Congress and the Constitution
I'm holding here a copy of the U.S. Constitution. As most Americans are aware, the first ammendment begins like this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...Now, here is my question. This legal statement clearly indicates that Congress shall not establish a religion or prohibit its free exercise. Doesn't this indicate that this only applies on a Federal, national, level?
For example: the somewhat recent battle of a Ten Commandments statue in front of a state office, what does Congress have to do with that? Is this not out of their domain? Ten Commandments in front of the Capitol Building, alright that's their domain, but ten commandments in front of a state office?
If Irving decided to publish "Irving: A City of Budhists" on all its official memos, I don't see how that makes Congress the one establishing anything; and since Congress has nothing to do with that how can they claim that the constitution prohibits such action?
This is a serious question, I'm not being facetious here. If Congress itself did not establish something, how does the First Ammendment apply?
This also goes for the other details of the ammendment like free speech and such. After reading the rest of the bill of rights, however, I notice that none of the other ammendments start with "Congress shall...". They simply talk about what is a protected right and what is not regardless of whether federal, state, city, or other jurisdiction applies. It therefore seems that the First Ammendment, in particular, is quite limited in its scope.
So my question still stands. Since the First Ammendment seems to only apply to Congress, why do its consequences trickle downward into all other areas of smaller government?
I'm not discussing whether establishing a religion, or limiting speech is right or wrong. I am only asking about the explicit declaractions of our Constitution. So, keeping that in mind, what do you think about this? How would you interpret the First Ammendment as written?
posted by Seamus at 12:23 PM
7 Comments:
I would suspect that most or all state constitutions have a similar statement, and most local governments have the more specific wording of "not discriminating based on religion." I think that, these protections were/are probably intended to interlock to create a relatively similar outlook on religion at all levels. (I'm not making a statement about what this outlook entails at this point).
1:31 PM
Yeah, I figured that it would be mimicked by lower goverments and that makes sense. But that still doesn't satisfy my interest into the issue.
Afterall, the Supreme Court is usually involved in these cases and it deems such issues "unconstitutional".
It still seems like the constitution is being misused to me.
For example, say a fifty-first state came into existence that did not give such rights in its own constitution. I bet the Supreme Court would still step in and deem any infringement of church-state relations or limited speech as "unconstitutional".
I think the Supreme Court oversteps its designated boundaries here.
1:56 PM
I guess what I'm trying to say is that although the First Ammendment's words of neither establishing nor restricting a religion are a common slogan and a practical American truism, the constitution doesn't seem to extend this beyond a national scope. However, the Supreme Court in interpreting that same constitution enforces it as if it does. This is what I find confusing.
3:19 PM
I like boobies?
7:25 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
8:48 PM
There's more than ten ammendments?
...just kidding; lol.
I'll look into this.
8:18 AM
I can see how the 14th Ammendment blurs the lines between citizens of a state versus citizens of the nation and likewise brings all applicable laws from the national to the state level.
However, since the First Ammendment in particular states that Congress can not enforce/deny religion and speech and so on, it still seems like the states could have different laws in this regard. In other words, the "right" that the 14th Ammendment seems to bestow to all citizens is that Congress will not enforce or deny a religion or free spech, or free press, etc... Therefore, I still don't see how Congress has any say in whether a state or city or school board wants to establish/deny a religion, or free speech, or free press, etc...
Again, I'm not making a statement as to whether or not those rights and protections are good or bad things. I am focused only on the wording of the Constitution at this point. Along those lines, it is especially intriguing to me that the First Ammending specifically restricts itself to the direct actions of Congress.
10:45 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home