XPost: alt.america, alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: misc.education   
   From: user@nowhere.com   
      
   On 10/26/2010 6:35 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   > 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".   
      
   Let me guess.  You think a city government can put in you jail for   
   attending a Tea Part rally without violating the federal constitution?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)