North Carolina, you got called the fuck out!

[randomousity]

Originally Posted by yguy

First of all, not a syllable of this is responsive, since due process is not mentioned or implied in any of it. Second, none of it provides even the merest wisp of a clue as to how the EC - which is unique among the particulars cited in 1A in that it is a restriction on Congress rather than a privilege, immunity or any other sort of individual right - can be applied against the states by way of anything in the incorporation clause.

It's a logical syllogism. It's the difference between "all humans are mammals" and "all non-mammals are non-human," which is to say, there is no difference. Or, if you prefer, "randomousity shall not bitch-slap yguy" is logically equivalent to "yguy's right to not be bitch-slapped by randomousity shall not be abridged." The former is a restriction upon me, whereas the latter is a negative right of yours. Is there a difference? Either way it's written, I am restrained and you are protected. The same logic applies to the language of the 1st Amendment. If Congress may make no such law, then the people have a constitutional right to not have such a law made by their Congress. And, if that is so, then there's no reason such a right of the people against Congress shouldn't be incorporated against the states under the 14th Amendment.

Also, the Establishment Clause is not unique in its construction, even within the First Amendment. It could just have easily been written as:

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion;
• Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion;
• ...

Which is what it means, and both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses are restrictions on Congress. In fact, the entire First Amendment is nothing but a list of restrictions upon Congress. They could all also be written as a list of individual rights:

• Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom from an established religion;
• Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion;
• Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech;
• Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press;
• Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble; and
• Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Or, if you prefer, we could put it in the form of the 2d Amendment:

• The freedom from establishment of religion shall not be infringed;
• The right of free exercise of religion shall not be infringed;
• The freedom of speech shall not be infringed;
• The freedom of the press shall not be infringed;
• The right of the people peaceably to assemble shall not be infringed; and
• The right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances shall not be infringed.

They are all logically equivalent.

Well I suppose you could say that in the same sense that a dictator can justify any absurdity merely by declaring it law, without any need to support that declaration with facts or reasoning.

I completely agree with you, if by that you mean that a dictator is constrained by the powers given him by the constitution, and by a separation of powers, and by the checks and balances of the other two coequal branches of government.

I invite you to review the supremacy clause, which mentions three specific instruments which do or may constitute the supreme law of the land, and note that court decisions - even correct ones - are not among them.

First,

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof...[emphasis mine]

The United States is what's known as a common law country, a tradition received from England. Among these common law traditions are those of common law, and case law. There are many different bases for law, including constitutions, treaties, statutes ("legislative laws"), case laws (judicial, or judge-made law), and administrative (executive) laws. Note that the Supremacy Clause says "Laws of the United States" and doesn't specify statutes or legislation, despite the fact that the Framers were well aware of the terms, and their meanings. Had they meant only the Constitution and treaties, they would have said so. Had they meant only those plus statutes or legislation, they would have said so. That they chose to use the term "law," with all its various definitions, must mean that they so intended.

Second, I invite you to review Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Obviously, somebody must be able to interpret the Constitution. It makes no sense for Congress to determine whether the laws they pass are constitutional or not, because why would they ever pass a law they know to be unconstitutional? They would only pass something unconstitutional if they wrongly believed it to be constitutional, or were knowingly disregarding its unconstitutionality. And, if they had the power to determine whether any given law were constitutional, it would effectively circumvent the amendment process given in the Constitution, because any time both Congress and the President could agree upon something, and decide for themselves that such law is constitutional, it would be tantamount to an amendment if their law contradicted the Constitution, rendering meaningless any prohibitions therein. It has always been the role of the judiciary to determine what the law is. Judges determine law; juries determine fact. Not even jury nullification changes that, because, between them, the judge and jury definitely determine was the law is. If my above scenario were to come true, and then a case arose under the new law that Congress and the President deemed to be constitutional, the courts would have to resolve the discrepancy between the new law and the Constitution. Given the Supremacy Clause, they logically must resolve in favor of the Constitution, otherwise there would be no point in having one at all, much less a written one. Or, are you saying that the Framers, for all their wisdom, allowed for the possibility of Congress accidentally violating the Constitution (passing a law they wrongly believe to be in harmony with the Constitution), and that being permissible? Or, that the Framers provided for Congress to intentionally violate the Constitution? In order for the Constitution to have power, and the Supremacy Clause to have meaning, the Constitution must, necessarily, be inviolable.

Third, if courts in subsequent cases weren't obliged to follow stare decisis and precedent, there would be no predictability in our courts. What would be the purpose of a hierarchy of federal courts, from District to Circuit to Supreme, if the Supreme Court could decide an issue one way, but the next time that issue arose the District or Circuit Court could overrule that precedent? Rather than a hierarchy, we would have a circle, wherein the Circuit Courts overruled District Courts, the Supreme Court overruled Circuit Courts, and, counter-intuitively, District Courts overruled the Supreme Court. There would never be any finality if case law weren't implied, and the Supreme Court would only be nominally so.

Given all that, the courts are obliged to follow case law. In order to change that, Congress would have to pass a bill, and the President sign it into law, stating the contrary, that case law is not to be followed. Even then, the courts could, and would, just declare that law void. Obviously, the Supreme Court could reverse itself, holding that it doesn't have the power of judicial review, but, if, as you claim, the Supremacy Clause doesn't allow for court decisions to be considered the supreme law of the land, then there would be nothing to stop the court from reversing itself again the next time the issue comes up, even if the same justices are still sitting, and especially if one or more justices have been replaced. So, in reality, if you want to change the status quo, you'll have to pass an amendment making it so. You can argue all you want about whether this is the way it should be, but there's no sense in arguing over whether this is the way it is.

Finally, preemptively, in case you're one of those who may be called a "tenther" (Tenth Amendment proponent), arguing as the NC House did in H.J.R. 494, that since the power of judicial review is not an enumerated power in the Constitution, that it is a power reserved to the states, or to the people, I ask, what would be the point of a federal government, a federal Constitution, and a system of federalism if each state could independently decide whether or not its own actions violated federal law, and/or the federal Constitution? We would effectively have a confederacy, which we already tried, and found to be wanting. Congress could pass a military draft, and Ohio could interpret it one way, and Iowa could interpret it a different way, and both states could probably supplement it as they saw fit. The federal government would be powerless, and pointless. Florida could impose a duty on Georgia peaches, in violation of Art. I, Sec. 9. What recourse would Georgia have? They could take it up in their own state courts, which would almost certainly find in their favor; they could take it up in Florida's state courts, which would probably find against them. They could take it up in federal court, but, according to 10th Amendment logic, the federal courts, Supreme Court included, don't have the power to determine whether a state has violated the Constitution, or, if they do, such decisions are not binding upon them (the states). Effectively, Georgia's only recourse would be to impose similar duties on Florida goods, say, oranges. This could easily get out of hand, with various states allying themselves and opposing others, which is what we already had under the Articles of Confederacy! It doesn't work! This is why we had a Constitutional Convention, and ratified the current Constitution as a result.

If, through whatever warped logic, you accept that NC can lawfully establish a state religion, what would then prevent it from passing a criminal statute saying something to the effect of, "It shall be a crime for any person to be an atheist (or pick whichever religion or combination of religions you like that aren't the "official" religion), and any person adjudged [offensive belief system] shall be put to death"? Assume nothing in the NC Constitution protected you specifically from this type of law. You'd have a right to due process, competent counsel, appeals, etc., so there would be no violations there. Your only protection would be the US Constitution, which, if it doesn't stop a state from adopting an official religion, also doesn't stop a state from punishing you for violating that religion. The Constitution doesn't purport to protect us from one giant tyranny only to subject us to one of 50 smaller ones. If all 50 states passed laws establishing state religions, and they all picked the same one, and banned/criminalized the others, what would be the point of prohibiting Congress from doing that? The end result would be the same.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by randomousity

It's a logical syllogism.

Who gives a damn?

The same logic applies to the language of the 1st Amendment. If Congress may make no such law, then the people have a constitutional right to not have such a law made by their Congress.

And that has what to do with due process, exactly?

And, if that is so, then there's no reason such a right of the people against Congress shouldn't be incorporated against the states under the 14th Amendment.

Non sequitur, obviously. The incorporation clause is very specific about the restrictions it imposes on the states, and the EC meets no criteria listed therein - which of course is why you're running like the wind from your original claim about due process.

Also, the Establishment Clause is not unique in its construction, even within the First Amendment. It could just have easily been written as:

I'm not nearly dumb enough to care, sorry for any inconvenience.

Which is what it means, and both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses are restrictions on Congress. In fact, the entire First Amendment is nothing but a list of restrictions upon Congress.

Not much gets by you, does it, Brainiac?

I completely agree with you, if by that you mean that a dictator is constrained by the powers given him by the constitution, and by a separation of powers, and by the checks and balances of the other two coequal branches of government.

I don't know who the Hell you think you're kidding.

The United States is what's known as a common law country, [...]

I didn't bother with the rest, which I'm confident is insufferably tedious drivel from beginning to end. Suffice it to say that for you to wax pedagogical with the y-man in this matter is worse than an exercise in futility, since I understand the Constitution at least a million times better than you do.

[randomousity]

Originally Posted by yguy

Who gives a damn?

FTW!

[godfry n. glad]

LOL.

Do it again, randomousity. Do it again.

[erimir]

Back on the general subject:

How One Millionaire Is Turning North Carolina Into A Tea Party Utopia

A couple more crazy things they're trying to do:

-Replace the income tax with higher (regressive) sales tax
-Add an anti-union amendment to the state constitution

I didn't realize it had not been since 1870 that the Republicans had controlled both houses of the legislature. I sincerely hope that after spending so many decades accustomed to, at least, reasonably moderate Democratic rule, North Carolinians are shocked and embarrassed by the actions of the GOP. It does seem that they may be beginning to take note, since the GOP's approval ratings in NC have tanked to -14 points.

I'd also note that the general NC public is opposed to many of these measures promoted by the GOP:

Blocking the Medicaid expansion: 56-26 opposed
Eliminating the Earned Income Tax Credit: 42-30 opposed
Eliminating the party ticket option on ballots: 68-21 opposed
Even the criminalization of baring the female breast: 41-36 opposed

Stronger gun control is at 53-38 in favor.

As of now, NC voters say they would vote for a Democratic legislator at 47-41. Hopefully more of them will realize they've been hoodwinked by Art Pope and the Tea Party by next year.

[erimir]

So I was looking at the comments and I saw someone say something to the effect of he will never step foot in North Carolina (or Mississippi or Alabama) and for some reason* it was actually upsetting to me.

No offense to LS, but just two years ago nobody would've been lumping NC in with those states.

So in three short months the NC GOP has already managed to drag NC's reputation through the shit. Next step I guess is actually smearing the shit all over NC itself.

*A strange sensation because I would hardly consider myself a loyal North Carolinian, I didn't even want to move there, and it's full of Bible thumpers, yada yada, but I guess it has grown on me

[Qingdai]

There are a lot of places in the US I don't particularly want to set foot in, partially because of their politics, and tourism tends to fill the pockets of those who are in power. Also because we're broke as shit, I can barely travel in my own state, much less pay sales taxes in another state.

[LadyShea]

As I said before I moved here, I can be ignored by my "representatives" and pissed off at the people in any state, might as well be on the beach.

I was really no more or less affected by state stupids, personally, out West. Look at what Colorado has turned into...after I left Dobson et al moved in and last I heard Colo Spgs no longer takes care of their parks or streets. Vegas just tanked economically and I got out just in time-we would have lost our asses. California passed Prop 8.

[erimir]

California has a lot of problems, but in a comparison between Alabama and California, I wouldn't bother bringing up Prop 8 which will both be dead soon and would fail by a large margin if it were up for a vote this year.

Meanwhile, according to what I've seen, Alabama is the state 2nd most opposed to gay rights and their anti-gay marriage amendment passed by 81% (as opposed to the narrow 52% victory of Prop 8).

I also wouldn't use Prop 8 to defend North Carolina either for that matter, where Amendment 1 passed by 61% last year.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As I said before I moved here, I can be ignored by my "representatives" and pissed off at the people in any state, might as well be on the beach.

I was really no more or less affected by state stupids, personally, out West.

Quite. Also, a lot of the time the state stupids are trying to make national policy. That's not the case for the house bill in the OP, but the shenanigans of my state stupid Paul Broun, for example, aren't affecting me any less than they would if I were in California, other than making "my" state look bad.

On the local level, these NIMBYs take care of me pretty good. It ain't California by any means, but there is still a surprising amount of socialism going on in my city and county. Apparently we only like to pay taxes when it benefits us directly. We only like to take care of people we can keep an eye on. SPLOST is just one example. Why should rich people pay to build a park if it means they have to travel to a poor county to use it? What am I supposed to do, grill in my own giant back yard? That's just crazy!

[randomousity]

You've already conceded that logic has no place in your arguments, but, just for fun:

Originally Posted by yguy

And that has what to do with due process, exactly?

If your government not making a law establishing an official religion is a liberty of being a citizen of said government, then the Due Process Clause applies.

Non sequitur, obviously. The incorporation clause is very specific about the restrictions it imposes on the states, and the EC meets no criteria listed therein - which of course is why you're running like the wind from your original claim about due process.

See above. If not being subjected to a state religion is a liberty (read: freedom), then the Due Process Clause applies. And I'm assuming you mean the specific restrictions imposed on the states are life, liberty, and or property.

I'm not nearly dumb enough to care, sorry for any inconvenience.

Oh really? Because you were dumb enough to try to use it as an argument.

I don't know who the Hell you think you're kidding.

That was my point, that the Supreme Court holding one way or another is, in no way, the same as a dictator declaring something by fiat. If the people don't like what the Supreme Court holds, they can petition for new laws overruling the Supreme Court, or, in cases where that isn't sufficient (i.e., constitutional matters), they can petition for amendments to the Constitution to overrule the court. Were that true of dictatorships, they would cease to be dictatorships.

I didn't bother with the rest[...].

Of course not. Why would you bother reading something which tends to disprove your point?

Suffice it to say that for you to wax pedagogical with the y-man in this matter is worse than an exercise in futility, since I admittedly don't use or understand logic.

Fixed.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by randomousity

You've already conceded that logic has no place in your arguments,

Since you have just demonstrated that you're not only more of an imbecile than I thought, but a liar as well...

but, just for fun:

...I'll pass, thanks anyway.

[randomousity]

More nonsense coming from Arizona North Carolina: Show me your papers

[erimir]

They're not pacing themselves very well.

If they blow their crazy wad now, what outrageous things will they have left for next year?

[randomousity]

You make it sound like there's a limit on how many crazy things crazy people can come up with.

[randomousity]

Originally Posted by yguy

Who gives a damn?

Originally Posted by yguy

Since you have just demonstrated that you're not only more of an imbecile than I thought, but a liar as well...

Sorry, was I meant to interpret you saying that you don't give a damn about logic to mean that you do use logic in your arguments? Forgive me for assuming you meant what you said, and not the opposite, as you didn't use sarcasm font or a sarcmark.

[LadyShea]

North Carolina debuts driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants - CNN.com

[Ensign Steve]

No kidding?!

I remember when California got rid of theirs, it was so gross. It's like, what the hell does the one have to do with the other? You can't get a job with it, all it does is enable you to get around without committing a crime just by doing so.

Anyway, Go Tar Heels!

[Adam]

Is someone who holds state identification papers really "undocumented"?

[ImGod]

Originally Posted by Adam

Is someone who holds state identification papers really "undocumented"?

Don't be silly. Even Mexicans born in the US and holding birth certificates (long and short form) are still illegals according to most of the people in this state.

If an illegal can be elected president, what's a country to do about the issue?

[The Man]

North Carolina Pretty Much Just Selling Poor People For Dog Food Now

[The Man]

Why North Carolina's Voter ID Bill Might be the Nation's Worst | Mother Jones

[The Man]

Feeding Homeless Apparently Illegal in Raleigh, NC — Love Wins Ministries

On the plus side, Food Not Bombs was successfully able to feed homeless people today without any harassment from the police, and the city mayor has said that she won't allow any harassment until the city council has looked at the issue further. So... I guess things could be worse?

Comments from Mayor Nancy McFarlane

[The Man]

North Carolina is first state to cut welfare amid federal shutdown | Reuters

:/

[erimir]

The good news is that polls have found that North Carolinian's disapproved of many of the bills passed by the NC Republican legislature last year.

The bad news is that they've nearly all been reelected anyway.