XPost: alt.america, alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: misc.education   
   From: user@nowhere.com   
      
   On 10/25/2010 9:30 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   And that answers your original question as to how 'the term "Congress"   
   mutates to "government"' in the First Amendment.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)