TexasPete:

degsme:

Wrong on pretty much all of it

For the most part Scalia is an originalist and I do agree with most of the opinions of his that I have read.

This latter should warn you that he is not an "originalist" but rather an activist conservative. MOST of Scalia's rulings are NOT "originalist" but instead Scalia's activist beliefs wrapped up in clever and misleading (and sometimes dishonest as in this case) arguements that conservatives CLAIM as "originalist" simply because it is politically expedient to do so.

However In this case he is asking the WRONG Questions. All he needs to know is did congress pass a law putting it there. If not then there is no violation.

Wrong here as well. You don't seem to understand the concept of "transitivity". Congress passes a law empowring the Interior Dept to regulate this land. By transitivity, all subsequent regulations and dealings done by Dept Int. is Constitutionally "congress making law" by delegation.

Since Dept Int is making rulings about the cross being there, and denying the rights of others to similarly place religious shrines on the same location Dept Int. IS "making law" that "establishes" (prefers) one religion ahead of others.

NO ONE DISPUTES THIS.

What conservatives/the government are trying to weasel-word is that by selling the land they transfer the creation of that shrine to private speech. But because there is a clause that REQUIRES THE MAINTENANCE of the shrine or priviledges are lost - then it is clearly a case were Dept Int is granting priviledges (establishing ) to one religion ahead of others.

The 14th Amendment dosent change anything in the first Amendment CONGRESS shall make no law. Allowing a Manger scene on the town square does not abridge any rights I'm not sure it is even a law.

Wrong on ALL THREE assertions here:

1. Am 14 "incorporation clause" definitively resolves whether or not Am 1 limits apply to ALL levels of government. They do
2. Thus Am 14 rewrites Am 1 to preclude ANY government from local on up, from "establishing a religion"
3. Allowing a Manger while denying a simultaneous shrine to Baelzebub or Kali or the secular atheists - is demonstrating preference (establishing) for one sect over another.

We are talking about local and state government being forced to ignore its people

Yes and? If the people want to torture someone, or violate their 4th or 5th amendment rights, they can't do that either. And?

Degs the first amendment was not repealed by the 14th amendment. Any claim that the 14th amendment upsurps the first and changes its meaning cannot be taken seriously. Congress is still congress the state is still the state there is no disparity of treatment if the state does something not forbidden by the constitution. No where in the constitution is the state frobidden the only plece it is found in in case law and the constitution should trump any case law.

Unless you can show me where the first amendment has been repealed by the 14th amendment in plain language stating so there is no way you can convince me.

Since I have already read the text of the entire constitution and understand it provably better than you there is no point in furthering this conversation.

Maybe you guys and gals should secede.