You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
2

[–] fuck_communism 0 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.

The freedom of religion and freedom from religion are both enshrined in the Constitution

No.

It falls from the federal level down all the way to local municipality

Not until 1947, by decree of the Supreme Court.

... made it easy enough to understand ...

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.

0
1

[–] iamjanesleftnipple 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

prior to Everson v. Board of Education, the Establishment Clause applied only to the Federal Government

Right, and Everson affirmed that both protections exist and apply to all levels going forward.

Several states had laws favoring one religious denomination over another. It's not something that's up for dispute.

Right, and Everson made sure to abolish those that were still there, prevent and future ones and refined what the Constitution says about religion, IE you can practice what you want to practice (freedom of) and any form of government (fed->local) cannot establish a state religion (freedom from). What you're trying to prove here is that, at one point the Constitution said one thing and then we changed it, but you'd be wrong. The founders knew what they meant, it just took a SC ruling to refine our understanding (because we didn't need another amendment to fix the language, just a ruling for what was already there)

When some states have laws favoring specific denominations for over 150 years, you can't say those laws didn't exist

Not saying that.

or that their legality was ever in doubt prior to Everson.

Absolutely saying that. Just because the case hadn't been brought to the SC doesn't mean it wasn't legally in doubt.

It's like saying slavery was always illegal in the U.S. because it was made illegal in 1863.

You're not exactly arguing apples to oranges with this. The 13th amendment had to be added to the Constitution after slavery, which was an act of congress, meaning that it was legal until it was made illegal. The Supreme Court ruling was a refinement of our understanding of an existing law, meaning that the law always meant that, we just needed the proper legal proceeding to force us to review it and come to a new understanding. So, in effect, the law always had that meaning, we just needed to catch up our interpretation of it.

Again, to recap:

Yes, yes and you can keep arguing with me until you rage quit, but you're either admitting that neither freedom of and freedom from exist (because the Constitution explicitly states neither) or you admit that the founders knew what they were doing and it just took the rest of us a period of time to understand it too.

0
0

[–] fuck_communism ago 

the law always had that meaning, we just needed to catch up our interpretation of it.

Every time I think I've read the stupidest thing ever posted on the internet, someone outdoes themselves. Now you're just being willfully stupid.