Submitted by Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Feigning that some controversy actually exists over the fact of evolution, the Rocky Toppers have decided to grant job protection to teachers who choose to criticize the scientific doctrine. To be quite proper, they have inserted language that stipulates that “this section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine.” But Becky Ashe, the president of the Tennessee Science Teachers Association, is not fooled. She told a subcommittee of the Tennessee House that the Bill “is an anti-evolutionary attempt to allow non-scientific alternatives to evolution (such as creationism and intelligent design) to be introduced into our public schools.”
Seems the famous trial and the movie version (“Inherit The Wind”) are always on the minds of theocrats. Tennessee State Representative Richard Floyd (R) even alluded to them in the floor debate commenting that “since the late ’50s, early ’60s when we let the intellectual bullies hijack our education system, we’ve been on a slippery slope.” Aptly named Republican Sheila Butt even found a way to criticize environmentalists in the debate saying she was told in high school that Aqua Net hair spray hurts the environment. In a conclusion worthy of mention she added, “Since then scientists have said that maybe we shouldn’t have given up that aerosol can because that aerosol can was actually absorbing the Earth’s rays and keeping us from global warming.” Ah, the joys of anti-intellectualism.
The Bill passed the House 70-23 and now goes to the Senate. Hopefully, they reached a stage of high intellectual evolution.
Source: TPM
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
And how does 1983 address the equal and independent grounds doctrine?
Buddha,
Under the equal and independent state grounds doctrine, the Federal First Amendment does not hold supremacy over Article I, Section 8 of the New York State Constitution.
Period.
Oh . . . and there’s my Supremacy Clause!
Right where I left it.
Applying to all of the U.S. Constitution.
Even the incorporated parts.
And feel free to ignore the meaning of the word “incorporation” as it applies to documents all you like, Bob.
I don’t mind.
Really.
Bob,
The key word there being “additional”.
No, it doesn’t Blouise. You can directly Federally file for civil rights violations under 42 U.S. Code §1983. This statute applies to all state actions – including those of individual states. Since 42 U.S. Code §1983 has not been ruled unconstitutional (and logically couldn’t be), the civil rights capable of Federal redress are validly incorporated into the final document of the Constitution. Thus proving my statements about incorporation of documents.
Blouise: “Does that mean that no one within a state that has an equivalent first amendment can go beyond that state’s Supreme Court when appealing violation decisions?”
The equal and independent state grounds doctrine essentially says that while the Federal Constitution sets the floor or basic minimum of rights, the states set the ceiling of rights. Accordingly states may afford additional protection under their respective state constitutions and the Fed can’t do anything about it.
Buddha: “Do you see my point that once incorporated an Amendment becomes part of the Constitution proper?”
No. The ‘Constitution proper’ has everything to do with specifically enumerated powers defining the fed and nothing defining the states. The bill of rights was simply further restrictions places specifically on the fed.
And again, to say the supremacy clause applies to incorporated amendments necessarily precludes the equal and independent state grounds doctrine.
New York State, in deciding a ‘First Amendment’ issue may completely disregard federal first amendment jurisprudence and decide the issue solely on cases decided under Article 1, Section 8 of the New York State Constitution.
Where’s your supremacy clause then?
“Any state with an equivalent first amendment within their state constitution is not obliged to adhere to the fed first amendment jurisprudence because of the supremacy clause.” (Bob.Esq,)
Does that mean that no one within a state that has an equivalent first amendment can go beyond that state’s Supreme Court when appealing violation decisions?
Bob,
Do you see my point that once incorporated an Amendment becomes part of the Constitution proper?
Otherwise, pssst!, it’s not incorporated.
Incorporation in the sense of contracts and charter documents like the Constitution means the ancillary writings have become part of the finalized whole.
Selective incorporation is a separate issue from those amendments already incorporated.
The only problem I can legitimately see from your side is that I wasn’t initially specific about which amendments were incorporated and why. But this isn’t court. I’m not required to bring my A game in presentation. I do, however, think what I have said is factually correct given the operation of incorporation is it applies to documents.
Quantum mechanics is also counter-intuitive.
That doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
Buddha,
Honestly, I’ve never seen the argument put quite the way you put it. It seems counter intuitive. To say that the supremacy clause makes the bill of rights applicable to the states is simply incorrect; for then there would have been no need for selective incorporation.
Further, to say that the supremacy clause applies to something like the first amendment necessarily precludes the equal and independent state grounds doctrine. Any state with an equivalent first amendment within their state constitution is not obliged to adhere to the fed first amendment jurisprudence because of the supremacy clause.
See my problem here?
BTW, the 2nd Amendment was incorporated to the states under Heller and McDonald.
Bob,
If you want to talk incorporation doctrine, the only provisions of the first eight amendments that have not been incorporated are the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, the 5th Amendment’s requirement of grand jury indictment, and the 7th Amendment. The remainder have all been expressly incorporated into the 14th Amendment via its due process clause and so now applies to the state as well as the federal government. This includes the 1st Amendment. Given that it is an incorporated Amendment, the Supremacy Clause does apply to the 1st Amendment.
Buddha: “The Supremacy Clause applies to the entire Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.”
What does that mean?
And the incorporation doctrine fits into this plan how?
Buddha,
Speaking of the washing of feet. You should go to Vatican City for Maundy Thursday. Maybe you could suggest a new pedo-cure!
😉
Blouise,
“Well Elaine and I sure as hell aren’t going to do it!”
Awww. Why not? I have sexy well-kept boyish feet!
Which is just all the more reason to stay away from the Pope.
And there’s only one problem with going to Italy. With their cuisine? I may never come back. I wouldn’t need a home. I could just travel, roaming from restaurant to restaurant in an never-ending bacchanalia of seafood and pasta and sauces and wine, sleeping between courses and taking monkey baths in the fountains.
On second thought, that doesn’t sound half bad . . .
“Creation Science 101” by Roy Zimmerman
Blouise,
Thanks for the ushistoryforrepublicans link. The birdwatching link is a good one, as well. Some good info… 🙂
The error of the “intelligent design” folks is their mistaken belief that intelligence was ever created?
The error of the “creationist” folks is their mistaken belief that what has been created does not evolve?
The error of the “evolutionist” folks is their mistaken belief that what was not created can evolve?
So, only human error is creatively evolving, through ever diminishing imagined intelligence?
Buddha Is Laughing
1, April 11, 2011 at 1:35 am
Blouise,
Some old pedophile protecting Hitler Youth touching my feet?
Ewwwwwwww! doesn’t seem quite strong enough.
=============================================
Well Elaine and I sure as hell aren’t going to do it!
However … we might be able to accompany you to Italy …
Time to turn in and dream of roly-poly green feet running amuck through the Sistine Chapel
Creationism debate on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360”