[–] fuck_communism 2 points 1 point 3 points (+3|-2) ago (edited ago)
The Establishment Clause prevents the United States Congress from passing laws with respect to the establishment of religion. As a result, there are no Federal laws with respect to the establishment of religion (I am ignoring subsequent Supreme Court interpretations because we are discussing the constitution, not those interpretations). Therefore, the Supremacy Clause does not come into play. Example: There is no Federal law prohibiting states from conducting lotteries, so states are free to decide whether or not to enact the idiot tax - the Supremacy Clause is immaterial. If Congress passed, and the President signed into law, a bill prohibiting lotteries in the United States, then the Supremacy Clause would come into play, and state lotteries would be illegal.
If, instead of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." the Establishment Clause read "The United States shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." you would be correct.
[–] iamjanesleftnipple 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago
Except once again, you're wrong, thanks to the Supreme Court: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/330/1.html
Here's the summary: The Supreme Court made clear in a landmark ruling in 1947 that the Establishment Clause does apply to states – and they have underscored this holding repeatedly since then.
This is the First Amendment via the Supremacy Clause.
So to sum up, because it's all been said:
Matter put to rest, nice discussion, good night.
[–] Rellik88 ago
I'm Atheist, there is no freedom from religion. Just because Religion triggers you doesn't mean you get to be protected from it.
[–] fuck_communism 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
I am well aware of Everson v. Board of Education. If you knew anything about the case, you would know that, as I have repeatedly pointed out, prior to Everson v. Board of Education, the Establishment Clause applied only to the Federal Government. This was not just legal theory, but actual practice. Several states had laws favoring one religious denomination over another. It's not something that's up for dispute. When some states have laws favoring specific denominations for over 150 years, you can't say those laws didn't exist or that their legality was ever in doubt prior to Everson. It's like saying slavery was always illegal in the U.S. because it was made illegal in 1863.
No.
Not until 1947, by decree of the Supreme Court.
Apparently not. I find it so mind boggling that such a straight forward, unambiguous sentence fragment continues to be misread, misinterpreted, and misunderstood by so many.
[–] Kal [S] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Remind me to never argue law with you, if the issue should ever come up.