![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
barking_iguanaIn the Newdow case, Thomas just said that the 14th amendment, which is what extends the Bill of Rights to state and local laws, doesn't really apply to the separation of church and state.
When the 14th amendment was passed, it was really supposed to apply to everything. The political winds changed quickly after that, and the Court let the country off the hook by blatantly misreading the amendment. Since then, most protections have gradually been extended to state law. That process is called "incorporation".
Here's what Thomas said:
When the 14th amendment was passed, it was really supposed to apply to everything. The political winds changed quickly after that, and the Court let the country off the hook by blatantly misreading the amendment. Since then, most protections have gradually been extended to state law. That process is called "incorporation".
Here's what Thomas said:
Because I agree with THE CHIEF JUSTICE that respondent Newdow has standing, I would take this opportunity to begin the process of rethinking the Establishment Clause. I would acknowledge that the Establishment Clause is a federalism provision, which, for this reason, resists incorporation.
