Let's look at the first amendment
I have been getting more into textualism and have been thinking about the Brandenburg cross case.
Suppose Congress gave a billion dollars to the department of the interior to build monuments and to use their discretion. The department elects to build a bunch of churches.
I can't figure out why this would violate the first amendment. The prohibition is against Congress making a law respecting an establishment. But the law in this case would not be in respect to religion. It is no way in regards to religion. The law is respecting general budgeting. The amendment appears silent on government groups that are not Congress using laws with no regards to establishment, to accomplish the establishment of religion.
In your interpretation of the first amendment, if you think it does ban that activity, how do you reach that conclusion?
Quote:
|
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
Suppose Congress gave a billion dollars to the department of the interior to build monuments and to use their discretion. The department elects to build a bunch of churches.
I can't figure out why this would violate the first amendment. The prohibition is against Congress making a law respecting an establishment. But the law in this case would not be in respect to religion. It is no way in regards to religion. The law is respecting general budgeting. The amendment appears silent on government groups that are not Congress using laws with no regards to establishment, to accomplish the establishment of religion.
In your interpretation of the first amendment, if you think it does ban that activity, how do you reach that conclusion?
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2LosAJ0
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire