XPost: alt.america, alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: misc.education   
   From: user@nowhere.com   
      
   On 10/27/2010 7:40 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   I guess I will have to be content with at least persuading you that the   
   First Amendment applies to the states, for it is obvious you don't think   
   it applies to the President.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)