1d5e9813   
   XPost: alt.america, alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: misc.education   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On 10/23/2010 4:05 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   > On Oct 23, 6:46 pm, Peter Franks  wrote:   
   >> On 10/23/2010 12:03 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>>> 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)   
   >   
   > What does "due process was served" or "due process is preserved" mean?   
      
   It means due process wasn't infringed.   
      
      
   >   
   >> 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)