cd87e3e6
XPost: alt.america, alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution
XPost: misc.education
From: none@none.com
On 10/23/2010 12:03 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On Oct 23, 1:34 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Do the above examples interfere with due process?
Depends if due process was served or not.
XIV speaks to due process. If that is preserved (somehow) while a state
prohibits one of the items you list, the yes, the state has that
authority to prohibit (presuming such authority has been delegated to
the state government in its governing document(s), eg. state constitution).
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
