XPost: alt.america, alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution
XPost: misc.education
From: user@nowhere.com
On 10/21/2010 4:55 PM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> On 10/21/2010 1:07 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On Oct 21, 1:03 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty> Everyth...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2010 12:25 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Oct 21, 11:49 am, Beam Me Up Scotty>>> Everyth...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/21/2010 11:11 AM, cpt banjo wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 21, 9:05 am, Beam Me Up Scotty>>>>> Everyth...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Doesn't it read that way?
>>>
>>>>>>> Or do you simply interpret what ever you want.... The fear was of an
>>>>>>> all powerful Federal Government like a KING. States still had "rights"
>>>
>>>>>> That's the way it was in the beginning, but the 14th Amendment changed
>>>>>> things. States no longer have the right to deny due process or equal
>>>>>> protection of the laws.
>>>
>>>>> Equal under the law, doesn't mean we all have to have the same laws in
>>>>> every State.... Once the State passes a law.... it must be "enforced
>>>>> equally"
>>>
>>>>> [Section 1.
>>>>> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
>>>>> jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
>>>>> wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
>>>>> *abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens* of the United States;
>>>>> nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
>>>>> without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
>>>>> jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.]
>>>
>>>>> So Federal citizens can't have their "right" under Federal law abridged
>>>>> by State laws.
>>>
>>>>> That is redundant of the supremacy clause......
>>>
>>>>> The State can NOT pass laws to remove "rights" that are given to the
>>>>> people or given to the United States(Federal Government).
>>>
>>>> Doesn't the First Amendment specify such rights (freedom of religion,
>>>> speech, press, assembly, petition), so the states cannot pass laws
>>>> (such as criminalizing Judaism, or shutting down a newspaper, or
>>>> putting Tea Party protesters in prison) that abridge them?
>>>
>>> It is a right that the people have in the sense that the Federal
>>> government is NOT given that power.... We can then abdicate that right
>>> to the State government since NOWHERE in the constitution does it deny
>>> that power to the States. That's in Amendment #10.
>>>
>>> One State can have a law on religion different from the State next to
>>> it, the Congress has no power to pass any law to ban States or people
>>> from any religious activity that doesn't infringe on others "rights".
>>>
>>> A State may not force you to pray
>>
>> According to your theory (the First Amendment applies only to the
>> federal government), why not?
>
>
> What would be the States legal power... to force you to pray?
>
> They have no basis to write the law. It would infringe on my rights,
> like my right to happiness, my right to NOT be held without a warrant.
>
> Due process....
>
> NO cruel Punishment inflicted....
>
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
>
> Neither slavery nor *involuntary servitude* , except as a punishment for
> crime whereof the party *shall have been duly convicted* , shall exist
> within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
>
> Due process and the equal protection of the laws.
Exactly, as stated in the 14th Amendment. And that's why the First
Amendment applies to the states.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
