XPost: alt.america, alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution
XPost: misc.education
From: user@nowhere.com
On 10/27/2010 1:46 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
> 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".
Good. Then, what's your problem?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
