Are Displays of the 10 Commandments in Public Buildings...

[Tucker Case]

Well Tuck, here's a curveball. The public square is not necessarily public resources although it is public property. I don't believe that public funds should be used in any way to put a particular symbol in public.....but have no problem with private funding in the public square. Afterall, if the majority of people are of a base religion such as muslim or christian, etc. then collectively the individuals are represented. Consider this, you don't lose any rights as a public in the public square minus abuses. As long as speech doesn't endanger others it is protected, if we are being honest a simple and I can't stress this enough private display of faith endangers no one.

They have to be equally willing to allow all privately funded symbols/statements/speech to be displayed. Thus, instead fo having a legal battle over a privately funded 10 commandments display, thos ein disagreement need only rivately fund a "There is no God" display. If they are only allowing those that represent the majority, it fails to pass the establishment argument.

Yes and no. If groups are allowed to remove things privately funded from the public square because they are offended then we all lose, as I feel personally that a right has been modified.

It's not because of offense. That's a disingenuous argument because it ignores any legitmate reasons for seeking removal. If the reasons for the display being there are not legitimate, then teh display warrants removal.

For example, a privately funded art exhibit should be able to have art of all types there, even art that promotes a certain faith.

While I can agree with that decision. Wouldn't you agree that the basic tenets are mostly the same and this boils down to semantics?

Most of the differences are based on the divisions of the commadnmetns, but there are other differences too which reflect a different interpretation of the commandment. For example, the 5th commandment for Catholics is "Thou shalt not kill" which relates to the 6th commadnmetn for Protestants of "Thou shalt not murder". This represents more than just a semantical difference, but is instead a difference in how it is viewed.

So, depending on how they are presented and numbered, a different religious view is being used. The wording used can reflect a different take on the commandment itself.

But I would agree that the basic tenets are similar. Thus, if the reason for the display is to honor a historical codification of laws, I believe that a historical representation should be made regarding the choice of which verbatim variation is used. Sticking with the Torah represents the most historically accurate portrayal one can make and using a paleo-Hebrew or assyrian script instead of English also represents a more historically accurate representation.

Unless one is actually seeking promotion of a certain faith or morality, this approach shouldn't really be a problem. It creates a verbatim rendering fo the commandments (as was desired) and it does a more appropriate job of honoring the codification of laws in a historical context.

 

[LaMidRighter]

They have to be equally willing to allow all privately funded symbols/statements/speech to be displayed. Thus, instead fo having a legal battle over a privately funded 10 commandments display, thos ein disagreement need only rivately fund a "There is no God" display. If they are only allowing those that represent the majority, it fails to pass the establishment argument.

Absolutely. One caviotte, it cannot be done in a manner which seems to be a blatant attack such as only during another religion's holiday, or better yet the mosque suggested on ground zero in New York City.....while maybe not an attack in the latter case it can be inflamatory.

It's not because of offense. That's a disingenuous argument because it ignores any legitmate reasons for seeking removal. If the reasons for the display being there are not legitimate, then teh display warrants removal.

For example, a privately funded art exhibit should be able to have art of all types there, even art that promotes a certain faith.

The big problem is that the typical argument comes in the form of exclusion or possible offense. I agree with having to have a historical or predetermined community agreement argument, not that something isn't politically correct.

Most of the differences are based on the divisions of the commadnmetns, but there are other differences too which reflect a different interpretation of the commandment. For example, the 5th commandment for Catholics is "Thou shalt not kill" which relates to the 6th commadnmetn for Protestants of "Thou shalt not murder". This represents more than just a semantical difference, but is instead a difference in how it is viewed.

I can concede that point. Even then Catholics mainly view the commandment of "thou shalt not kill" to be murder as there are many cases where killing such as self defense or defense of others is a necessary and not desired act, it boils down to justification. But it definitely is more than semantics.

So, depending on how they are presented and numbered, a different religious view is being used. The wording used can reflect a different take on the commandment itself.

This can however be simplified if all sides just agree that the interpretations at their core are similar.

But I would agree that the basic tenets are similar. Thus, if the reason for the display is to honor a historical codification of laws, I believe that a historical representation should be made regarding the choice of which verbatim variation is used. Sticking with the Torah represents the most historically accurate portrayal one can make and using a paleo-Hebrew or assyrian script instead of English also represents a more historically accurate representation.

I think that's fair TBH.

Unless one is actually seeking promotion of a certain faith or morality, this approach shouldn't really be a problem. It creates a verbatim rendering fo the commandments (as was desired) and it does a more appropriate job of honoring the codification of laws in a historical context.

All true. As well I find that individually the faiths can reach a decent compromise and it tends to be outside groups that really cause all the confusion and problems.

 

[WilliamJB]

I wasn't asking you. There was no question mark present.



Off the cuff I can point to Chicago and other Liberal towns where they favor strict gun control, and all these 5-4 SCOTUS rulings coming down along liberal/conservative lines.

As I've stated in other posts, the 2nd Amendment is the one area I tend to take a more conservative approach, so I don't disagree with you. However, the two recent SC rulings on the matter have actually reinforced the right to bear arms, so I'm not sure what your beef is.

As for the 5-4 decisions, at least for the last 10-15 years have almost always been conservative victories (the most recent example being the Citizens United v. FEC) as there are currently 4 cons, 4 liberals, and one slightly conservative justice on the SC, so I'm still not sure to what you're referring. If you're going to make claims about the infringement of liberties and freedoms by liberal judges, I'd still like to see some examples.

 

[WilliamJB]

Restricting government buildings from displaying religious symbols in no way violates the free expression portion of the first amendment. Anyone within that region is still 100% free to express their religion.

Free expression of religion relates to the individual being allowed to express their religion. It doesn't mean that the government should give them the location upon which to do it. They are not entitled to use public resources to express their religion.

That's a simple fact. Just because someone has a right to something in no way means that the governemnt should provide it for them. Preventing government buildings from having the 10 commandments is in no way, shape, or form a violation of anyone's religious freedom. nobody is impeded form expressing their religion simply because they are not able to put their symbols in front of a courthouse. Nobody.

That's just a simple fact. Every person in the community is still rightfully allowed to display their symbols on their own property, in their homes, in their places of worship, on privately owned billboards overlooking the highway, etc.

A right to free expression does not include the government being required to provide the means to free expression.



That being said, I would also point out that having a display of the ten commandments on public property is not, automatically, a violation of the concept of "no establishment of religion".

As was pointed out, the SCOTUS has visual representation of the 10 commandments. Here is an example of what can be found there:

Of course, these are not verbatim representations, but instead are "tablets" marked with Roman numerals. They are honoring the concept of codified laws.

This is vastly different from a verbatim representation of the 10 commandments.

One of the reasons for this is the difference between verbatim portrayals of the 10 commandments between the various faiths that follow them. Catholics have a different set of 10 commandments than the protestants do. Both of these Christian versions differ from the Jewish and Islamic variations.

Depending on which verbatim version is used, there is the potential for "establishing a religion". It would depend on the rationale for the choice to display the commandments and the rationale for the version used.

Typically in the US, the verbatim version that shows up at the courthouses is the protestant version. Typically the King James variation, to be exact. This variation of the bible is actually rejected by Roman Catholics (as the Roman Catholic versions of the bible are typically rejected by Protestants).

This is where it gets sketchy, IMO. If the representation were generic, like they are in the SCOTUS, there is no real issue. There's no way to argue that it acts towards establishing a religion, because there is nothing in it that could be viewed as exclusionary towards different faiths (as well as sects of various faiths) that also follow the 10 commandments.

The generic representation works to honor the codification of laws without running any risk of bordering "establishment".

Thus, I will argue that any verbatim representation of the 10 commandments is present for some other motive than honoring a historical codification of laws. Typically, the motive for choosing a specific faith's variation of the 10 commandments is to promote that faith's morality.

A Catholic is not going to use the KJV's version of the 10 commandments in a display on their lawn anymore than a Baptist would use the version found in the Quran.

If the are going to display any version, it will be their own version. This is because they don't want to promote some other religion, they want to promote their own religion.

So, IMO, its clear that verbatim representations are always acting to "establish" some specific faith (or sect of a faith, unless of course, all verbatim variations are displayed on equal footing) to at least some degree.

This is hard to argue against because the choice to display a verbatim representation is going further than necessary in order to honor the codification of laws, and the choice of which variation is used is always decided by the religious beliefs of the person(s) making the choice. If one felt a verbatim version had to be used to truly honor the codification of laws, then the verbatim version that would be used would always be the Judaic variation and it would be in Hebrew instead of English for historical accuracy. The fact that the version used always ends up being an English one means the choice to go verbatim has nothing to do with historical accuracy or historical reasons at all.


So the discussion then moves on to the wording of the First. Specifically the limitation on passing any laws with regard to the establishment of religion being directed at congress alone. This makes sense because back then, the only Branch of the governemnt which could pass federal laws about anything was Congress. That's not the case anymore. The Judicial branch and the Executive branch have both taken on more legislative power than what was originally intended.

The fact that congress was mentioned, at that time, was essentially placing a limitation upon the federal government (which is what the Bill of Rights was intended to do). At the time, the other two branches wouldn't need to be mentioned specifically because they did not have the authority to legislate. They've taken on the authority since then, though. SO in keeping with the original intent to limit the federal governemnt, I think it should extend to all branches of the federal government that have the ability to legislate to any degree (Which is all three now)

Thus, I would argue that restricting verbatim representations of the 10 commandments from being displayed on federal property is a justified restriction. Generic representations like those at SCOTUS should not be restricted. Also, if the Judaic verbatim variation was used and it was written in Hebrew, I would say it shouldn't be restricted because a legit argument could be made about using them for historical context regarding the codification of laws that would also be free from any risk of "establishment".

When it comes to State and local government property, however, I don't feel that any restrictions are justified for a few different reasons:

1. The state and local governments aren't actually restricted by the first, IMO.
2. Even assuming that incorporation is valid, borderline "establishment" such as this would not affect anyone but the local community represented by that state or local government. This is different from a federal courthouse, for example, because even though a federal courthouse may service that community, it is there representing the entire country, not that community alone. As such, local preferences are not a factor in determining any type of displays present on the federal property.
3. The only time the actions of a state or local government is my business is if it is my own state or local government.


So to sum up:

If the building is federally owned, I think that only generic representations of the 10 commandments should be displayed (with the exception of verbatim Judaic Hebrew versions) if there is a legitimate reason for their display. Typically this limits it to courthouses as a way to honor a historical codification of laws.

If the building is owned by state or local government, I don't care unless it is my own state or locality. If it was my own locality, I would generally would oppose verbatim representations but not enough to really do anything more than write a letter about it. I don't really care enough to organize a protest or anything. Chances are I'd just write an e-mail about it, too, because I don't even know if I care enough to go out and buy a stamp to send a real letter.

I agree with 95% of what you say here, but I have to disagree about the incorporation part. The entire Bill of Rights has pretty much been incorporated by now according to pretty much every legal scholar I've ever talked to or read about, and rightfully so IMO. While there is room for the accomodation of local preferences and differences, this is the role of state legislatures and local city councils. Neither of which can pass laws which violate the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution generally. The US is still one country and someone shouldn't be subject to a different set of constitutional protections in Louisiana than they are in Maine. As I said, the US Constitution is a baseline, and if something violates it at the state or local level, it's just as unconstitutional as though the federal government had done it. Otherwise, you could theoretically have Maryland declaring itself a Catholic state, Pennsylvania a Protestant state, Utah an LDS state, etc.

 

[Tucker Case]

I agree with 95% of what you say here, but I have to disagree about the incorporation part. The entire Bill of Rights has pretty much been incorporated by now according to pretty much every legal scholar I've ever talked to or read about, and rightfully so IMO. While there is room for the accomodation of local preferences and differences, this is the role of state legislatures and local city councils. Neither of which can pass laws which violate the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution generally. The US is still one country and someone shouldn't be subject to a different set of constitutional protections in Louisiana than they are in Maine. As I said, the US Constitution is a baseline, and if something violates it at the state or local level, it's just as unconstitutional as though the federal government had done it. Otherwise, you could theoretically have Maryland declaring itself a Catholic state, Pennsylvania a Protestant state, Utah an LDS state, etc.

My disagreement with incorporation is primarily due to my personal anti-federalist inclinations. The bill of rights was intended to be a limitation placed upon federal authority, and incorporation is used to increase federal authority.

I realize that incorporation is the current standard, but I strongly disagree with that standard.

 

[WilliamJB]

My disagreement with incorporation is primarily due to my personal anti-federalist inclinations. The bill of rights was intended to be a limitation placed upon federal authority, and incorporation is used to increase federal authority.

I realize that incorporation is the current standard, but I strongly disagree with that standard.

I understand your objection, but I would still argue that not incorporating the Bill of Rights would ultimately be unmanageable. If state and local governments could violate rights protected in the BoR at will, then 99% of the legislation passed in this country would not be subject to review by the SC or indeed have to conform to the constitution. And we all know that state constitutions are usually not worth the paper they're printed on as they're extremely easy to amend in most cases. I think the first generation after the founders realized this as they pretty much started the incorporation process in the early 19th century.

 

[Tucker Case]

I understand your objection, but I would still argue that not incorporating the Bill of Rights would ultimately be unmanageable. If state and local governments could violate rights protected in the BoR at will, then 99% of the legislation passed in this country would not be subject to review by the SC or indeed have to conform to the constitution. And we all know that state constitutions are usually not worth the paper they're printed on as they're extremely easy to amend in most cases. I think the first generation after the founders realized this as they pretty much started the incorporation process in the early 19th century.

Incorporation didn't start until the very end of the 19th century (1897) or the early part of the 20th century (1925), depending on the which ruling is taken to be the first incorporation ruling. The rulings from the early part of the 19th century were in direct contradiction to incorporation.

Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore was in 1833 and stated:

"These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them. We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for non public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the countries."

As late as 1876 (even after the 14th which is hw incorporation began) the supreme court ruled against incorporation. In United States v. Cruikshank the following was stated:

"The First Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting Congress from abridging the right to assemble and petition, was not intended to limit the action of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone."

and

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

And

"Sovereignty, for the protection of the rights of life and personal liberty within the respective States, rests alone with the States.

And

"The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, but it adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another."

The fact is that incorporation is recent situation. For most cases, it's less than 100 years old.

 

[digsbe]

It is not a violation of the first amendment to display the 10 Commandments in a courthouse. . Did you know that churches would hold services inside the US Capitol building from its creation up until the Civil War? Many of the founding fathers had attended services there as well. These men didn't write the first amendment to prohibit anything religious on state property. They wrote it to protect us from religious oppression/persecution and to ensure that we have religious freedom.

 

[Tucker Case]

It is not a violation of the first amendment to display the 10 Commandments in a courthouse. . Did you know that churches would hold services inside the US Capitol building from its creation up until the Civil War? Many of the founding fathers had attended services there as well. These men didn't write the first amendment to prohibit anything religious on state property. They wrote it to protect us from religious oppression/persecution and to ensure that we have religious freedom.

To be honest, if it wasn't for incorporation and an increased power to "legislate" being taken by the judicial and executive branches, I'd say that sticking with the same stances taken in the pre-civil war era would be fine.

But since they have increased their power, they have also increased their responsibility to not violate the bill of rights.

 

[digsbe]

To be honest, if it wasn't for incorporation and an increased power to "legislate" being taken by the judicial and executive branches, I'd say that sticking with the same stances taken in the pre-civil war era would be fine.

But since they have increased their power, they have also increased their responsibility to not violate the bill of rights.

I don't really understand what your saying. If anything, is it unconstitutional for them to have increased their power? Is it a violation of the Bill of Rights to have the 10 Commandments in a courthouse?

 

[WilliamJB]

Incorporation didn't start until the very end of the 19th century (1897) or the early part of the 20th century (1925), depending on the which ruling is taken to be the first incorporation ruling. The rulings from the early part of the 19th century were in direct contradiction to incorporation.

Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore was in 1833 and stated:

"These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them. We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for non public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the countries."

As late as 1876 (even after the 14th which is hw incorporation began) the supreme court ruled against incorporation. In United States v. Cruikshank the following was stated:

"The First Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting Congress from abridging the right to assemble and petition, was not intended to limit the action of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone."

and

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

And

"Sovereignty, for the protection of the rights of life and personal liberty within the respective States, rests alone with the States.

And

"The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, but it adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another."

The fact is that incorporation is recent situation. For most cases, it's less than 100 years old.

You are correct, and I ought to go back and look at my notes from my constitutional federalism class...

However, I still maintain that, even though incorporation might be a relatively recent phenomenon, it is still nonetheless necessary, for the reasons I explained in my previous post. After all, the 19th Amendment has been around for less than 100 years but few people think that makes the idea any less valid.

 

[WilliamJB]

It is not a violation of the first amendment to display the 10 Commandments in a courthouse. . Did you know that churches would hold services inside the US Capitol building from its creation up until the Civil War? Many of the founding fathers had attended services there as well. These men didn't write the first amendment to prohibit anything religious on state property. They wrote it to protect us from religious oppression/persecution and to ensure that we have religious freedom.

Great, a lot of things took place in the early 19th century that I'm happy have not continued into the present.

As for the purpose of writing the 1st Amendment (at least the religion Clauses), you're right, it was intended to protect religious freedom. That's called the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment Clause was written to keep religion out of the public sphere, and it is that Clause to which I am referring.

 

[digsbe]

Great, a lot of things took place in the early 19th century that I'm happy have not continued into the present.

As for the purpose of writing the 1st Amendment (at least the religion Clauses), you're right, it was intended to protect religious freedom. That's called the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment Clause was written to keep religion out of the public sphere, and it is that Clause to which I am referring.

It was not written to keep religion out of the public sphere, it was to keep religion outside of legislation. The US Capitol (the pinnacle of public property) was used as a church, and many who wrote and signed off on the 1st Amendment attended services there. It does not exist to say anything religious cannot be on public property.

 

[WilliamJB]

It was not written to keep religion out of the public sphere, it was to keep religion outside of legislation. The US Capitol (the pinnacle of public property) was used as a church, and many who wrote and signed off on the 1st Amendment attended services there. It does not exist to say anything religious cannot be on public property.

I doubt we're going to get anywhere on this one, but let me try again...

1. Because church services were held in the Capitol in the first half of the 19th century does not mean that it was a good idea. The founders participated in a lot of things that no one would want public officials participating in today.

2. We return, again, to what is meant by "no law respecting an establishment of religion." I argue that erecting a monument with the words "thou shalt have no god before me" establishes a religion.

 

[Tucker Case]

I don't really understand what your saying. If anything, is it unconstitutional for them to have increased their power?

The answer depends on who's doing the analysis.

Is it a violation of the Bill of Rights to have the 10 Commandments in a courthouse?

Well, it definitely wouldn't be against the entire bill of rights.

There is an argument to be made regarding the first amendment, though. What matters is the how, where, and why of the display.

Due to the increased authority of the judical branch to pass legislative type measures, one could argue that the limitations placed on congress regarding establishment in 1791 would be applicable to the judicial branch in 2010.

 

[Tucker Case]

You are correct, and I ought to go back and look at my notes from my constitutional federalism class...

However, I still maintain that, even though incorporation might be a relatively recent phenomenon, it is still nonetheless necessary, for the reasons I explained in my previous post. After all, the 19th Amendment has been around for less than 100 years but few people think that makes the idea any less valid.

The things you call problems that require incorporation in your previous post are the very things I want to see occuring. I want more legislative diversity and ease of alteration, not less. I want to end the false dichotomy that centralization of government has caused.

I have absolutely no problem with Kentucky declaring itself a Christian state or Indiana claiming itself to be an Islamic heocracy or California declaring itself an Atheistic Socialist Republic.

I do have a problem with legislative uniformity though. It's antithetical to the whole reason the country was designed as a dual federalist state.

 

[Black Dog]

2. We return, again, to what is meant by "no law respecting an establishment of religion." I argue that erecting a monument with the words "thou shalt have no god before me" establishes a religion.

Since no law is being passed, it is not establishing anything. It is a serious leap of faith to think a representation of law (slabs of the commandments) is an endorsement of religion.

 

[Ikari]

A violation of the 1st Amendment?

I'm sure you can guess where I stand, but I'm curious to hear other viewpoints.

It violates neither the word nor spirit of the law. The 10 commandments displayed in a public building does not establish the religion, nor does it force the religion on anyone. They are but displays of some made up god with made up rules, but so long as the laws are the laws of man, not gods and our judges judge upon the laws of man, not gods; there is nothing really wrong nor is it established religion as per the 1st amendment. The same goes with religious displays around holidays. A manger scene on the lawn of the courthouse is not a violation of the 1st amendment. If the State or town made a law saying you have to go to church on christmas, then ok. But a display in and of itself does no harm nor does it represent theocratic tendencies of the State.

 

[Ikari]

I would say that the 10 commandments are the most obvious (real world) example of establishing a religion. After all, the first 4 refer to a very specific religious tradition. I'll even side with the Supreme Court on this one and say that Christmas and Hannuka have sufficiently secular aspects to them that public display is probably OK. But again, the commandments are SO specific to one tradition that you have to seriously ask if it's really any different than establishing a religion.

The first 4 are not actual laws. The only 10 commandments which made it to law were murder, theft, and bearing false witness (when under oath in a court of law)

 

[Ikari]

2. We return, again, to what is meant by "no law respecting an establishment of religion." I argue that erecting a monument with the words "thou shalt have no god before me" establishes a religion.

No, it certainly does not establish that religion. The religion already exists on a large scale, and there is no practical effect from a mere monument. It's a thing, nothing more. Now if the government made laws saying that we had to respect this one religion, or that some of our tax money was going to it and none to any others or that we had to go to the church some set number of times a day; then yes that would be violating the 1st. A hunk of rock with a carving in it is a hunk of rock with a carving in it. If you want to believe it's establishing religion, that's fine. But as there is no practical effect, anyone whom wishes to regard reality with data instead of emotion would say that there is no establishment from the display of a monument. It's a monument.

 

[LaMidRighter]

The first 4 are not actual laws. The only 10 commandments which made it to law were murder, theft, and bearing false witness (when under oath in a court of law)

Actually, fraud is another example of "bearing false witness" being illegal. As well, earlier I brought blue laws up, they are rare these days and localized but still exist.

 

[Ikari]

Actually, fraud is another example of "bearing false witness" being illegal. As well, earlier I brought blue laws up, they are rare these days and localized but still exist.

Yeah, that's a good example. There are blue laws still as well in some places, but they're mostly left overs. We got rid of all ours here...need my beer on Sunday.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Yeah, that's a good example. There are blue laws still as well in some places, but they're mostly left overs. We got rid of all ours here...need my beer on Sunday.

My city is mostly blue law free but still have a different closing time on Sundays that's 2 hours shorter than the rest of the week, but they were obnoxious during my younger years. So glad people are getting away from that for the most part.

 

[WilliamJB]

The things you call problems that require incorporation in your previous post are the very things I want to see occuring. I want more legislative diversity and ease of alteration, not less. I want to end the false dichotomy that centralization of government has caused.

I have absolutely no problem with Kentucky declaring itself a Christian state or Indiana claiming itself to be an Islamic heocracy or California declaring itself an Atheistic Socialist Republic.

I do have a problem with legislative uniformity though. It's antithetical to the whole reason the country was designed as a dual federalist state.

Then what's the point of having a Union at all? If states can more or less pass any law they want, regardless of its conformity with the Constitution, then aren't we really just a loose economic Union of 50 independent countries? Even the EU, which is much more decentralized than the US, demands adherence to its Convention on Human Rights.

 

[Tucker Case]

Then what's the point of having a Union at all?

Provide for common defense, regulate interstate and international trade, foreign affairs administration, etc.

If states can more or less pass any law they want, regardless of its conformity with the Constitution, then aren't we really just a loose economic Union of 50 independent countries?

No

Even the EU, which is much more decentralized than the US, demands adherence to its Convention on Human Rights.

IMO, the EU is screwing it up. I was thinking more like how Switzerland's version of federalism works.