9d70623f
XPost: alt.america, alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution
XPost: misc.education
From: none@none.com
On 10/23/2010 5:12 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On Oct 23, 7:59 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
>> 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?
>
> The latter.
Ok, then let's start again:
You asked: Do the above examples interfere with due process?
My answer: depends;
Due process: An established course for judicial proceedings or other
governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the
individual. AHD, 3rd ed.
In each of your examples, was an established legal course followed and
were the legal rights of the individual protected? If yes, then the
prohibition is legal.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
