adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Before I start this, I'd like to note that I'm a firm supporter of Separation of Church and State. I also have my own legal understanding of why it's protected. That said, I have issues with the current jurisprudence in regards to this issue, though I do not dispute that it holds legally speaking.
Also, this is a LEGAL debate. No, "I don't think there should be seperation of Church and State" and no Living Constitutionalists (j/k, you can sit in the corner over there with the philosophers). If you have a certain standpoint about a view, support it with legal reasoning, and citations from law and case law.
Also, I recognize that this has other implications
Now that that's over....
The first amendment reads:
This is different from most of the bill of rights in that the remainder of the bill of rights does not specify "Congress".
However, in spite of the fact that most of the bill of rights does not specify a government entity, it was entirely ruled to not apply to the states in Barron v. Baltimore.
Ultimately later, the 14th amendment was ratified, and still later it was ruled that the 14th amendment's due process clause incorporated "fundamental rights" within the bill of rights to the states. The first such case was Gitlow v. New York (though a previous case was arguable).
However, holding aside the dubiousness of Incorporation in general (as well as the dubiousness of the Barron V. Baltimore ruling), "Congress shall make no law" applied to the state governments is still "Congress shall make no law". It never references them, and therefore they should not be legally bound to the amendment, since the 14th amendment doesn't create any form of substitution.
Therefore, the First Amendment should not be applied to the states in general, but specifically (for this debate) the provisions on religious freedom and establishment should not be applied to the states.
Also, this is a LEGAL debate. No, "I don't think there should be seperation of Church and State" and no Living Constitutionalists (j/k, you can sit in the corner over there with the philosophers). If you have a certain standpoint about a view, support it with legal reasoning, and citations from law and case law.
Also, I recognize that this has other implications
Now that that's over....
The first amendment reads:
Here's the essential phrase, "Congress shall make no law".
This is different from most of the bill of rights in that the remainder of the bill of rights does not specify "Congress".
However, in spite of the fact that most of the bill of rights does not specify a government entity, it was entirely ruled to not apply to the states in Barron v. Baltimore.
Ultimately later, the 14th amendment was ratified, and still later it was ruled that the 14th amendment's due process clause incorporated "fundamental rights" within the bill of rights to the states. The first such case was Gitlow v. New York (though a previous case was arguable).
However, holding aside the dubiousness of Incorporation in general (as well as the dubiousness of the Barron V. Baltimore ruling), "Congress shall make no law" applied to the state governments is still "Congress shall make no law". It never references them, and therefore they should not be legally bound to the amendment, since the 14th amendment doesn't create any form of substitution.
Therefore, the First Amendment should not be applied to the states in general, but specifically (for this debate) the provisions on religious freedom and establishment should not be applied to the states.