1155f61b   
   XPost: alt.america, alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: misc.education   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On 10/23/2010 7:03 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   > On Oct 23, 9:42 pm, Peter Franks  wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Is it your view that the First Amendment applies to the states through   
   > the Privileges and Immunities Clause?   
      
   No.   
      
   The only thing that applies to the states is what is contained in XIV.   
   It is not a blanket by which to wrap other clauses in the fiction of   
   incorporation.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)