Is having the Ten Commandments in a state judicial building...

[A18]

I don't think we need the ten commandments in our judicial buildings, but it is clearly not a violation of the first amendment.

[Richard]

No.  The Constitution clearly says Congress shall make no law establishing a religion... etc.  Congress != state

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It is if the area they are in is public property and you had the monument specially made and placed there yourself.

[A18]

It is if the area they are in is public property and you had the monument specially made and placed there yourself.

Even in this circumstance, Congress did not make a law respecting the establishment of a national religion.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, but someone is violating property laws.

[A18]

What property laws? The poll question is whether or not it is a violation of the first amendment.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

While it technically may not be a violation of the first amendment, there is no way to legalize it without violating the first amendment.

[A18]

A state legislature can make a law respecting the establishment of a national religion. And this isn't even an example of that.

[J-Mann]

I don't think we need the ten commandments in our judicial buildings, but it is clearly not a violation of the first amendment.

That's exactly right.  There's really no reason for them to be there, but it isn't infringing on anyone else's rights.

[Trilobyte]

A state legislature can make a law respecting the establishment of a national religion. And this isn't even an example of that.

No it can't. The Fourteenth Amendment ensures that the Bill of Rights applies to actions by state governments.

[The Duke]

Not only does the 14th Amendment apply the Fedeal Bill of Rights to the states, but the Constitution also says the Federal Government must guarantee "a republican form of government" to the states.  The states could not simple trample the religious rights of individuals just because they aren't "congress".

It would also be silly to presume that the Founders would go to all the trouble of ratifying the Bill of Rights that restricts only the Federal Government, but allows the state of California to force me to convert to Buddhism, take my guns away, place the National Guard in my house without my consent, and suspend my right to habeas corpus.  OF COURSE THE BILL OF RIGHTS EXTENDS TO STATES!

[J. J.]

Not only does the 14th Amendment apply the Fedeal Bill of Rights to the states, but the Constitution also says the Federal Government must guarantee "a republican form of government" to the states.  The states could not simple trample the religious rights of individuals just because they aren't "congress".

It would also be silly to presume that the Founders would go to all the trouble of ratifying the Bill of Rights that restricts only the Federal Government, but allows the state of California to force me to convert to Buddhism, take my guns away, place the National Guard in my house without my consent, and suspend my right to habeas corpus.  OF COURSE THE BILL OF RIGHTS EXTENDS TO STATES!

Actually, that wasn't the case, as Virginia had a state church until the year before.  See:  http://www.thediocese.net/Diocese/whoweare.htm

The ist Amendment, in theory, didn't prohibit states from entering into the religious realms.  The 14th does, but went it was adopted, no state would have thought of doing it.

[??????????]

Not only does the 14th Amendment apply the Fedeal Bill of Rights to the states, but the Constitution also says the Federal Government must guarantee "a republican form of government" to the states.  The states could not simple trample the religious rights of individuals just because they aren't "congress".

It would also be silly to presume that the Founders would go to all the trouble of ratifying the Bill of Rights that restricts only the Federal Government, but allows the state of California to force me to convert to Buddhism, take my guns away, place the National Guard in my house without my consent, and suspend my right to habeas corpus.  OF COURSE THE BILL OF RIGHTS EXTENDS TO STATES!

Actually, that wasn't the case, as Virginia had a state church until the year before.  See:  http://www.thediocese.net/Diocese/whoweare.htm

The ist Amendment, in theory, didn't prohibit states from entering into the religious realms.  The 14th does, but went it was adopted, no state would have thought of doing it.

Yes because they were afraid the bastardized federal government would come into their states with bayonets showing, burn their capitals and destroy their farms. Thats what Lincoln turned our great republic into. We need to get back to a pre-1860 mentality with states issues. Thats why Lincoln was the worst president ever.

[A18]

Not only does the 14th Amendment apply the Fedeal Bill of Rights to the states

That is false. Amendments 2 through 8 apply to the states; the first does not.

What part of the 14th amendment bans states from passing laws respecting the establishment of a state religion?

[J-Mann]

That is false. Amendments 2 through 8 apply to the states; the first does not.

Now that's a little bit curious; what is your logic behind that?  Why are you picking and choosing which ones apply and which ones don't?  I know very little about Constitutional law, but I'm not familiar with any of the Amendments having an asterix behind them that signifies they really don't apply.

[A18]

Because the first amendment very clearly states "Congress shall pass no law..." The others are explicit rights.

What I think John Ford is talking about is, in the 14th amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

This is a truism. The Constitution was already the supreme law of the land, and the second through eighth amendments were already supreme over state law. If it wasn't, an amendment to the Constitution couldn't make itself supreme over the states anyway.

[The Duke]

Because the first amendment very clearly states "Congress shall pass no law..." The others are explicit rights.

What I think John Ford is talking about is, in the 14th amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

This is a truism. The Constitution was already the supreme law of the land, and the second through eighth amendments were already supreme over state law. If it wasn't, an amendment to the Constitution couldn't make itself supreme over the states anyway.

So you believe there is no right to free speech?  Or religion?  Or the press?  Only a restricition on congress from infringing these things?

I think you'd be hard pressed to find much support for this idea in the writings of the foudners or from subsequent constitutional scholars.

[A18]

There is in Virginia and on federal property. I don't know about California.

[John Dibble]

Unsure. However, I think that each state has something very similar to the 1st in their own constitutions, so it is more likely to be unconstitutional at a state level.

Still, spending tax dollars for a ten commandments thing is not a good idea. If someone wishes to donate private money, I'll tolerate it. Only three of the ten commandments are really law anyways(murder, stealing, and perjury, though adultery is illegal in some places I think, but no law says you must honor your father and mother, or not covet, ect.) so it seems to me kind of pointless to place religious law in a building of governmental law if they are not the same, and since we aren't a theocracy they definitely are not.

[A18]

I think I'll research this and see what states actually have freedom of speech, press, etc.

BTW, I definitely agree that government money shouldn't be spent on this, BUT government money definitely shouldn't be spent on foreign abortions either, and yet it is.