XPost: alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution, misc.education
From: strabo@flashlight.net
On 10/22/2010 5:45 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
> 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).
>
Both words are used within the Constitution to describe the
intent and purpose of the 1787 convention.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
