North Carolina’s proposed new law:

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.

It could be claimed the seed of this had been planted when our federal judiciary had ruled the first ten amendments (our so-called ‘Bill of Rights’) were originally ‘unincorporated’ to our constitution, despite our ‘supremacy clause’ pointing out our Federal Constitution is applicable to the states in its entirety with this language; “This Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof; .. shall be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND .. ANY THING IN THE CONSTITUTIONS OR LAWS OF THE STATES TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING”

The ‘supremacy clause’ is reinforced by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments placement following the ‘enumerated rights’ of the first through eighth amendments. The key here is the Ninth Amendment’s words ‘un-enumerated rights’ or rights that have not been spelled out in the first eight amendments, may not be “disparaged” relating to the “people.” Our founders did not state ‘solely people in a federal jurisdiction’, and they did not because the federal constitution’s rights extended to us all, and only after these rights had been secured did they reserve any ‘powers’ to the states (in the Tenth Amendment.) Any idea it was the Fourteenth Amendment (portions of which our current Chief Justice, John Roberts, ignores at will) somehow ‘incorporated’ certain limited rights, was a stretch of the imagination the great Justice William J. Brennan rejected.

A ‘federal’ right (including our right to a secular state with no official religion) in the original context used by our founders meant a right extending to all the people of the states “any thing in the Constitutions or laws of the States notwithstanding” but self serving special interests federal jurists would subsequently construe a federal right to extend to a strictly federal geographic or federal court’s jurisdiction, to split certain rights away from “the people” so they could say when, how or even if, the Bill of Rights applies, or that is when any right had been ‘incorporated’ and became applicable outside of any federal jurisdiction.

Now this has been flipped by North Carolina; if they were to argue the perverted idea our Bill of Rights did not originally extend to the states but were strictly limited to federal jurisdiction, these morons should either win their argument or put the federal judiciary’s idea of incorporated versus unincorporated amendments in the true light of their  twisted special interests logic, further undermining our rule of law on account of those same federal court’s decisions.

For example, if the so-called ‘unincorporated’ Seventh Amendment..

“In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law”

..governing civil suits, is recognized solely as an unincorporated ‘federal right’ and is not extended to the people of the states (according to the federal courts), it has set up this question; if the Seventh Amendment cannot be guaranteed to the people of the states because it is solely a federal right, how can the First Amendment’s promise no law may be made establishing or prohibiting a religion, be an inviolate right of people under a states jurisdiction?

Our federal judiciary and North Carolina’s bid for Christian supremacy, both,  have thoroughly trashed our constitution.

Do you suppose next will be a proposed North Carolina law establishing an official state color of person as White? And following on that, an official state sex, Male?

But then, consider the USA’s top three law enforcement personalities are criminal mentalities in their own right; Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts runs in Dick Cheney’s circle of professional associates, Attorney General Eric Holder put together a sweetheart deal to conceal  the identities of the people who provided cash and machine guns to the death squads of the right-wing AUC Colombian terrorist group used to murder 4,000 union sympathetic people on behalf of Bush family friend Carl Lindner’s Chiquita corporation, and FBI Director Robert Mueller was a central player in covering up money laundering for terrorism related weapons and narcotics traffickers in the Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) scandal, it should be small wonder state officials would expect they can put our rule of law according to our constitution through a paper-shredder, you think?