e6e637a6   
   XPost: alt.america, alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: misc.education   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On 10/23/2010 4:56 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   > On Oct 23, 7:45 pm, Peter Franks  wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > You need to explain without using the words "due process".   
      
   Are you trying to make a point, or are you just not understanding what   
   I'm saying?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)