11a5b73f
XPost: alt.america, alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution
XPost: misc.education
From: Then-Destroy-Everything@Blackhole.NebulaX.com
On 10/24/2010 8:04 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On Oct 23, 11:59 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
>> 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.
>
> The things in the First Amendment aren't "privileges and immunities"?
> What then are, and how did you determine that the law above was
> "probably not" constitutional?
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"
"OF CITIZENS" So where the constitution limits the Government, it is
not a Privilege of a citizen, else all our freedoms would be and NO
State laws could be Written.... Privileges and immunities aren't
"rights" either. As in the "right" of the people.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
Is NOT a privilege, it is a law that is directed at "CONGRESS" and at
congress specifically and alone.
The 14th amendment has no connection to the establishment of religion.
The States are free to create religious laws.
If we use "your" understanding of the 14th amendment then we could say
that the second amendment would prevent States from passing "any" State
gun laws.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
