Party like it's 1861 all over again

I'm starting to wonder if state legislators aren't spiking their sweet tea with a whole lot of bourbon these days.

In North Carolina, at least 12 Republican state legislators have decided that trying to nullify no less than three Amendments of the US Constitution is a really good idea. To wit:

Joint Resolution 494, also known as the “Defense of Religion Act,” which boldly asserts a questionable interpretation of the First, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by claiming states have the right to declare official religions.

The actual text of the bill seems unambiguous, to say the least:

SECTION 1: The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

SECTION 2: The North Carolina General Assembly does not recognize federal court rulings which prohibit and otherwise regulate the State of North Carolina, its public schools, or any political subdivisions of the State from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

I suspect that even on its worse day, the Federal court system could never have a collective brain fart and let a law like this stand, but let's have a look at the constitutional amendments that it would violate, just in case (emphasis mine):

1) 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.

10) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now admittedly, the major catch to the first and tenth amendments concern limitations on power - "Congress shall make no law; powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States" both could be taken by certain legislators (like the ones previously mentioned, of course) that they could, in fact, make such laws. Until you get down to the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, that is:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So much for ambiguity on those questions.

Ed Brayton:

Think about the many dangerous results from this. First of all, Article VI, Section 8 of the North Carolina state constitution forbids “any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God” from holding public office. Since 1961, the enforcement of that provision has been forbidden by the courts on the basis of the First Amendment. And even if the state did not declare an official state religion, schools could then begin requiring students to pray every day again, or read the Bible, or learn creationism instead of evolution. The possible violations are staggering.

Now the good news: This would be struck down by the courts in about a millisecond. And even with the current configuration of the Supreme Court, the result would likely be an 8-1 ruling overturning the law. Only Clarence Thomas has ever taken the position that the Establishment Clause did not apply to the states and no one else on the court, even Scalia, has ever taken that position seriously.

Yup. Not even Scalia.

This, of course, raises the following question: if this is being done by those twelve NC legislative sponsors as a sop to certain constituents, who are those constituents? And are they actual human beings or pieces of furniture who've somehow gained the right to vote?

Roger Ebert, 1942-2013

In Memoriam.