XPost: alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution, misc.education
From: none@none.com
On 10/24/2010 5:43 PM, Strabo wrote:
> 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.
"Congress" is not a synonym for 'government' in the document; they have
very specific and precise meanings.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
