Semper Ubi Sub Ubi

Without addressing the issue of whether or not the First Amendment would allow Congress to make a law about the Ten Commandments, I will say that it is not a valid argument to restrict this amendment to Congress without application to the states. And yes, I can read. It's a matter of timing. When it was written, this amendment did apply only to Congress. The states were perfectly free to have and promote their own religion. The Fourteenth Amendment, however, effectually shifted the balance of power and, consequently, the way in which many preceding amendments are to be interpreted. The phrase in question is in the first section: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". If the First Amendment describes certain privileges and immunities that we have as US citizens, then the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from infringing upon these.

I agree that the 14th amendment deals with privileges and immunities. (I would be interested in seeing any evidence you have that the 14th amendment had in its intent striking any particular portion of the 1st amendment.)

HOWEVER - what does THIS CASE (or indeed ANY case in which public officials are taken to task for speaking their minds and hearts on matters of religion) have to do with ABRIDGMENT of privileges and immunities? The only people whose privileges Mr Dodson would like to see abridged are the government officials he disagrees with. My goodness, man, all they did was attend a rally! Do public officials cede their rights to hold positions on controversial issues?

SECONDLY - the 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with courts ordering this or that, or with men and women of faith expressing it in public office! It says "THE STATES SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE NO LAW".

What role has the court in acting independently here? NONE - they are not in the role of A) MAKING law - that is the state legislatures role, or have we forgotten about separation of powers??? NOR B) Enforcing law - that is the role of law enforcement, not the courts.

What we have today is a spate of courts, like those in Massachusets and California, who think they are the ones who set policy and make law... they have lost their conception of constitutional procedure and the constitutional demands on American governmental structure.

It wasn't my intent to address this particular case. I was only concerned with the claim that the "Bill of Rights does not apply to the states." The argument presented in the quote you cited is, "Since the Governor and the state of Georgia are not Congress, the First Amendment does not apply in the Ten Commandments case." Given the premise that the First Amendment is restricted to Congress, the conclusion is valid. But I deny the premise. That being said, it may still be questioned whether or not the First Amendment applies to this case; however, this is not properly answered by appealing to a Congress/state distinction.

In regard to your first question, this case has to do with abridgment of privileges and immunities only insofar as the First and Fourteenth Amendments are connected. If you can show how the First is or is not relevant to this case, you will have your answer. Incidently, the alleged abridgment is not found in merely attending a rally (public officials have every right to do this along with any other citizen), but in the purpose of the rally, which was to support the display of the Ten Commandments in government buildings. You may disagree that such a display would constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause; nevertheless, there is more to this case than the innocent expression of an opinion.

Your point about the Fourteenth Amendment and the courts is true, but how is it relevant? Your disgust with the courts may have provided the motivation for your post, but this was not evident. Please point it out if I have missed something, but I saw no reference, explicit or implicit, to court misconduct in this post or in the links provided. I do take your point, though, on the separation of powers. If Congress can make no law, it follows that no law exists to be interpreted by the courts or enforced by the Executive.

Back to the Fourteenth Amendment. I doubt that there was any specific intent to alter the First Amendment. For one thing, this had already happened as a practical matter over time. One might argue that the states still had the right the recognize their own establishment of religion. I suspect, though, that, if they had, a good case could have been made against this from federal supremacy. In this sense, the privileges and immunities clause merely codified what had already come into practice. The main intent of this clause was the same as that of the War Amendments as a whole- the freedom of the slaves. As such, this clause is a virtual redundancy of the Thirtheenth Amendment. But the intent of those who sponsored this clause was not nearly as limited. They wanted to be free from state interference of business practices. To this end, the privileges and immunities clause was designed to eliminate states' rights altogether. It was supposed to work like this: upon adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, all privileges and immunities enjoyed by citizens of any of the several states were to belong to all citizens of the United States. Say, for instance, that Vermont allowed its citizens to open up a hot dog stand with no restrictions or regulations. New York, on the other hand, would require health inspections, business permits, etc. Since Vermonters were immune from these restrictions, the New Yorkers could argue that their privileges and immunites as citizens of the United States were being violated.

The courts thought this was ridiculous, that this level of usurpation of states' rights violated the spirit of the Constitution as a whole. Within five years of being ratified, this broader intent of the clause's sponsers was voided by the Supreme Court in the Slaughter-House Cases. Louisiana had granted a monoply on slaughtering cattle to one corporation. Would-be competitors argued from the privileges and immunites clause that this violated their rights as citizens of the United States. The court ruled that there was no specific right for US citizens to slaughter cattle. If there was such a right, it belonged to them as citizens of Louisiana. Any alleged violation thereof was not properly the business of the Supreme Court; it should be decided within the state of Louisiana. The court decided then, and most likely in agreement with those who ratified the clause as opposed to those who sponsored it, that the privileges and immunities are not those from the various state laws at the time of the amendment's adoption, but those ''which owe their existence to the Federal Government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws.''