Proposal would allow state religion in North Carolina

[daws101]

Proposal would allow state religion in North Carolina

By Laura Leslie





Posted: April 2
Updated: April 3

Tags: Harry Warren, Edgar Starnes, Justin Burr, ACLU


Raleigh, N.C. — A resolution filed by Republican lawmakers would allow North Carolina to declare an official religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Bill of Rights, and seeks to nullify any federal ruling against Christian prayer by public bodies statewide.

The resolution grew out of a dispute between the American Civil Liberties Union and the Rowan County Board of Commissioners. In a federal lawsuit filed last month, the ACLU says the board has opened 97 percent of its meetings since 2007 with explicitly Christian prayers.

Overtly Christian prayers at government meetings are not rare in North Carolina. Since the Republican takeover in 2011, the state Senate chaplain has offered an explicitly Christian invocation virtually every day of session, despite the fact that some senators are not Christian.

In a 2011 ruling on a similar lawsuit against the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not ban prayer at government meetings outright, but said prayers favoring one religion over another are unconstitutional.

"To plant sectarian prayers at the heart of local government is a prescription for religious discord," the court said. "Where prayer in public fora is concerned, the deep beliefs of the speaker afford only more reason to respect the profound convictions of the listener. Free religious exercise posits broad religious tolerance."

House Joint Resolution 494, filed by Republican Rowan County Reps. Harry Warren and Carl Ford, would refuse to acknowledge the force of any judicial ruling on prayer in North Carolina – or indeed on any Constitutional topic:

"The Constitution of the United States does not grant the federal government and does not grant the federal courts the power to determine what is or is not constitutional; therefore, by virtue of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the power to determine constitutionality and the proper interpretation and proper application of the Constitution is reserved to the states and to the people," the resolution states.

"Each state in the union is sovereign and may independently determine how that state may make laws respecting an establishment of religion," it states.

The Tenth Amendment argument, also known as "nullification," has been tried unsuccessfully by states for more than a century to defy federal laws and judicial rulings from the Civil War period to President Obama's health care reforms to gun control.

The resolution goes on to say:

SECTION 1. The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

SECTION 2. The North Carolina General Assembly does not recognize federal court rulings which prohibit and otherwise regulate the State of North Carolina, its public schools or any political subdivisions of the State from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

Eleven House Republicans have signed on to sponsor the resolution, including Majority Leader Edgar Starnes, R-Caldwell, and Budget Chairman Justin Burr, R-Stanly.

Article 1, Section 5 of the North Carolina Constitution requires the state to observe federal law: "Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force."

Proposal would allow state religion in North Carolina :: WRAL.com

 

[daws101]

Poll: 1 in 3 Americans want Christianity as official US religion

A newly-released poll has revealed that more than a third of Americans favor declaring Christianity the official state religion of the United States.

The Huffington Post/YouGov poll surveyed 1,000 American adults regarding their opinions about the relationship between Christianity and the US government and Constitution. Fully 34 percent of respondents said they favor making Christianity the US state religion, while 47 percent said they oppose doing so. Twenty percent strongly favor establishing Christianity as the official US religion.
Nearly as many respondents-- 32 percent-- favor a constitutional amendment establishing Christianity as the official US state religion, while 52 percent oppose such a measure. Despite the significant percentage of Americans who want to enshrine Christianity as their national faith, only 11 percent said they believe states are constitutionally permitted to establish a state religion. Fifty-eight percent correctly said that the constitution forbids such a move.
Broken down by political affiliation, more than half-- 54 percent-- of Republicans favored declaring Christianity as the official US religion. Twenty-eight percent of independents and 26 percent of Democrats favor such a move.
When asked if government has gone too far in keeping religion and government separate, 37 percent of poll respondents said 'yes.' Twenty-nine percent said the US has gone too far in mixing religion and government. Seventeen percent believe the government has "struck a good balance in terms of the separation of church and state."
The release of the new poll comes just days after North Carolina state lawmakers introduced a resolution that would allow the state to declare an official religion. The measure died on Thursday when state House Speaker Thom Tillis's office announced it would not proceed to a vote.


Read more: Poll: 1 in 3 Americans want Christianity as official US religion

 

[JakeStarkey]

Propaganda, nothing else.

65% of Americans say "no", even if the Constitution permitted it, which it doesn't.

People not liking Christianity is not "a war on [us] Christians", my social traditional brethren and sistren.

You simply cannot impose our religion on everybody else.

Tuff, dat.

 

[daws101]

Propaganda, nothing else.

65% of Americans say "no", even if the Constitution permitted it, which it doesn't.

People not liking Christianity is not "a war on [us] Christians", my social traditional brethren and sistren.

You simply cannot impose our religion on everybody else.

Tuff, dat.

did you even read the article?
your answer has almost nothing to do with it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

My answer gave it the appropriate time for it.

A couple of leges are acting stupid, ye.

 

[rightwinger]

I thought the whole thing was withdrawn

 

[daws101]

My answer gave it the appropriate time for it.

A couple of leges are acting stupid, ye.

a couple?

 

[daws101]

I thought the whole thing was withdrawn

it was ,thought it interesting that so called good American would even propose it .

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The Constitution of the United States does not grant the federal government and does not grant the federal courts the power to determine what is or is not constitutional; therefore, by virtue of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the power to determine constitutionality and the proper interpretation and proper application of the Constitution is reserved to the states and to the people," the resolution states.

"Each state in the union is sovereign and may independently determine how that state may make laws respecting an establishment of religion," it states.

Incorrect:

US Constitution, Article. VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


‘If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect it would be this -- that the Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action. This would seem to result necessarily from its nature. It is the Government of all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all, and acts for all. Though any one State may be willing to control its operations, no State is willing to allow others to control them. The nation, on those subjects on which it can act, must necessarily bind its component parts. But this question is not left to mere reason; the people have, in express terms, decided it by saying, "this Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof," "shall be the supreme law of the land," and by requiring that the members of the State legislatures and the officers of the executive and judicial departments of the States shall take the oath of fidelity to it. The Government of the United States, then, though limited in its powers, is supreme, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land, "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."’

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

“From the beginning and for many years, the [Tenth A]mendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.”

US v. Darby (1941)

“The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it.”

Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

“The political identity of the entire people of the Union is reinforced by the proposition, which I take to be beyond dispute, that, though limited as to its objects, the National Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States. McCulloch affirmed this proposition as well, when the Court rejected the suggestion that States could interfere with federal powers. "This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States." Id., at 432. The States have no power, reserved or otherwise, over the exercise of federal authority within its proper sphere.”

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995)

 

[rightwinger]

I thought the whole thing was withdrawn

it was ,thought it interesting that so called good American would even propose it .

What do they have to lose?

They go to their constituents and say......I tried to make North Carolina a christian state but the liberals wouldnt let me

 

[Two Thumbs]

This is as important as a state picking the German Sheppard as their state dog, 10 years before WW1.

or is that actually over your head?

 

[rightwinger]

This is as important as a state picking the German Sheppard as their state dog, 10 years before WW1.

or is that actually over your head?

Does the first amendment cover German Shepherds?

 

[Two Thumbs]

This is as important as a state picking the German Sheppard as their state dog, 10 years before WW1.

or is that actually over your head?

Does the first amendment cover German Shepherds?

property rights and the 2nd cover that.

seriously

Would you move if your state picked baptist as it's official religion?

knowing it has the same weight at it's official tree.

 

[rightwinger]

This is as important as a state picking the German Sheppard as their state dog, 10 years before WW1.

or is that actually over your head?

Does the first amendment cover German Shepherds?

property rights and the 2nd cover that.

seriously

Would you move if your state picked baptist as it's official religion?

knowing it has the same weight at it's official tree.

Are you fucking serious?

You have no concept of the US Constitution?

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is as important as a state picking the German Sheppard as their state dog, 10 years before WW1.

or is that actually over your head?

Does the first amendment cover German Shepherds?

property rights and the 2nd cover that.

seriously

Would you move if your state picked baptist as it's official religion?

knowing it has the same weight at it's official tree.

Do you know that American constitutional narrative of established religion?

 

[Immanuel]

No, it is not constitutional and as a Christian, I have to say the last thing in the world I would support is a government official telling me which Jesus I can believe in. There is a damned good reason we have a wall of separation between church and state!

Oh and I almost voted "are you F...ing nuts?!"

Immie

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Jesus wrote the constitution?! LOL! Who came up with that one?

I voted no. I would never agree to a state religion or a government religion. I don't believe any Christian would. It's nonsense. - Jeri

 

[Two Thumbs]

Does the first amendment cover German Shepherds?

property rights and the 2nd cover that.

seriously

Would you move if your state picked baptist as it's official religion?

knowing it has the same weight at it's official tree.

Do you know that American constitutional narrative of established religion?

Do you know that a state picking an official religion will have as much meaning as it's official dog?

Honestly, people, you're getting bent outta shape over something trivial.

 

[asaratis]

"Each state in the union is sovereign and may independently determine how that state may make laws respecting an establishment of religion," it states.

If this were true, all 50 states could choose an official state religion. Conceivably, they could all choose the same religion, making it national. This would be unconstitutional.

 

[daws101]

No, it is not constitutional and as a Christian, I have to say the last thing in the world I would support is a government official telling me which Jesus I can believe in. There is a damned good reason we have a wall of separation between church and state!

Oh and I almost voted "are you F...ing nuts?!"

Immie

you could have, it's a very strong way of saying no!