Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

[alfred russel]

As a point of the selective interpretation, the first amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

The text explicitly limits only Congress's authority to establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. I'm guessing that none of those pointing to the militia language at the start of the second amendment would be cool limiting the first in the same way.

[Berkut]

What do you mean? Are you claiming that the reasonable interpretation of that text is the Congress can pass a "rule" doing those things, but as long as they don't call it a law, it is ok?

Or are you claiming that a non-selective interpretation of both amendments would mean that we should ignore both sets of words, and just pick which ones we want to consider?

I think there is nothing selective about looking at both amendments in their totality, and trying to reasonable understand what each means in the context of their entire language, and not ignore any of the words. This is exactly the OPPOSITE of "selective interpretation" that you are proposing, where in one case we just pretend a large part of the text simply does not exist.

[crazy canuck]

As a point of the selective interpretation, the first amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

The text explicitly limits only Congress's authority to establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. I'm guessing that none of those pointing to the militia language at the start of the second amendment would be cool limiting the first in the same way.

someone has been on the google machine finding wacky right wing constitutional arguments.

[The Minsky Moment]

Both religion clauses are broad as written and there is no preamble so I am not clear on the comp to the 2nd.

[alfred russel]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The religious portion of the first amendment. If Kansas wants to teach the bible rather than chemistry, I don't think anyone here would support that, but the Kansas legislature isn't congress.

[Jacob]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The religious portion of the first amendment. If Kansas wants to teach the bible rather than chemistry, I don't think anyone here would support that, but the Kansas legislature isn't congress.

You are clearly ready to be a GOP appointed Supreme Court judge.

[grumbler]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The religious portion of the first amendment. If Kansas wants to teach the bible rather than chemistry, I don't think anyone here would support that, but the Kansas legislature isn't congress.

So you've never heard of the Fourteenth Amendment.  It's a big number, so I'm not surprised.  You don't even understand the Second.

[alfred russel]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The religious portion of the first amendment. If Kansas wants to teach the bible rather than chemistry, I don't think anyone here would support that, but the Kansas legislature isn't congress.

So you've never heard of the Fourteenth Amendment.  It's a big number, so I'm not surprised.  You don't even understand the Second.

I've heard of the 14th amendment. Regarding the 2nd, as I posted before, at the time of the bill of rights it didn't convey an individual right because before the civil war the bill of rights wouldn't have constrained the states, and they would have been the ones responsible for gun control. If the federal government was interested in arms limits it probably was for some nefarious / military oriented purpose, hence the amendment. The authors weren't thinking of the amendment one day applying to states, or the federal government one day concerned about school shootings.

I don't think it is correct to apply what is effectively the delegation of arms control to the states through the second amendment to mean that the states can't regulate arms control either, but good god people are going to explode if you get a majority of the USSC to say that there is no protected federally protected individual right to bear arms in the 2nd amendment.

[alfred russel]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The religious portion of the first amendment. If Kansas wants to teach the bible rather than chemistry, I don't think anyone here would support that, but the Kansas legislature isn't congress.

So you've never heard of the Fourteenth Amendment.  It's a big number, so I'm not surprised.  You don't even understand the Second.

What is perplexing is that the generation that passed the 14th amendment didn't apply it to the religious clauses of the 1st amendment and it didn't get applied for the better part of a century. Do you want to post the portion of the 14th amendment that makes this so obvious?

[grumbler]

What is perplexing is that the generation that passed the 14th amendment didn't apply it to the religious clauses of the 1st amendment and it didn't get applied for the better part of a century. Do you want to post the portion of the 14th amendment that makes this so obvious?

I don't understand the question.  The Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the relevant provisions of the Constitution and G=Bill of Rights to the states.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I can't answer as to what is "obvious" to you.  You can be pretty willfully obtuse.

[alfred russel]

It isn't obvious on the face why a restriction on congress establishing religion would extend to state legislatures via what you posted...and it wasn't until most of those who passed it were long dead that such a conclusion was reached. And I could be wrong but I think it was the better part of an additional century before the USSC came to the same non obvious conclusion about the 2nd amendment.

[The Minsky Moment]

What is perplexing is that the generation that passed the 14th amendment didn't apply it to the religious clauses of the 1st amendment and it didn't get applied for the better part of a century.

It is not perplexing at all.  The avowed purpose of the 14th amendment at the time of passage was to secure fundamental individual rights as against the states, including rights guaranteed by the federal constitution.  That is, incorporation was a core purpose the Amendment.  However, by 1873, the tide of Reconstruction was receding and the Supreme Court voted 5-4, in one of the most controversial opinions in its history, to reject incorporation via the privileges or immunities clause.  It took 50 years for the Supreme Court to rectify the error, by basing incorporation on the due process clause.

[alfred russel]

What is perplexing is that the generation that passed the 14th amendment didn't apply it to the religious clauses of the 1st amendment and it didn't get applied for the better part of a century.

It is not perplexing at all.  The avowed purpose of the 14th amendment at the time of passage was to secure fundamental individual rights as against the states, including rights guaranteed by the federal constitution.  That is, incorporation was a core purpose the Amendment.  However, by 1873, the tide of Reconstruction was receding and the Supreme Court voted 5-4, in one of the most controversial opinions in its history, to reject incorporation via the privileges or immunities clause.  It took 50 years for the Supreme Court to rectify the error, by basing incorporation on the due process clause.

Uh huh. So was there any contemporary discussion that passing the amendment was going to cause the end of compulsory chapel attendance at state schools, or that the amendment was going to force the removal of readers that contained religious instruction? Did anyone take any action to secularize state government with the cause being the 14th amendment in the immediate wake of its passing?

[The Minsky Moment]

John Bingham, drafted the 14th amendment for the purpose of allowing bill of rights to be enforced against the states.  He specifically raised the first amendment guarantees of speech and assembly as rights that would be federally guaranteed against the states through the amendment.

I am aware there have been arguments against incorporation of the establishment clause specifically because of the fact that certain states had establishments at the founding. I am not aware of whether Bingham specifically addressed in speech or writing the application of the 14th amendment to the establishment clause.  However, I suspect he personally would not have had much a problem with it as an Ohioian, given that the Ohio constitution provided that (and still provides): "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship, against his consent; and no preference shall be given, by law, to any religious society; nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted."

[The Larch]

Texas sues Biden administration over federal rules that require abortions be provided in medical emergencies to save life of mother

Wat? So in Texas they want to gamble on a woman's life in case of a life threatening pregnancy?