can keep the wording in the document as an historical reference, but they cannot ever try to enforce any official religion, or even help that religion above any others, they cannot even help all religions above none.

Your mistaken belief that there is some official religion of North Carolina is simply that, mistaken. It is also misguided and ignorant.
 
Damocles said:
I have some links for you, it is totally unenforceable...

In 1961 in Torcaso v. Watkins the Supreme court ruled this way:
This first part here quotes a previous ruling which we will get to later...


Writing for the court, Justice Black said this:



It is absolutely and totally unenforceable, left in the constitution solely as a historical reference yet to be removed. Not only can an atheist hold office in North Carolina, the state cannot even ask them to profess any belief at all.

Now as to a ruling on official State religions (and showing that North Carolina cannot have an official religion any more than any other state) we have Everson v. Board of Education ruling in 1947.

Here is what they wrote in their ruling:



Now the state won the lawsuit in that case, as the law did none of the above. However since this time official State Religions have been removed from any power. North Carolina can keep the wording in the document as an historical reference, but they cannot ever try to enforce any official religion, or even help that religion above any others.
Click to expand...

I've already stated that I don't put much stock in legal precedent, especially modern decisions; I prefer to interpret the Constitution as the founders would have. Judges make mistakes, especially when one party doesn't have adequate resources and gets beat up by the other. If the case came to court with the NC Constitution, the Great State of NC has plentiful resources to defend itself, and I think that the decision would be in their favor.
 
Southern Man said:
I've already stated that I don't put much stock in legal precedent, especially modern decisions; I prefer to interpret the Constitution as the founders would have. Judges make mistakes, especially when one party doesn't have adequate resources and gets beat up by the other. If the case came to court with the NC Constitution, the Great State of NC has plentiful resources to defend itself, and I think that the decision would be in their favor.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what "stock" you put into their rulings, they are in fact reality, it never would make it back to the SCOTUS.

First they too know that they cannot enforce such requirements and wouldn't try, second if they did it would be ruled on by lower courts and appeals rejected. The legal precedent is clear.
 
Damocles said:
It doesn't matter what "stock" you put into their rulings, they are in fact reality, it never would make it back to the SCOTUS.

First they too know that they cannot enforce such requirements and wouldn't try, second if they did it would be ruled on by lower courts and appeals rejected. The legal precedent is clear.
Click to expand...
Judges are routinely wrong. That's why legal precedents can be, and often are, ignored.
 
Southern Man said:
Judges are routinely wrong. That's why legal precedents can be, and often are, ignored.
Click to expand...
This is simply ignorant again. This particular precedent has been repeatedly ruled on, and supported. Your foundation of your argument is no longer on sand, it is now built on wishes. You've been clearly and totally owned throughout this thread. I really am embarrassed for you.

I thought you were going to stay away for a while so that when you returned you might be able to avoid this one.
 
Damocles said:
This is simply ignorant again. This particular precedent has been repeatedly ruled on, and supported. Your foundation of your argument is no longer on sand, it is now built on wishes. You've been clearly and totally owned throughout this thread. I really am embarrassed for you.

I thought you were going to stay away for a while so that when you returned you might be able to avoid this one.
Click to expand...
Again, its a moot point because an atheist would never be elected in NC. He'd have to do that first before engaging in a legal challenge. And if he did, the resources of the State would come in to defend our sovereignty.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, its a moot point because an atheist would never be elected in NC. He'd have to do that first before engaging in a legal challenge. And if he did, the resources of the State would come in to defend our sovereignty.
Click to expand...

Is this why you brag on the "tolerance of christians"?

If the voters would ignore the more qualified candidate because of his religious beliefs, they can only be called ignorant.

I agree with Damo, you have been pwnd in this thread and continue to argue based on your wishes rather than on reality.
 
Southern Man said:
Prove it. Your ad-hom is one point for me. :)
Click to expand...

You ignore legal precedents, make claims based on a stance that has been shot down by the courts numerous times, and basically ignore the US Constitution. And then claim a point when someone says you are wrong?

Sorry, you are completely wrong on this topic.
 
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_...ions.3B_Constitutional_Amendment_and_Revision

(I am aware wikipedia is not the best reference, but unless someone shows this to be inaccurate...)

"As per the Federal Supremacy Clause, all Federal law and the Constitution of the United States overrule the North Carolina Constitution. There are several provisions in the current North Carolina Constitution that may conflict with federal law and/or the US Constitution.

At least two provisions, carried over from the 1868 Constitution, are not enforced either because they are known to be void or would almost certainly be struck down in court.

Article 6, section 8 disqualifies from office any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. This article was carried over verbatim from the 1868 Constitution. However, in 1961, the federal Supreme Court, in Torcaso v. Watkins threw out a similar provision in the Maryland Constitution on the grounds that it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution. The First Amendment bars Congress from passing any law "respecting an establishment of religion," and this provision has long been considered binding on the states under the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result, it has never been enforced.


Article 6, section 4 requires that a person be literate in the English language before registering to vote. This provision was widely used to effectively disenfranchise African-American voters in the Jim Crow era. As such, it is widely held that this section violates the Voting Rights Act. However, several attempts to remove this provision have failed.
In addition, federal and state court decisions have narrowed the scope of at least one section of the constitution. Article 2, sections 3 & 5, sub-section 2 state that counties must not be divided when drawing state legislative districts. This provision is known as the "Whole County Provision." However, in 1981, the federal Justice Department ruled that this provision was inconsistent with the Voting Rights Act. The state thus ignored the Whole County Provision until 2002. That year, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution's equal protection clause presumed single-member districts and was thus a limitation on the Whole County Provision. It can also be argued that the "one person, one vote" rule from Reynolds v. Sims also limits this provision."
 
Last edited:
Southern Man said:
Watkins obviously didn't have the legal resources that the State of NC would.
Click to expand...

I doubt that would matter.

In case you didn't actually look up the case, a man appointed by the Gov. of Maryland to the post of Notary Public. Maryland, at the time, had a rule in their constitution that was basically the same as NC's. It said no one could hold public office that was not a christian. After Torcaso was appointed, his commison was denied and his appointment was rescinded because he refused to declare his belief in God Almighty.

The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Torcaso. And the opponent was the state of Maryland, so I think they had plenty of resources.

Since the case has been ruled on, and there are plenty of precedents, having more resources would not help at all.

The law, as written in NC constitution, is unenforceable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top