XPost: alt.america, alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: misc.education   
   From: user@nowhere.com   
      
   On 10/27/2010 5:54 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   > On 10/27/2010 2:15 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >> On Oct 27, 1:48 pm, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >>> On 10/26/2010 11:28 PM, Josh wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> Let me guess again. You think the President can issue an executive   
   >> order that prevents executive-branch employees from attending a Tea   
   >> Party protest without violating the federal constitution?   
   >   
   > While 'on the clock', most definitely. Off the clock, they are just PORC   
   > (plain old regular citizens) and executive orders have no effect, so   
   > they could attend whatever they wanted.   
   >   
   > If you disagree, please describe where such orders are prohibited.   
      
   How about an executive order that prohibits executive-branch employees   
   from wearing any religious symbol (e.g., yarmulke) while on the job.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)