- Joined
- Dec 13, 2011
- Messages
- 10,348
- Reaction score
- 2,426
- Location
- The anals of history
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
The phrase "separation of church and state" has been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court.
The phrase itself does not appear in the United States Constitution.
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." For the first 200 years of our country's existence, the Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states.
In fact, before 1947, these provisions were not considered to apply at the state level; and in the 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to add the language "separation of church and state." It failed legislatively. It had to be accomplished via judicial decision, where in unprecedented fashion, Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."
So the question is.... do you think it is fair that the Supreme Court essentially gets to make up laws that they would like to be in the constitution, but which are actually not?
The phrase itself does not appear in the United States Constitution.
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." For the first 200 years of our country's existence, the Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states.
In fact, before 1947, these provisions were not considered to apply at the state level; and in the 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to add the language "separation of church and state." It failed legislatively. It had to be accomplished via judicial decision, where in unprecedented fashion, Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."
So the question is.... do you think it is fair that the Supreme Court essentially gets to make up laws that they would like to be in the constitution, but which are actually not?