By: Adam Greenwood

Adam Greenwood — Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Well-spoken, Nate. I only have a historical thought. Since the Federal government provided much less in the way of protection of minorities in the 1890s, might the Domination Clause have been directed to the protection of minority rights, the sorts of rights that nowadays are protected by the Feds? Just an aimless query.

Also, is the Domination Clause un-amendable or can it be amended? If so, it seems that a dominant church should fear very little from it.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Perhaps you are right. However, I think that the scope of permissible state establishment was an open question in the last decade of the 19th century. Remember that the Establishment Clause wasn’t incorporated against the state until well into the 20th century.

I think that there was a provision in the Utah Enabling Act which required the state perpetually outlaw polygamy and the union of Church and State. In other words, these provisions of the constitution were to be unamendable. Apparently losts of Western states were admitted to the Union under enabling acts that required that this or that provision of the new state’s constitution be unamendable. As I understand it, at some point early in the 20th century, the Supreme Court ruled that such provisions were unconstitutional. The theory was that the constitution requires that new states be admitted to the Union on an equal footing with the original thirteen. Since these guys didn’t have restrictions on their state constitutions, niether do the rest of us. A Caveat: It has been a while since I looked at this, so I could have it wrong…

Comments on: The Utah Domination Clause

By: Adam Greenwood

By: Nathan