11a5b73f   
   XPost: alt.america, alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: misc.education   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On 10/24/2010 5:04 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"?   
      
   According to whom?   
      
   The *protection* of rights (enumerated) in Amendment I are privileges of   
   US citizens.   
      
   > What then are, and how did you determine that the law above was   
   > "probably not" constitutional?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)