| The fact that there are possible alternative readings does not, in and of itself, invalidate the reading that has taken root. Unless it can be shown that there is a compelling reason to overturn the relevant case law, the court will let it stand. I do not think that Keyes comes near to showing that there is compelling reason. For example, the idea of separating the Establishment Clause from the Free Exercise clause is specious. Clearly, the same rationale applies to each: freedom of conscience in one's religious profession. They are reciprocal. The further idea that he tries to introduce, that the Establishment Clause has no bearing on the individual, but only on the "People", is silly. The underlying liberty of conscience belongs to the individual, not any group. As for incorporation, it was always intended that the 14th amendment establish a right of federal intervention in protection of individual rights against state abuse--- in the first instance, rights of due process for former slaves. Once state due process standards were to conform to federal standards, it was reasonable that this be extended to include civil liberties generally, so that the those guarantees belonging to one as a citizen of the United States could not be deprived one as a citizen of a state. Keyes ignores the rational, and offers no cogent argument against the doctrine, merely claiming it is something ginned up to arrogate power to the federal courts........ |
