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
stewartblock
Good comment about that sauce for the gander. I’m waiting for the Tennessee Bill protecting teachers from repercussions due to teaching the “controversy” over gravity. It’s all mere scientific theory you know.
WOOOOOOOOAH, I’m floating away! Damn rationalists!
Mespo,
Good catch on Colonel Potter!
I guess this Tennessee attempt to turn back the clock proves that history does repeat itself!
Me: “what’s to stop Congress from declaring that the BOR preempts all similar or identical state constitutional provisions?”
Buddha: “The 10th Amendment and the equal and independent grounds doctrine. The Supremacy Clause would apply with the exceptions provided by the aforementioned laws.”
That’s the language comprehension problem. I fully understand the doctrine of incorporation; seeing I was the one who reminded you of the concept here.
What I don’t understand is your unique take on the Supremacy Clause. The phenomena that you deem ‘exceptions’ precede the very existence of a supremacy clause.
The tenth amendment is a mere tautology; it does not confer any rights or powers to the states that they didn’t already have.
Buddha: “Yes. The problem here does have to do with language comprehension. Yours. You apparently don’t understand what “incorporation” means as it relates to documents.”
I’m the one with the language comprehension problem?
Your language on this topic lacks clarity; especially as it relates to your obsession with the term ‘incorporation.’
For example:
“You can try to keep selectively applying the Supremacy Clause all you like but the fact is that once an amendment is incorporated, it is part and parcel of the whole including the application of the Supremacy Clause.”
Once an amendment is incorporated THEN the supremacy clause applies???
Was the 13th Amendment ‘incorporated?’ How about the 18th Amendment? Was it ‘incorporated?’ NO. Yet those amendments were deemed the supreme law of the land; were they not?
To be clear, the incorporation doctrine relates only to the bill of rights (actually 1-8) since they were originally addressed to further restrict the powers of the fed only. Accordingly, incorporation is not a pre-requisite for ‘an amendment’ becoming part and parcel of ‘the supreme law of the land.’
And what’s this tripe?
Buddha: “That is the very mechanism that allows superior rights under the U.S. Constitution to be, duh, superior to inferior rights conferred by state constitutions.”
Since when do constitutions “confer” any rights whatsoever?
To say that the BOR, to the extent they have been incorporated, are supreme subject to the exception of the equal and independent state grounds doctrine MEANS that the BOR is not “supreme.” Supremacy is not dependent on any outcome other than prevailing over everything.
If the Tennessee House is open to teachers explaining the perceived flaws in evolution as “teaching the controversy,” then teachers should also be able to teach students the controversy over the flaws in the creation story — the ways in which the creation story is internally contradictory (sun and moon created on the 4th day, after the creation of plans on the third day), and contrary to scientific evidence of a 4.5 billion year old earth, etc. Let’s see the teachers require students homework assignments on the flaws in creationism and ID along with homework assignments on the flaws in evolution. After all, the goal is not religious education but “teaching the controversy” (within the First Amendment according to the Tenn legislature) so students can be informed of both views. One side doesn’t get a free pass under that rubric. I am willing to bet that the first time a teacher explains to Johnny and Jane the factual problems in their Sunday school lessons, the Tenn legislature will rush to change the law.
Okay, mespo. I’ll bite.
Has anyone but be noticed that Dexter’s father on the Showtime series “Dexter” and from the Jeff Lindsay novels is also named Harry Morgan?
And Harry Morgan thinks I’m right too.
I’ll let you decide which Harry Morgan I mean.
MetroCowboy,
You can put my name on that list:
Kevin Kesseler, Ph.D. (Mathematics)
Great discussion by the regulars on everything from Kant to Incorporation Doctrine, but why no mention of M*A*S*H’s “Colonel Potter” (Harry Morgan) as the somber judge in the photograph?
If tooties list is right, and I find getting info from the “Creation Museum” to be very specious….but I’ll give tootie the benefit of the doubt..since Ive always enjoyed he/she/its comedy routines ….just imagine how long the list of people with doctorates who think creationism is hogwash must be….and I bet we might even know a few of those who would be on that list.
Bob,
“what’s to stop Congress from declaring that the BOR preempts all similar or identical state constitutional provisions?”
The 10th Amendment and the equal and independent grounds doctrine. The Supremacy Clause would apply with the exceptions provided by the aforementioned laws.
Yes. The problem here does have to do with language comprehension. Yours. You apparently don’t understand what “incorporation” means as it relates to documents. You can try to keep selectively applying the Supremacy Clause all you like but the fact is that once an amendment is incorporated, it is part and parcel of the whole including the application of the Supremacy Clause. That is the very mechanism that allows superior rights under the U.S. Constitution to be, duh, superior to inferior rights conferred by state constitutions. The Supremacy Clause is exactly how Federal law trumps state law. Or is there something unclear about “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” coupled with the exceptions provided by the equal and independent grounds doctrine?
I didn’t declare victory. I said you were a pissy loser because you are losing this argument and that I’d out argue you again. Which I did and will continue to do so because the logic is sound and you haven’t proved otherwise. Because supreme is supreme absent the aforementioned exceptions. You seem to think I haven’t thought this through. That would be incorrect.
Exceptions are exactly that: exceptions. Not the rule. The rule is the Supremacy Clause. The exceptions are equal and independent grounds doctrine and unreserved powers.
Buddha,
By declaring victory in bold you’re the one being childish.
The problem here has more to do with language comprehension than law. Simply because the Fed sets the floor of rights with the BOR it does not follow that a supremacy clause analysis is applicable. For if the supremacy clause was applicable as you say, then what’s to stop Congress from declaring that the BOR preempts all similar or identical state constitutional provisions?
I understand what you’re saying about the Bill of Rights holding supreme, once incorporated, to states infringing on the basic minimums; i.e. state law standing in contradiction to valid federal law. But the Bill of Rights is not ‘supreme’ per se because they could never preempt greater protections afforded by state constitutions.
Lunch and errand break.
I’ll tune in for the rest of your argument, such as it is, later.
Just don’t hate me when I out argue it again.
Or do.
That’s your prerogative.
“ends at”
Bad fingers!
Pardon the blown out tag. That last bolding was meant to end after “inferior rights”.
Just like your argument ends a “inferior rights”.
Bob,
I’ve already addressed your statement about overbroad. This isn’t court and if I’d known you were going to be a dick about it, I would have used greater specificity initially so as to avoid this conflict. With greater specificity, my argument is that the 1st Amendment applies via the Supremacy Clause because it’s incorporated. Ancillary to that, there is no 10th Amendment issue here as the U.S. Constitution provides greater protection than the state constitution.
The issue here isn’t the 4th Amendment either.
It’s the 1st Amendment.
The application of the U.S. Constitution’s 4th Amendment still applies to the state of New York via the Supremacy Clause when and – now read this very carefully – IF AND ONLY IF the NYS constitution had supplied inferior civil rights as compared to the civil rights found in the Constitution. States can grant superior rights to the U.S. Constitution, not inferior rights curtailing the U.S. Constitution. As the equal and independent grounds doctrine only applies when a state constitution grants superior rights (or addresses a right not covered by the incorporated Constitution), your point is moot and an instance of apples and oranges. The equal and independent grounds doctrine provides an exception to the instance of the NY state constitution Art. I, Sec. 12 precisely and only because the NYS constitution clearly provides greater protection than the Federal Constitution’s 4th Amendment.
Just like there is no exception created by the equal and independent grounds doctrine where the NYS constitution provides inferior rights compared to the U.S. Constitution when comparing the 1st Amendment and the NYS Art. I, Sec. 3. “Superior rights to those found in the U.S. Constitution”, Bob. That’s the trigger for the exceptions created by equal and independent grounds doctrine.
Also your childish fit throwing about the issue and attempts to move the goal posts (futilely I might add) is much akin to lame bitching.
Try to change the subject.
Just goes to show what a pissy loser you can be, Bob.
I must say I’m a bit disappointed, but not surprised.
Article I, §12. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable interception of telephone and telegraph communications shall not be violated, and ex parte orders or warrants shall issue only upon oath or affirmation that there is reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained, and identifying the particular means of communication, and particularly describing the person or persons whose communications are to be intercepted and the purpose thereof. (New. Adopted by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.)
============
Rather than researching establishment clause cases under the NYS Constitution…
Your argument was that the Bill of Rights holds supreme via the supremacy clause.
Wanna tell me how the Fourth Amendment holds supreme over Article I, Section 12 of the NYS Constitution?
You made a broad sweeping comment about the Bill of Rights and the Supremacy Clause that’s technically incorrect.
I just want everyone to think of the implication of Tootie’s list. If that’s not an example of the correct usage of “It’s the exception that proves the rule.” I don’t know what is.
By the way, Bob, the New York state constitution’s Bill of Rights reads:
Art. I § 3. “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this state to all humankind; and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his or her opinions on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state.”
That’s it.
Compare with . . .
U.S. Constitution, 1st Amendment which reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”.
The New York constitution only addresses half of what the 1st Amendment addresses – namely the Free Exercise Clause – and totally ignores the Establishment Clause.
Ergo, if the floor is the U.S. Constitution and the New York constitution is the ceiling, you are attempting to put the ceiling under the floor. The U.S. Constitution provides superior protection to that which is found in the New York state constitution.
Like I said, counter-intuitive doesn’t mean wrong.
Bob,
The equal and independent grounds doctrine only applies when states provide additional protections. We are talking about the 1st Amendment here. Any additional protections supplemental to the Separation of Church and State found in the 1st Amendment found in state constitutions would only further bolster the case against teaching creationism in public schools. 1983 address this matter by allowing direct Federal action on civil rights violations of the civil right incorporated into the Constitution.
Like the 1st Amendment.
The ground floor here is the 1st Amendment as it is incorporated into the Constitution.
Buddha and Bob,
Thank you