XPost: alt.america, alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution
XPost: misc.education
From: none@none.com
On 10/26/2010 4:51 PM, Josh wrote:
> 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?
No, city and county governments are clearly within the umbra of "state".
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
