You do realize he has gone full fascist in his speeches

[Into the Night]

The "Appropriate law" is the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which forbids States from violating the rights that the Federal government is prohibited from violating.

The 14th amendment does no such thing.

Prior to the passage of the 14th, the protections in the Bill of Rights restricted only the actions of the Federal Government.

WRONG. Some of the Bill of Rights already applied to the States.Those portions still do. Others do not apply to the States. That has not changed either.

The US Constitution, for example, says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." This did not prevent the individual STATES from having an established religion, though (i.e. an "official State religion", and several of them did. After the passage of the 14th, though, that too became illegal.

If a State desires to do so, it still can. Currently, no States do.

The passages of the 14th Amendment, which bound the States to the Federal Bill of Rights, and the 17th Amendment, which called for the direct election of Senators, are the two biggest changes in the fundamental structure of the US since it was founded.

Personally, I believe this amendment should be repealed. It removes the representation of the States as States in the federal government.

While several States have such religious tests in their Constitutions,

None, currently.

all such clauses are invalid.

No, they aren't.

The 14th Amendment would make denying State elected office to an atheist a violation of his rights under the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, and illegal.

No, it doesn't.

This question has been thoroughly litigated, and is settled law.

No court has the authority to change the Constitution of the United States or of any State.

The governing case law is "Torcaso v. Watkins". Torcaso was denied a commission as a Notary in Maryland because Maryland had an oath requirement that required candidates for public office, and for certain types of commissions - including notries - to assert a belief in a "Supreme Being".

No court has the authority to change the Constitution of the United States or of any State.

 

[Flash]

The Federal government is bound by the 1st amendment. The States are not.

The states have been bound by the 1st Amendment (as applied through the due process clause of the 14th) since 1925 in the Gitlow v. NY case.

Several states had official religions early in history but not since the establishment clause was interpreted to restrict the states in 1947 in the Everson v. Board of Education case.

Because you think courts do not have the power to interpret the Constitution does not mean they cannot do so and have since the early years of the republic.

Are you the jury nullification guy?

 

[Micawber]

I haven't said Trump is a Nazi.

Donald Trump appears to take aspects of his German background seriously. John Walter works for the Trump Organization, and when he visits Donald in his office, Ivana told a friend, he clicks his heels and says, “Heil Hitler,” possibly as a family joke.

Last April, perhaps in a surge of Czech nationalism, Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler’s collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed


Vanity Fair

 

[Micawber]

Into the night needs to not apply his freshman logic 101 class to Con Law.
He lacks facts. If a state passed a law that violated your first amendment rights,
or some state official under color of law did the same,
the state actor would be sued in a heartbeat. Incorporation doctrine.

 

[Into the Night]

The states have been bound by the 1st Amendment (as applied through the due process clause of the 14th) since 1925 in the Gitlow v. NY case.

No court has authority to change the Constitution of the United States.

Several states had official religions early in history but not since the establishment clause was interpreted to restrict the states in 1947 in the Everson v. Board of Education case.

No court has authority to change the Constitution of the United States.

Because you think courts do not have the power to interpret the Constitution does not mean they cannot do so and have since the early years of the republic.

They never had that authority. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States.

Are you the jury nullification guy?

No.

 

[Into the Night]

Into the night needs to not apply his freshman logic 101 class to Con Law.

The Constitution is constitutional law, not any court.

He lacks facts.

You don't except the Constitution of the United States as a fact???

If a state passed a law that violated your first amendment rights,
or some state official under color of law did the same,
the state actor would be sued in a heartbeat.

No court has the authority to change the Constitution.

Incorporation doctrine.

Makes no difference.