(10-09-2011, 10:31 PM)kandrathe Wrote: Ah, but the British were so much more evolved and didn't have the same pigheadedness as our southern slave owners. Why did it work for Britain in 1933?
1833. And it worked because the relative influence of slaveowners and the interest of non-slaveowners in slavery was so much smaller. There was no part of Britain that was going to break off and form its own country. Liverpool and Manchester may have had Confederate sympathies, but switching to Egyptian and Indian cotton was easier than going to war against London...
None of this was true for the Southern US, whose economy was overwhelmingly based in slavery, and whose relative prestige and wealth would be greatly harmed by emancipation. There were no easy substitutes. When it became obvious no compromise could be enough, they had to accept or reject the liberty of slaves. They chose rejection and war, the obvious course from their economic and social interests.
Quote:But, Congress shall make no law... That part is the infringement on establishment.
Well, first, the executive has quite a lot of power to make what amount to laws, and should be bound by the constitution appropriately - executive power should not be an end run around the constitution, though sadly it often is. Second, when the government creates a "National Day," as you have acknowledged, that is a law, and therefore must be bound. Add those two principles together, and it's unconstitutional no matter which way you slice it.
The framers were quite clear what they meant, in terms of the relationship of church and state. Madison and Jefferson both expressed the belief that there should be a total barrier between religion and government. Insofar as we follow their interpretation, that is how it should be.
Where the line falls in practice is for the courts to decide. It is telling, I think, that the courts have almost universally dodged the question, dismissing whatever they can on standing grounds, rather than ruling on the constitutionality of government trespass into religion. It seems like cowardice to me, but the Supremes have typically been reluctant to make rulings bolder than absolutely necessary. When it does come time to decide, the constitutional question seems obvious. The question of general principle seems equally so, and well accepted in almost all first-world democracies.
-Jester