XPost: alt.america, alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution
XPost: misc.education
From: none@none.com
On 10/26/2010 11:28 PM, Josh wrote:
> 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?
No problem; just wondering when "state" mutated to "government", as in
/federal/ government.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
