89bed7fa   
   XPost: alt.america, alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: misc.education   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On 10/22/2010 3:57 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   > On Oct 22, 5:45 pm, Peter Franks  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> In terms of accepted case law, I'm fighting a losing (lost) battle here.   
   >>    I'll concede that the grand abortion (also known as Amendment XIV)   
   >> serves as the basis for extending "Congress shall make no law..." to the   
   >> states.   
   >>   
   >> That said, I strongly feel that XIV and the subsequent interpretations,   
   >> fabrications, and incorporation stabs directly at the heart of our   
   >> foundation of federal freedom.   
   >   
   > Earlier you said, "At this point, I'm not arguing anything." - but now   
   > you are.   
      
   I started my counter-argument after you answered my question.  Is there   
   a problem with that?   
      
   > So, are you arguing the states can prohibit the free exercise of   
   > religion  (e.g., criminalize Judaism)? or abridge the freedom of   
   > speech and the press (e.g., shut down a newspaper it disagrees with)?   
   > or abridge the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to   
   > petition the Government for a redress of grievances (e.g., imprison   
   > Tea Party protesters)?   
      
   They can do any of that as long as it doesn't interfere with Amendment   
   XIV/due process.   
      
   Even with XIV, there is no 'constitutional separation of church and state'.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)