Huffy Flounce

It's that kind of stuff that started the last Civil War wasn't it?

Sure... if you want to be one of those guys who pretends it wasn't about slavery.

Don't disagree, but wasn't it that some people said slavery was OK and it was their State's right to just carry ol' on with the slavery stuff?

I'd come closer to buying that. States' rights as they pertained to slavery definitely factored in. So did the Missouri Compromise, the Mexican-American War, the idea of Manifest Destiny, the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Dredd Scott decision, the Abolitionist Movement, the Underground Railroad, the election of Lincoln, the raid on Harpers Ferry, and the secession of the South.

Most of these things have a very clear thread running through them. I'll leave it to you to guess what that thread is.

So anyway, are these States rules in direct violation of the constitution?

I'm sure you could argue it a handful of ways. I get the feeling that the ban is unenforceable, whatever the case. Here a relevant bit from the "Discrimination Against Atheists" page on Wikipedia:

"In the United States, seven state constitutions include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office, and in some cases being a juror/witness, though these have not generally been enforced since the early twentieth century. The U.S. Constitution allows for an affirmation instead of an oath in order to accommodate atheists and others in court or seeking to hold public office. In 1961, the United States Supreme Court explicitly overturned the Maryland provision in the Torcaso v. Watkins decision, holding that laws requiring 'a belief in the existence of God' in order to hold public office violated freedom of religion provided for by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This decision is generally understood to also apply to witness oaths."

So why are they not amended then? Re-written?

When those voted into power within the states' systems decide to rewrite them, they will be rewritten. Until then, the laws will continue to stand as pissy and hollow protests.

Because both the federal and state legislatures in the U.S. are extremely inefficient and get so bogged down in details that actually passing a law (or an amendment to an existing law) is a painstaking process - nobody wants to deal with that shit.

Plus, the states that still have those laws on the books probably don't care that they're still there or that they're unconstitutional. It's not like an openly atheist candidate would ever stand a chance in those states. It's unlikely that an openly atheist candidate would stand a chance almost anywhere in the U.S.

I'm sure the federal government could try to force the states in question to amend their laws in a way that complies with the Constitution, but doing this would only serve to exacerbate the already tense situation between the federal and state governments. In other words, it's not a priority right now and the federal government is picking other battles.

So if they want their own laws that do not comply with other peoples, why don't they leave and set up shop on their own?

Why don't you make them, Dalty?

You might be forgetting that Arkansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas did try to leave and set up shop on their own, but the Union didn't let them.

Dalty wrote:So why are they not amended then? Re-written?

Like Mal & Goiter said, it's partially due to general incompetence of legislatures, partially due to, over time, laws being plain forgotten about. Not that anyone in the Deep South is going to be doing anything seen as supporting atheism anytime soon, but it could just be the case that those in charge of making/unmaking laws are completely unaware that those 100+ year old laws exist.

Sort of like how Mississippi didn't get around to ratifying the 13th Amendment until last year since they hadn't realized they hadn't already done so. Or so they claim.

Minnesota, which is currently the home of a very competent legislature went through what they called an "unsession" this year to clean up the books and get rid of a lot of nonsensical, unenforcable, & unnecessary laws. It was interesting stuff. http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_ ... silly-laws

If at first you don't secede, try, try, try again.

Next question in this series.....

Is it technically possible for a State to secede?

Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.

Yes, but it'd be exceptionally difficult to pull off. The states who speak of it most these days are far too economically tied to the federal government to support themselves financially to even bother trying.

It's much more feasible for say...a tiny portion of northern Minnesota to want to secede into Canada, or a part of one state to secede and join another. Which apparently has been tried far more often than I would've thought. Huh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U. ... _proposals

So...... in a couple of weeks time we have the same thing here re: Scotland. And it's very, very real!!

I hope their new flag has bagpipes on it.

Do American high schools really have jocks, geeks and other tribes?

Sort of. I don't think all the kids fit as snugly into their roles as our TV shows, books, and movies would have you believe. There's some crossover. Every student at every school isn't a flat archetype who is perfectly representative of some specific group.

My experience is mostly limited to high schools in rural Alabama in the 1990s, though.

What so those bright coloured bomber style jackets with the letter on the front denote?

Letterman jackets? Basically, they mean either that the person is somehow involved with a non-academic, school-sponsored activity (it could be a sport, or it could be band) or is dating someone else who is. Every year you participated in the activity earned you another "bar." We were clearly being prepped for military service. When I was in high school, a lot of the girls would wear their boyfriends' letterman jackets and class rings.

I had one. I was embarrassed by it. My mother pushed pretty hard for me to wear it. I "lettered" in (American) football, weightlifting, and basketball stat-keeping. The last one seemed like a dumb thing to get a letter for.

They can cost a ton if you go the leather route. I went the vinyl route. I was pretty in shape at the time, so figured mine should be an XL jacket. My mother told me to go to XXL, since everybody gains weight after high school, and since I'd still want to wear it after high school. I told her I didn't even want to wear it *in* high school. I was pretty sure I'd feel even less of a desire to wear it after high school, I said.

She told me I shouldn't assume I knew what Future Goiter would want. "Fine," I said. "I'll get the XXL if you'll get off my case about it." I got the XXL. My mother didn't trust me to do as I said I'd do, though, so she tracked down the guy selling the jackets (she taught at my school; she was constantly doing shit like this) and told him to increase my jacket size by an X. I wound up with a XXXL jacket. Despite having been pretty heavy at various points in my life, I've never been big enough to fill that monster. (There's some sex joke in here somewhere.) Felt pretty stupid wearing it.

You get to wear one just by dating somebody who was? Interesting swap back come the inevitable breakdown in teen relationship.

The tearful return of letterman jacket and ring has been a rite of passage for many a cheerleader across the decades.