71407443
XPost: alt.america, alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution
XPost: misc.education
From: none@none.com
On 10/23/2010 5:59 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On Oct 23, 8:53 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
>> 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)?
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Let's assume so. And to be specific, New Jersey passes a law which
> criminalizes political protests by Tea Party members. The accussed
> protestors have all the standard legal rights - trial by jury, burden
> of proof on the prosecution, cross examiniation, appeals, etc.
>
> And it is your claim this law is Constitutional?
Per the due process of XIV, yes.
Per privileges and immunities of XIV, probably not.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
