XPost: alt.america, alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: misc.education   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On 10/25/2010 7:35 PM, Josh wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   XIV explicitly refers to "state".   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)