XPost: alt.america, alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution
XPost: misc.education
From: none@none.com
On 10/27/2010 4:30 PM, Josh wrote:
> 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.
Yes.
If you disagree, please describe where such orders are prohibited.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
