The US Constitution does not say that congress shall establish no religion.

[VanceMack]

This isn't accurate. Many of the several States had official faiths. Alito, et al, in keeping with their (invented) litmus of 'tradition' could discover that Georgia may once again officially enshrine the CoE, or NH, Congregationalism.

Im always up for learning...can you show me where any particular state in the US at any time in history decreed that all the participants of their state must belong to a certain religion?

 

[reinaert]

Im always up for learning...can you show me where any particular state in the US at any time in history decreed that all the participants of their state must belong to a certain religion?

See next post.

 

[StillBallin75]

Ah yes, once again the supposed libertarian is in favor of combining church and state.

 

[VanceMack]

See next post.

Religion in the Original 13 Colonies | Under God | ProCon.org

By the year 1702 all 13 American colonies had some form of state-supported religion. This support varied from tax benefits to religious requirements for voting or serving in the legislature. Below are excerpts from colonial era founding documents citing these religious references. Most instances...

undergod.procon.org

So...free practice...but religious requirements to be a member of congress. Looks like many of the original 13 Colonies had that...but nothing in the last 150 years. And certainly no reason to believe the SCOTUS would support an infringement of an actual right specifically listed in the Constitution

 

[reinaert]

Religion in the Original 13 Colonies | Under God | ProCon.org

By the year 1702 all 13 American colonies had some form of state-supported religion. This support varied from tax benefits to religious requirements for voting or serving in the legislature. Below are excerpts from colonial era founding documents citing these religious references. Most instances...

undergod.procon.org

So...free practice...but religious requirements to be a member of congress. Looks like many of the original 13 Colonies had that...but nothing in the last 150 years. And certainly no reason to believe the SCOTUS would support an infringement of an actual right specifically listed in the Constitution

Alito's doctrine suggests a primary weighting for 'tradition'. In the case of NH, there was official public funding and preference for Protestants, made more clear by a ban on Catholics, until the year Nixon was elected.

 

[VanceMack]

Alito's doctrine suggests a primary weighting for 'tradition'. In the case of NH, there was official public funding and preference for Protestants, made more clear by a ban on Catholics, until the year Nixon was elected.

And the state nixed it in 1877. SO...this really isnt about any type of a realistic scenario at all.

 

[reinaert]

And the state nixed it in 1877. SO...this really isnt about any type of a realistic scenario at all.

1968. Year Nixon was elected.

 

[Glitch]

Except, NH's official faith was Congregationalism until 1877. Only Protestants could run for State legislative office until disestablishment. NH funded Protestant classrooms until 1968, whilst officially banning the same for Catholics.

Perhaps you misread. The First Amendment specifically states that "Congress shall make no law..." As I previously pointed out the First Amendment's Establishment Clause was not incorporated with the States until Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), and the Free Exercise Clause would be incorporated with the States by the Supreme Court until Wisconsin v. Jonas Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

Before 1947 it was constitutional for States to establish their own religion. Nor was New Hampshire the first State to establish or support a particular religion. Many of the original 13 colonies already had their own established religion before the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights were written. According to Massachusetts Constitution, ratified in 1779, only Christians were granted equal protection under the law, and you could not be Governor of the State without first declaring that you were Christian. Chapter II, Section I, Article II of the Massachusetts Constitution:

The governor shall be chosen [annually]; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; [and unless he shall at the same time, be seised in his own right, of a freehold within the commonwealth of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.]

The entire Bill of Rights should have applied to the States immediately upon the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1867, but the Supreme Court illegally decided to give themselves a new power and selectively decide which parts of the Bill of Rights to incorporate with the States. Which is why it took the Supreme Court until February 2019 (in Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___), 152 years, to incorporate the Eighth Amendment and apply it to the States.

 

[reinaert]

Perhaps you misread. The First Amendment specifically states that "Congress shall make no law..." As I previously pointed out the First Amendment's Establishment Clause was not incorporated with the States until Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), and the Free Exercise Clause would be incorporated with the States by the Supreme Court until Wisconsin v. Jonas Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

Before 1947 it was constitutional for States to establish their own religion. Nor was New Hampshire the first State to establish or support a particular religion. Many of the original 13 colonies already had their own established religion before the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights were written. According to Massachusetts Constitution, ratified in 1779, only Christians were granted equal protection under the law, and you could not be Governor of the State without first declaring that you were Christian. Chapter II, Section I, Article II of the Massachusetts Constitution:


The entire Bill of Rights should have applied to the States immediately upon the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1867, but the Supreme Court illegally decided to give themselves a new power and selectively decide which parts of the Bill of Rights to incorporate with the States. Which is why it took the Supreme Court until February 2019 (in Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___), 152 years, to incorporate the Eighth Amendment and apply it to the States.

Should doesn't really matter, does it?

 

[Glitch]

Perhaps you misread. The First Amendment specifically states that "Congress shall make no law..." As I previously pointed out the First Amendment's Establishment Clause was not incorporated with the States until Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), and the Free Exercise Clause would be incorporated with the States by the Supreme Court until Wisconsin v. Jonas Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

Before 1947 it was constitutional for States to establish their own religion. Nor was New Hampshire the first State to establish or support a particular religion. Many of the original 13 colonies already had their own established religion before the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights were written. According to Massachusetts Constitution, ratified in 1779, only Christians were granted equal protection under the law, and you could not be Governor of the State without first declaring that you were Christian. Chapter II, Section I, Article II of the Massachusetts Constitution:


The entire Bill of Rights should have applied to the States immediately upon the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1867, but the Supreme Court illegally decided to give themselves a new power and selectively decide which parts of the Bill of Rights to incorporate with the States. Which is why it took the Supreme Court until February 2019 (in Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___), 152 years, to incorporate the Eighth Amendment and apply it to the States.

Should doesn't really matter, does it?

Where did I mention the word "should" anywhere in my post?