981d2d63   
   XPost: alt.america, alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: misc.education   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On 10/22/2010 2:09 PM, cpt banjo wrote:   
   > On Oct 22, 3:06 pm, Peter Franks  wrote:   
   >   
   >> All of these cases are about due process as a consequence of taxation.   
   >> None of it speaks to the extension of the limitations in Amendment I   
   >> from Congress to state, presuming that due process isn't violated.   
   >   
   > Since state governments need tax revenue to operate, one can argue   
   > that any challenge to state action under the Establishment Clause   
   > involves taxation in an indirect way, so limiting Everson to its facts   
   > is unavailing, especially since the Court has consistently cited   
   > Everson in a variety of contexts.  See, for example, Torcaso v.   
   > Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), declaring unconstitutional a Maryland   
   > state constitutional provision requiring that all state officeholders   
   > declare a belief in God (the case was decided upon First Amendment   
   > grounds and didn't rest on the no-religious-test clause in Article   
   > VI).   
      
   In terms of accepted case law, I'm fighting a losing (lost) battle here.   
     I'll concede that the grand abortion (also known as Amendment XIV)   
   serves as the basis for extending "Congress shall make no law..." to the   
   states.   
      
   That said, I strongly feel that XIV and the subsequent interpretations,   
   fabrications, and incorporation stabs directly at the heart of our   
   foundation of federal freedom.   
      
   So, for the second part of my question:  Can you point out where the   
   term "Congress" mutates to "government"? (specifically, /federal/   
   government).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)