RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

FirstQuaker -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 3:51:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The 1st amendment seems to be worded such that it only applies to Congress and not to any other levels of government. This brings up two questions in my mind.

1. Is this right, does it only apply to congress?
2. Does this mean that a city or state government could establish an official religion, or arrest people for criticizing the government?



Damn, you did not pay any attention in school?

Even in Ontario, they must teach a government class in high school still and both sides of the border use the other side as an example of how other systems of government  work.


But in a nutshell, what your teacher should have told you was how the US and the majority of other republics are set up like tripods, with the legislative branch making the laws, the executive branch enforcing the laws, and the judicial branch interpreting the laws. 

The three branches cannot usurp each others powers (in theory anyway) i.e Obama cannot rule by decree, the legislative branch (save for impeachment) cannot conduct trials, and the courts cannot conduct military operations or engage in diplomacy for instance.

This differs from the Westminster parliamentary system (like in Canada) which, in spite of attempts to distance itself from the unitary government of the UK, (Oz seems to have done the best job of it) still allows much overlap between the separate 'branches.'





HeatherMcLeather -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 3:54:27 PM)

Well that's all very interesting, but unfortunately it has nothing to do with the questions you are purporting to answer.



FirstQuaker -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 4:40:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

Well that's all very interesting, but unfortunately it has nothing to do with the questions you are purporting to answer.


So in your opinion, just why should the US constitution expect anyone, not empowered to make such a law, to make one?

quote:

1. Is this right, does it only apply to congress?
2. Does this mean that a city or state government could establish an official religion , or arrest people for criticizing the government?


Since the US Constitution is the supreme law of the US, just what lesser body underneath it could be delegated powers the US legislative branch itself does not have?

It is akin to the local town council passing a law which overrides Parliament.

And in the case of the US, you only need look at the history of the state of Utah to see what happens in the US when a theocracy is attempted.

The Church of England was exactly what they had in mind when they prohibited the US from establishing a state church.



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 5:12:26 PM)

Simplistic answers are often the best, however simplistic answers not backed by accurate information rarely are. You see, unfortunately your reasoning and explanation are wrong, which you would have realized if you had read the replies I got last night.

You might want to read the following articles:
quote:

Originally, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.

quote:

Gitlow v. New York, , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the reach of certain provisions of the First Amendment—specifically the provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press—to the governments of the individual states.



FirstQuaker -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 5:38:55 PM)

Er, their constitution guarantees each state a 'republican' form of government, and before being allowed to join the US, their proposed state constitution must past muster.

In the opninion of USAsians, a state church is not a part of a 'republican' form of government, for that would then require one to vote on and then legislate religion. ( I think Catholics would win the vote.)  Obama as pope too?

For example, when Utah (which I recommended you study the political history of earlier) attempted to become a state one of several times, they wanted the Mormon bishops to be state senators (as they knew a state church was off the menu, especially a Mormon one.)  That attempt went down in flames. The attempts to form a Mormon theocracy is the reason they were one of the last (#45) US states, even though the land was well settled and developed far before many others who achieved statehood earlier.

You should study the whole document along with their political and constitutional judicial history to get such items as their constitutional amendments in context.

For example as I noted their constitution is the supreme law and as noted in Everson v. Board of Education

quote:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.


This rolls downhill, and the underlings do not have any more powers then their superiors do.

Perhaps a comparative government class is in order for you.



Real0ne -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 6:28:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hot4bondage


quote:

ORIGINAL: kat321

Concerning freedom of speech.....

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.  -Oliver Wendell Holmes

Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47 (1919)



This was the standard until 1991, when Reinquist's court ruled 5-4 that nude dancing in a bar is not a protected form of expression. So, the First Amendment offers far less protection than it used to. Twenty years later, and I still get mad as hell thinking about it!
[sm=anger.gif]


keep in mind that freedom of speech originally only applied to politics in congress.

also do you want to be a man or woman of free volition or a subject citizen controlled by some overloard regardless of what name they want to call it.

Usually people have 2 choice, kick ass or get your ass kicked.








HeatherMcLeather -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 6:55:20 PM)

Yeah, yeah, the state constitutions were covered last night as well.

quote:

The underlings do not have any more powers then their superiors do.
Yeah they can, read the 10th...it's a question of certain things being prohibited to the feds by the states.

Clearly it is you who requires educating.

Anyway, that's all the time I have for you. I'm sorry, but I just don't have any patience for pompous empty-headed blowhards who talk down to me from a position of ignorance.

Have a nice night.


[image]local://upfiles/1214164/6961E9BDE88F4C6B830DFD2260D30A40.jpg[/image]



FirstQuaker -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 7:00:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


keep in mind that freedom of speech originally only applied to politics in congress.





That c came from parliamentary privilege.



gungadin09 -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 7:14:44 PM)

quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


The first Amendment is quoted above. It says, well, two things, really. The first is that Congress (specifically) is WHO is being prohibited, and the second is that WHAT THEY ARE PROHIBITED FROM DOING is passing laws that ABRIDGE the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right to assemble, or to exercise one's religion, etc.

Heather asked two simple questions. The first was, does the first Amendment really only restrict laws passed by CONGRESS (in other words, does it do nothing to restrict laws passed by state and local governments?) This question was answered earlier in the thread. The links Heather just provided explain why the answer to that question is no. In 1925 the Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment applies to laws made at all levels of government, not just to those made by Congress.

The second question (as i understood it) was, when the 1st Amendment very clearly says that NO LAW MAY BE PASSED that ABRIDGES freedom of speech or religion, then why is the Supreme Court allowed to say, well, it's okay to abridge those freedoms a little bit? Because the Supreme Court obviously does allow certain restrictions on speech and religion to be passed into law. And, while that certainly seems sensible (it would be very difficult to run a country that had absolutely no laws restricting speech or religion), the fact is the Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution, and that's NOT what it says. They are interpreting those words to mean something different than what their literal meaning is, and that's a little bit troublesome.

pam



FirstQuaker -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 7:18:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

Yeah, yeah, the state constitutions were covered last night as well.

quote:

The underlings do not have any more powers then their superiors do.
Yeah they can, read the 10th...it's a question of certain things being prohibited to the feds by the states.

Clearly it is you who requires educating.

Anyway, that's all the time I have for you. I'm sorry, but I just don't have any patience for pompous empty-headed blowhards who talk down to me from a position of ignorance.

Have a nice night.





I see you are an white Ontario intellectual.

So when their constitution says any duties, and powers their federal government do not have are reserved to their states, and also says that their supreme court is the supreme arbitrator of what those duties, and powers are or might be in this arraignment, the words of their highest court are meaningless and those of some central Canadian resident  prevail? ( Since I already cited one of their supreme court decisions regarding state established religionson the matter.)

A Canadian savant like you is doubtlessly better versed on the ramifications of US constitutional law then anyone everyone in their country from a construction worker to their supreme court could possibly be.





HeatherMcLeather -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 7:27:09 PM)

Thank you Pam.



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 7:28:38 PM)

And to you FQ, I refer you to this post: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3864741



FirstQuaker -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 7:34:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


The first Amendment is quoted above. It says, well, two things, really. The first is that Congress (specifically) is WHO is being prohibited, and the second is that WHAT THEY ARE PROHIBITED FROM DOING is passing laws that ABRIDGE the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right to assemble, or to exercise one's religion, etc.

Heather asked two simple questions. The first was, does the first Amendment really only restrict laws passed by CONGRESS (in other words, does it do nothing to restrict laws passed by state and local governments?) This question was answered earlier in the thread. The links Heather just provided explain why the answer to that question is no. In 1925 the Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment applies to laws made at all levels of government, not just to those made by Congress.

The second question (as i understood it) was, when the 1st Amendment very clearly says that NO LAW MAY BE PASSED that ABRIDGES freedom of speech or religion, then why is the Supreme Court allowed to say, well, it's okay to abridge those freedoms a little bit? Because the Supreme Court obviously does allow certain restrictions on speech and religion to be passed into law. And, while that certainly seems sensible (it would be very difficult to run a country that had absolutely no laws restricting speech or religion), the fact is the Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution, and that's NOT what it says. They are interpreting those words to mean something different than what their literal meaning is, and that's a little bit troublesome.

pam


Not exactly.

Massachusetts for instance still has state churches. However, they cannot tax anyone to pay for them, or force anyone to go to them, or in any other way molest their citizenry with them.

In Emerson for example they ran afouol of the establishment of religion clause by taxing people to pay for this fun, and in other cases, for example the laws prohibiting atheists from holding office, stuck them down on similar grounds of interfering with people's religious liberty.



Real0ne -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 7:48:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirstQuaker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


keep in mind that freedom of speech originally only applied to politics in congress.





That c came from parliamentary privilege.



yep its in the articles of confederation!


Article V.

snip

Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.



I keep telling everyone it really is a VERY small world in deed!










Real0ne -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 7:53:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


The first Amendment is quoted above. It says, well, two things, really. The first is that Congress (specifically) is WHO is being prohibited, and the second is that WHAT THEY ARE PROHIBITED FROM DOING is passing laws that ABRIDGE the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right to assemble, or to exercise one's religion, etc.

Heather asked two simple questions. The first was, does the first Amendment really only restrict laws passed by CONGRESS (in other words, does it do nothing to restrict laws passed by state and local governments?) This question was answered earlier in the thread. The links Heather just provided explain why the answer to that question is no. In 1925 the Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment applies to laws made at all levels of government, not just to those made by Congress.

The second question (as i understood it) was, when the 1st Amendment very clearly says that NO LAW MAY BE PASSED that ABRIDGES freedom of speech or religion, then why is the Supreme Court allowed to say, well, it's okay to abridge those freedoms a little bit? Because the Supreme Court obviously does allow certain restrictions on speech and religion to be passed into law. And, while that certainly seems sensible (it would be very difficult to run a country that had absolutely no laws restricting speech or religion), the fact is the Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution, and that's NOT what it says. They are interpreting those words to mean something different than what their literal meaning is, and that's a little bit troublesome.

pam



any restriction of my speech is a violation of my right to free speech.  The state has no authority to govern my speech on any level.


what possible reason would anyone have to allow restriction of speech of any kind?  That makes no sense at all.


get a hair cut!LOL





FirstQuaker -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 8:01:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

And to you FQ, I refer you to this post: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3864741


Please, write us a little dissertation on how the US government supposedly  functions on a constitutional level then. Contrast it with the Westminster parliamentary system for extra points.

Learning that minimal amount was a  required study along with how the Marxist/Leninist 'Soviet' system was supposed to function,  how the Commonwealth and its countries were governed and how the Bolivarian and European republics worked,  in B.C. schools a generation ago

Any Ontario resident who completed school should be able to do so off the top of her head.



FirstQuaker -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 8:04:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirstQuaker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


keep in mind that freedom of speech originally only applied to politics in congress.





That c came from parliamentary privilege.



yep its in the articles of confederation!


Article V.

snip

Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.




They are still evolving. When you take a mix of England, Rome, Switzerland, Athens  and the Iroquois Confederacy and try and brew a republic out of the pieces, you have this sort of fun.



Real0ne -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 8:11:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirstQuaker

They are still evolving. When you take a mix of England, Rome, Switzerland, Athens  and the Iroquois Confederacy and try and brew a republic out of the pieces, you have this sort of fun.




no they aint.

they arent separate either, they are one big happy family between the legisature, judicial and executive.

yeh they have different names and bank accounts so yeh they are legally separate, but in so far as controlling peoples asses they are one big happy family!  and there is awesome money and absolute job security in it too!

when money gets tight you just tell the dumb bastard constiuents you are raising their taxes and if they do not pay you do what the king does take all their property away



Real0ne -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 8:15:19 PM)

america is and always has been governed by legislative fiat and the courts are the gate keepers.

statutes pay well

see nothing has changed over the last thousand years but the "NAMES".   pun intended LOL








Termyn8or -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 8:17:03 PM)

"Heather asked two simple questions."

OK, this response is to you because your brain is functional, but it is actually to all including Heather.

Now if the Constitution is interpreted due to the times in which it was written, let's examine those times a bit. Like the Earth created in seven days when Man had not yet defined days, just what was congress ?

Now it is a given that people in the city should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, despite the second amendment. This is carried to an extreme by our enemies who want to disarm us (your friends want you to be armed), but in that same spirit then, we can all agree that a house less than 100 feet from yours should not have 3,500 pounds of TNT in it, so that means that this is subject to interpretation.

So says the goose, therefore now comes the gander. "Congress" shall pass no law.... OK. If this is considered an inalienable right then that means that they meant all legislatures in the country, city, state, whatever. And this may well be a test for the supreme court because someone has to rule. Or has it been ruled ? Have any of these requirements for permits ever been challenged all the way to the top ?

It could happen really. Now if the court rules in favor of the small town tinhorn dictatorships, which is quite possible, then people will have another rallying point leading to the eventual unrest in this country, and don't think it's not coming. There are more people with guns buried in the hills somewhere than there are federal employees. That is something alot of people do not realize.

But then the court could rule that the people have the right to demonstrate and a city or whatever cannot abrdge that. If so, things will get interesting because for one, they will respond. There would be a rash of new laws about impeding traffic flow, whether pedestrian or wheeled. There would be public peace laws enacted, noise ordinances out the ass making what we have now look like a deaf mute complaining about a string quartet.

In short there would be a reaction. What that reaction might be is not all that predictable because even though I know their motives, I can't predict how they will plan to profit from such an occurrance. They have so many ways.

So we can armchair this thing all year, or someone can make a big stink and see if we can get this heard by the supreme court. Then when the chips fall at least half of the people will not be pleased.

As usual.

ETA : Re : "but it is actually to all including Heather. ", I really didn't mean that how it may sound, OK ? ........

T^T



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625