Ummm ... like ... you're making my point ...

... it says "Congress" ... "shall make no law" ... it makes no prohibiton whatsoever on the states.

Now do you get it?

Good ... I knew you would.

BB, you and Scalia have the same position on that amendment, but it seems to me that applying it to mean the states can declare a state-approved religion would also mean the states can pass laws declaring all kinds of rights in the Amendments illegal. You can't convince me that the Founding Fathers, who made sure the word "God" didn't appear once in the Constitution, intended for states to be allowed to have their own approved religion of state. Go read the rest of the amendments and imagine what a nation would be like if states were allowed to ignore any of them because they "don't apply to the individual states." I'd like to see Scalia explain to the population why states should be allowed to individually permit unreasonable search and seizure, or to deny their residents a fair trial.

In the meantime, Danzig, good luck. I'll be thinking of you- I think you're doing the right thing.

Danzig, I've been swamped, so I'm sorry I didn't see this (although I wouldn't have much to add, anyway). I think you're definitely going about it in a level-headed way. I'd take issue with it, too, for precisely the same reason. Good luck, and let us know how it goes.

ty irish...i'll let everyone know.
i'm just trying to (in kevin bacons words in animal house) REMAIN CALM! lol

Your comments are getting loopier and loopier.

The Constitution specifically prohibits those two things you listed ...

... and specifally doesn't prohibit states from establishing religions ... and specifally prohibits only the U.S. Congress from doing so.

Our wonderful Founding Fathers said what they meant ... and meant what they said ... no amount of leftist loopiness can change that ... although they certainly never stop trying.

It doesn't matter whether I can covince you or not ... the words in the Constitution are quite specific. You can be "convinced" by them ... or not ... but they are what they are.

And where did I say that the states can ignore amendments? Establishing a religion would be concurring with the first amendment ... not ignoring it. The Constitution guarantees freedom "of" religion ... not freedom "from" religion.

It's the lefties who love to ignore the Constitution ... "interpreting" things which aren't there ... and creating "penumbras" which don't exist.

BB, you need to reread the Bill of Rights. And I'd also recommend "Eats Shoots and Leaves" while you're at it so you can learn to use punctuation properly. Or should I say, "punctuation." ;)

A couple of our Founding Fathers also noted, wisely, that their guidelines should be revisited and adjusted as the new nation's society progressed and faced new challenges. Funny how we always believe that the founders were strict constitutionalists. They gave us an early set of principles, but it certainly doesn't mean that those principles should be the only things to which we turn. There are so many issues today for which the Constitution provides little or no guidance (I know some might disagree, but that's my opinion). The Ninth Amendment itself states that we should not view the Constitution as an exhaustive list of rights.

Also, it was your beloved conservatives who intervened in the Schiavo case, contravening the principle in the 10th (I believe) Amendment by overriding the decisions of the state of Florida as espoused by its courts.

You're correct ...

... they set up a means for amending the Constitution ... and those amendments become part of the Constitution.

Now ... which of those amendments was it ... which prohibits states from establishing religions?

WTF does having a Christian Prayer as the public school's (a school that receives FEDERAL funds) prayer for the day, have to do with State's establishing religions? How off course can we get. Was this not the topic by Z?

You inadvertently stumbled onto the gist of the matter.

When the Federal government "gives" money to the schools ... that is, money confiscated from citizens nationwide ... it imposes conditions on the schools.

Then ... the state "gives" money to the schools ... that is, money confiscated from citizens statewide ... and from adjoining states if they can figure out a way to get their hands on it ... and then the state imposes more conditions on the schools.

And of course ... the same things happens with counties, cities, and townships ... and they impose yet more conditions on the school.

And where does that leave the saps from whom all this money was confiscated? Siddown ... shaddup ... gimme more money!

That, my friend ... is the problem with all socialist (government owned and operated) institiutions ... which dooms them all to failure.

The God-Utopia of socialists ... the Soviet Union ... was a miserable failure which completely collapsed ... yet sappy voters allow leftist politicians to engage the same methodology in the instruction of their children.

There is a solution ... which I proffered earlier on this thread ... completely remove government from education ... and let the market work its same efficient magic on this business ... as it does on all others.