XPost: alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution, misc.education   
   From: strabo@flashlight.net   
      
   On 10/23/2010 1:34 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   > On 10/22/2010 3:57 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >> On Oct 22, 5:45 pm, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> In terms of accepted case law, I'm fighting a losing (lost) battle here.   
   >>> I'll concede that the grand abortion (also known as Amendment XIV)   
   >>> serves as the basis for extending "Congress shall make no law..." to the   
   >>> states.   
   >>>   
   >>> That said, I strongly feel that XIV and the subsequent interpretations,   
   >>> fabrications, and incorporation stabs directly at the heart of our   
   >>> foundation of federal freedom.   
   >>   
   >> Earlier you said, "At this point, I'm not arguing anything." - but now   
   >> you are.   
   >   
   > I started my counter-argument after you answered my question. Is there a   
   > problem with that?   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Even with XIV, there is no 'constitutional separation of church and state'.   
    >   
      
   The separation is implied as the Constitution offers no power over such   
   matters.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)