Constitutional Freedoms Thread

[bolehboleh]

[Mod Edit: Use this thread to discuss anything about the people's rights under the US Constitution]

Mississippi did it. 70% support

Mississippi’s new magnolia flag starting to fly after vote

“Mississippi voters sent a message to the world that we are moving forward together,” former Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Reuben Anderson said in a statement.

www.nbcnews.com

I don't like the new MS flag because it has the expression "In God We Trust" at the bottom. I may not be a Constitutional scholar, but I believe that having that slogan on a state flag, as well as our money, is a violation of the establishment clause of first amendment to the Constitution.

 

[TallIsGood]

I wouldn’t think it would violate the Establishment clause. It provides for freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

 

[bolehboleh]

I don't like the new MS flag because it has the expression "In God We Trust" at the bottom. I may not be a Constitutional scholar, but I believe that having that slogan on a state flag, as well as our money, is a violation of the establishment clause of first amendment to the Constitution.

I'd happily continue this discussion with you but I don't want to derail the thread too much. Can a new one be made?

 

[Arlington]

US Supreme Court in Aronow v. United States upheld the use of In God We Trust on US money, ruling

It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.

I don't see any 1st Amendment reason why a state can't put it on their flag
I hope that's sufficient to keep these thoughts here, and not needing much further "is it legal?" concern.
(And a legitimate thing to include or reject in flag design)

 

[George_Apley]

Can't we be happy that MS abandoned their Confederate derived banner by 70% of the vote without being upset that one of the most religious states in the Union proclaims it as such on the new one?

 

[donkeybutlers]

While local laws would almost certainly protect the right, although not federal funding, here regardless, this case that could fundamentally undermine Roe v Wade (also from Mississippi) is still deeply concerning on a federal level.

 

[fattony]

Is this a topic you really want to discuss on an architecture forum? I don’t mean that it’s unimportant, but maybe AB isn’t a good place for it.

 

[Brattle Loop]

Is this a topic you really want to discuss on an architecture forum? I don’t mean that it’s unimportant, but maybe AB isn’t a good place for it.

Not getting into the weeds of substantive discussion on the topic, but the thread title is "Constitutional Freedoms Thread". Matters concerning the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution would, to me, be on-topic for this thread. Personally I'd suggest maybe kicking this over to the General forum under "Miscellaneous" where the rest of the 'off-topic' discussions are kept.

 

[donkeybutlers]

Is this a topic you really want to discuss on an architecture forum? I don’t mean that it’s unimportant, but maybe AB isn’t a good place for it.

I did not start this thread and my post is wholly within the lines of it, and no less relevant to urban life in the city of Boston than the topic that started it (arguably much more relevant to most people here)

Not getting into the weeds of substantive discussion on the topic, but the thread title is "Constitutional Freedoms Thread". Matters concerning the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution would, to me, be on-topic for this thread. Personally I'd suggest maybe kicking this over to the General forum under "Miscellaneous" where the rest of the 'off-topic' discussions are kept.

I do also think "USA Politics and Public policy" is the relevant forum for this thread.

 

[Brattle Loop]

I do also think "USA Politics and Public policy" is the relevant forum for this thread.

I mean, subject-matter-wise I concur, my comment was mostly because this forum is in the "Architecture, Urban Planning, and Public Policy" section, which could be read to imply "public policy in the context of architecture and urban planning" rather than "public policy" in terms of general discussion of open topics of any particular interest (which is what the General forum in the Miscellaneous section tend to hold). I agree that the thread is specifically stated to be a discussion of Constitutional rights and that, if we're going to have that thread, it is the appropriate forum for discussion of an issue of, literally, the Supreme Court's determination of the extent and limitations of Constitutional rights.

If the powers that be wish to render the topic off limits on account of its controversial nature and/or move either the discussion or this thread to a more appropriate venue that is their prerogative, but as long as the thread is here and presumptively open, the topic is germane to the thread's purpose at least as far as I see it.