This is a California law, not a federal one. The Bill of rights do not apply to state laws just federal ones. What does the California state Constitution say about it?
I would argue that it is. Who would say, "We don't want anyone telling us how to worship, or searching us without cause... unless it's a State?" That's stupid. Even so, many court cases have said the States are subject to individual rights, the last one explicitly so stated being the Second in Chicago. The Third hasn't been tested, but I'd say self defense law in the home pretty much takes care of it.
I don't believe states do, but the federal government can not, but they cannot control the states in these matters either. That's up to the states constitution.
I'm fairly certain there was a civil war over this uhh... matter.
I'm pretty sure the states can't infringe on your god given rights.
If the states could do whatever they wanted, why would anyone try to take lawsuits to the supreme court? California could ban guns outright and, according to you, they would be allowed to do this.
You are wrong. The federal government does have a duty to prevent the states from enacting laws which are counter to the country's founding documents. It's literally the only job the federal government has - otherwise we wouldn't be a country.
Yes, you completely misunderstood the founding of this country. You are correct. States rights were mostly settled post civil war.. meaning the states were under the rule of a national (not federal government) and there was nothing they could do to stop it.... A state couldn't even leave. How astounding of a transition from Jefferson to Lincoln, they are worlds apart.
It sounds good, the federal government will come fix the injustices of the states.. and look how will that is working out. We have a national government..that does whatever the H*LL it wants.
The founders decided on a limited federal government.. and in a constitution laid out what powers it would possess.
The states retain all other powers. 2 states at ratification had a state religion. Did the federal government March in and tell them to stop... Nope. Why? Because that's not a power given to them.
Of course the federal (national) government has that power now. They have the power to spy on our phones without a warrant. The states were responsible to keep the general government in check... They failed
Ideally and originally, the residents of the state of california.have a state constitutional case, since it is the state, not federal government abridging their freedom of religion.
Does this mean the state can't discriminate against religious institutions in favor of secular, or does it mean that the state can't discriminate against a particular religious institution in favor of another? A strong case can be made either way.
This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State.
Does this mean they can close churches for reasons of public safety? It says it right there in the text. Does public safety mean actively coordinating terrorism, or does it include potentially spreading a virus?
Note here that I'm not agreeing that that they are doing is at all right, just that it's not nearly as cut and dried as it would seem once the lawyers get involved.
I guess you've never heard of the Supremacy Clause
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
This means the states can't make laws that contradict federal laws or the federal constitution. Their own state constitutions can only expand on the restrictions placed on federal government, not remove them.
Nope, supremacy clause only refers to the powers delegated in the Constitution.
All other powers are delegated to the states.
Regulating religion was never delegated to the federal government. So that's up to individual states how to do it
No, it refers to the entire Constitution, which includes amendments.
No state may override any part of the Constitution, amendments included.
Sorry pal, this is settled law.
EDIT: To clarify, The tenth amendment is specifically for things not mentioned in the Constitution. Had freedom of religion not been established as part of the document, then you would be correct. Regulation of Telecommunications, for example, is something that had to be litigated and legislation written to clarify that the Federal Government does have power to regulate it since it can cross state lines and qualifies as commerce.
But because the First Amendment specifically states that Congress cannot regulate religion, that means that no state can do it either. If a power is specified to the Feds, it's a fed power. If a power is not mentioned, it is a state power.
But any restrictions that are mentioned apply to all levels of government.
This is a California law, not a federal one. The Bill of rights do not apply to state laws just federal ones. What does the California state Constitution say about it?
Wrong. The Bill of Rights had been entirely incorporated to the States.
Since when? That's not how it was ratified.
Federal law is the law of the land. If states pass contradictory law, Federal law overrides.
I would argue that it is. Who would say, "We don't want anyone telling us how to worship, or searching us without cause... unless it's a State?" That's stupid. Even so, many court cases have said the States are subject to individual rights, the last one explicitly so stated being the Second in Chicago. The Third hasn't been tested, but I'd say self defense law in the home pretty much takes care of it.
I know that's a popular discussion how a lot of federal laws were never ratified by some states, but IIRC it doesn't hold up (or shouldn't) in the SC.
....
what?
who told you this?
who told you that the states had free reign to infringe on our god given rights?
I don't believe states do, but the federal government can not, but they cannot control the states in these matters either. That's up to the states constitution.
I'm fairly certain there was a civil war over this uhh... matter.
I'm pretty sure the states can't infringe on your god given rights.
If the states could do whatever they wanted, why would anyone try to take lawsuits to the supreme court? California could ban guns outright and, according to you, they would be allowed to do this.
You are wrong. The federal government does have a duty to prevent the states from enacting laws which are counter to the country's founding documents. It's literally the only job the federal government has - otherwise we wouldn't be a country.
Yes, you completely misunderstood the founding of this country. You are correct. States rights were mostly settled post civil war.. meaning the states were under the rule of a national (not federal government) and there was nothing they could do to stop it.... A state couldn't even leave. How astounding of a transition from Jefferson to Lincoln, they are worlds apart.
It sounds good, the federal government will come fix the injustices of the states.. and look how will that is working out. We have a national government..that does whatever the H*LL it wants.
The founders decided on a limited federal government.. and in a constitution laid out what powers it would possess.
The states retain all other powers. 2 states at ratification had a state religion. Did the federal government March in and tell them to stop... Nope. Why? Because that's not a power given to them.
Of course the federal (national) government has that power now. They have the power to spy on our phones without a warrant. The states were responsible to keep the general government in check... They failed
Ideally and originally, the residents of the state of california.have a state constitutional case, since it is the state, not federal government abridging their freedom of religion.
Unfortunately there's a lot of wiggle room there.
Does this mean the state can't discriminate against religious institutions in favor of secular, or does it mean that the state can't discriminate against a particular religious institution in favor of another? A strong case can be made either way.
Does this mean they can close churches for reasons of public safety? It says it right there in the text. Does public safety mean actively coordinating terrorism, or does it include potentially spreading a virus?
Note here that I'm not agreeing that that they are doing is at all right, just that it's not nearly as cut and dried as it would seem once the lawyers get involved.
Would the California court say too many worshippers at a time would effect the peace of the state?
I guess you've never heard of the Supremacy Clause
This means the states can't make laws that contradict federal laws or the federal constitution. Their own state constitutions can only expand on the restrictions placed on federal government, not remove them.
Nope, supremacy clause only refers to the powers delegated in the Constitution.
All other powers are delegated to the states.
Regulating religion was never delegated to the federal government. So that's up to individual states how to do it
No, it refers to the entire Constitution, which includes amendments.
No state may override any part of the Constitution, amendments included.
Sorry pal, this is settled law.
EDIT: To clarify, The tenth amendment is specifically for things not mentioned in the Constitution. Had freedom of religion not been established as part of the document, then you would be correct. Regulation of Telecommunications, for example, is something that had to be litigated and legislation written to clarify that the Federal Government does have power to regulate it since it can cross state lines and qualifies as commerce.
But because the First Amendment specifically states that Congress cannot regulate religion, that means that no state can do it either. If a power is specified to the Feds, it's a fed power. If a power is not mentioned, it is a state power.
But any restrictions that are mentioned apply to all levels of government.
That's a completely of opposite view of the bill of rights than what Madison and Jefferson had. But we are smarter than they were.