MoodVertigo quotes Joseph Story. Joseph Story’s opinions regarding the First Amedment are obsolete. Why? Let’s examine Joseph Story a bit further. In Barron v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, a unanimous Supreme Court “found that the limitations on government articulated in the Fifth Amendment were specifically intended to limit the powers of the national government. Citing the intent of the framers and the development of the Bill of Rights as an exclusive check on the government in Washington D.C., Marshall argued that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case since the Fifth Amendment was not applicable to the states.”

Let that sink in. “Wait a second,” you may cry out, “But the states cannot take away those rights… Can they?” The answer is: No, they cannot. After the Civil War, a little thing called the 14th Amendment was passed. One part states, “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, wiithout due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Because of the 14th Amendment, your text regarding the 1st Amendment is incorrect. The states cannot do all the things you said. A state cannot infringe on a person’s religious freedoms.

You see, the 1st Amendment is worded the way it is because at that time, states were thought to be the bastions of freedom. The national government was the one to be feared. Over time, this changed. States ended up taking away people’s rights — thus, part of the necessity for the 14th amendment.

So, I hope next time you speak of this subject matter, you remember the implications of the 14th Amendment.