State Churches? Justice Clarence Thomas Hears the Call (from 2014)

[steve2470]

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/05/09/justice-clarence-thomas-and-the-church-of-virginia/

While the rest of the Supreme Court argued Monday over the constitutional limits on official prayers at town board meetings, one justice said the question may be beside the point.

In a separate opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that while the First Amendment “probably prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion,” it wasn’t intended to restrict states from adopting their own official religions. Under this view, not only could state or local officials ordain religious exercises for their meetings, they could use tax dollars to fund an official church. He cites the clause “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” saying that “choice of language…effectively denied Congress any power to regulate state establishments.”

After all, “at least six States had established churches in 1789,” Justice Thomas wrote. Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire “maintained local-rule establishments whereby the majority in each town could select the minister and religious denomination (usually Congregationalism, or ‘Puritanism’).” Georgia and Maryland “permitted taxation in support of all Christian churches,” while South Carolina limited its subsidy to “all Protestant churches,” he added. And while Delaware, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island “had no history of formal establishments,” they “maintained religious tests for office.”

Such diversity regarding official religions “suggests that the First Amendment was simply agnostic on the subject of state establishments; the decision to establish or disestablish religion was reserved to the states,” he wrote.

more at link

[steve2470]

1. in case anyone thinks the link is BS.....

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/572/12-696/concur5.html

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 12–696

_________________

TOWN OF GREECE, NEW YORK, PETITIONER v.SUSAN GALLOWAY et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit

[May 5, 2014]

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins asto Part II, concurring in part and concurring in thejudgment.

Except for Part II–B, I join the opinion of the Court, which faithfully applies Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U. S. 783 (1983) . I write separately to reiterate my view that the Establishment Clause is “best understood as a federalism provision,” Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U. S. 1, 50 (2004) (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment), and to state my understanding of the proper “coercion” analysis.

I

much much more at link, content is copyrighted

[steve2470]

2. also the official opinion straight from the horse's mouth

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-696_bpm1.pdf

[Panich52]

3. He may think he's on solid ground, but Jefferson & Madison would strongly disagree

"After all, “at least six States had established churches in 1789,” Justice Thomas wrote. Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire “maintained local-rule establishment ..."

It was such circumstances that led Jefferson to write his 'wall of separation' letter. A united states would be difficult w/ a variety of mini-theocracies.

Thomas, again, belies his 'originalist' status since his interpretation is obviously counter to "founders' intent."

[HassleCat]

4. He Would Think So

This is the guy who thought it would be OK for his wife to run the Tea Party Express.

[TlalocW]

5. This has long been a pipe dream of the religious right

I've seen many a right-wing religious nut say that while they don't believe in separation of church and state at a federal level, it's pretty much accepted by everyone, but there's definitely nothing about states promoting a specific religion, and that's where they should focus.

TlalocW

[hifiguy]

6. The Incorporation Doctrine

has been settled law for the better part of 100 years. It means one thing; the guarantees of the bill of rights are also applied to the states in full force, i.e., the 14th Amendment "incorporates" the bill of rights as against the states.

It is not possible to go through law school and not know this, but somehow Uncle Ruckus does not know it. What a SHPOS (sub-human piece of shit) Ruckus is.