XPost: alt.america, alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: misc.education   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On 10/27/2010 5:09 PM, Josh wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Do you think that it does apply to the president?  If so, under what   
   pretense?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)