Republican lawmakers in North Carolina have introduced a bill declaring that the state has the power to establish an official religion — a direct challenge to the First Amendment.

One professor of politics called the measure “the verge of being neo-secessionist,” and another said it was reminiscent of how Southern states objected to the Supreme Court’s 1954 integration of public schools.

The bill says that federal courts do not have the power to decide what is constitutional, and says the state does not recognize federal court rulings that prohibit North Carolina and its schools from favoring a religion.

The bill was introduced Monday by two Republican representatives from Rowan County, north of Charlotte, and sponsored by seven other Republicans. The party controls both chambers of the North Carolina Legislature…

The bill does not specify a religion.

The North Carolina ACLU chapter said in a statement Tuesday that the sponsors of the bill “fundamentally misunderstand constitutional law and the principle of the separation of powers that dates back to the founding of this country…”

Professor Michael Bitzer…said the bill is based on discredited legal theory that the states can declare themselves exempt from federal law.

“We saw this in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education,” he said, referencing the integration ruling. “The belief is that the states hold more power than the federal government. If the federal government does something, the states can simply ignore it.”

Some folks in Confederate Republican politics still don’t believe they lost the Civil war. Why expect them to understand the Constitution?

  1. Bob73 says:

    more of bobbo using his amazing ability to make points at the same time as demonstrating his lack of character …

    “… in his greatest WTF post so far says:”
    “Does the 14th Amend mean nothing to you? Typical bible thumping know nothing ..”
    “You do know they are all retards don’t you?”
    “how is having your own stupidity advertised any help at all?? aka==why do you post?”
    “you blather about”
    “Basic Brain Activity 101″
    “What a dope”
    “Let us know the full scope of your insanity”
    “You piss me off”
    “Such a lame brain ignorant game you play”
    “Why you sooooooooo lame?”
    “Its like you want us to see the warts on your penis”
    “reveals how deep his stupid hole is”
    “You really do live within your own bubble don’t you”
    “ever find youself choking on your own bile?”
    “Are you this stupid on purpose or just this blind to your own dogma?”
    “You don’t/refuse to understand plain simple English.”
    “I know…. “Facts”…. one of your many bugaboos.”
    “only way to get a win on your part, as illusory and fraudulent as it is.”
    “I am starting to think you might believe half the crap you post though.”
    “Silly Hoomans.”

    Such a pity. But I digress. You could do so much better bobbo if you would just try harder.

    • Guyver says:

      Such a pity. But I digress. You could do so much better bobbo if you would just try harder.

      My guess is this works for him at school during lunch period when he gets his feathers ruffled.


    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

      Nice list Bob—but in fairness to my character, lack thereof: it has been a long thread AND …. oops!==NOT that long AND it wasn’t on AGW either. Darn!! I hate it when I get all defensive and stuff.

      Well, in all serious Yahoo: you are only missing the humor inherent in such word play. Maybe you and even most people don’t see it, or don’t appreciate it. Thats fair.

      But I do, and why else do any of us post?

      Yea, verily!

  2. orchidcup says:

    Did I start something?

    • Guyver says:


      Is Bobbo like this all the time, or only when you post? :)

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

        Huh? I like Orchi. Copy and Paste and all.

        I “try” to like you McGuyver–I just totally in fact honestly intensely dislike they way you argue. I think it is dishonest in a way that you must know?

        Hmmmm,,,, would it be any better if you honestly thought what you post?

        Ha, ha. Have to agree with Bob73 though==does look pretty bad when you post the sparkling bon mots without the motivation calling them forth.

        Its like some kind of “editing” that Breitbart might use? You know–accurate in a misleading way?

        Ha, ha. If I had the energy, I would make a list of what McGuyver said.

        I think a year or so ago I complimented you on taking the fire while maintaining calm. It certainly does have its pro’s and con’s. Keeps you looking good, but I wonder if you really pay attention or care?

        x 2.

  3. cliouser says:

    from wikipedia there were established religions in the colonies and for some time in the early states.

    Colony Denomination Disestablished
    Connecticut Congregational 1818
    Georgia Church of England/Episcopal Church 1789
    Maryland Church of England/Episcopal Church 1776
    Massachusetts Congregational 1833
    New Hampshire Congregational 1790
    North Carolina Church of England/Episcopal Church 1776

    South Carolina Church of England/Episcopal Church 1790

    Florida Church of England/Episcopal Church 1783
    Virginia Church of England/Episcopal Church 1786

    Certainly our founding fathers did not feel the federal constitution applied within the states. We didn’t have a national religion, but individual state religions were up to the states. Over the years our federal system has slowly been becoming nationalized. Lincoln ended states rights when he did not allow secession. A free people should have the ability to choose whom they wish to assemble and disassemble themselves from.

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

      Nice idea. Such plebiscites do occur. I don’t think the secession being for the cause of imposing slavery was even part of the consideration.

      Is fun to think about though.

  4. Somebody says:

    But actually, the states can and should ignore federal law that violates the constitution even if the supreme court lies and says the laws do not. Otherwise, what we have is absolute dictatorship.