New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The first Amendment

fxstc

fxstc

Council Member
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.

For debate only


Specifically,
CONGRESS shall make no law......(meaning one way or another)

Question. (only an example)

May a TOWN or a STATE ban or restrict religion, freedom of speech.
and or the right to petition?
 
They can, but it wont hold up to a legal challenge.
Remember all those communities trying to prevent the building of Muslim Mosques?
 
fxstc said:
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.

For debate only


Specifically,
CONGRESS shall make no law......(meaning one way or another)
Click to expand...
Wrong. Remember the narrowness of "respecting the establishment of religion

Question. (only an example)

May a TOWN or a STATE ban or restrict religion, freedom of speech.
and or the right to petition?
Click to expand...

Is this civics 101? Please. This was argued back and forth initially with most of the ratifiers arguing that it precluded states as well (local towns are extensions of the state from a constitutional perspective)

It was solved by
  1. The Civil War
  2. Texas v White
  3. the 14th Amendment's Incorporation clause.



this brought to you courtesy of your local 11th Grade Civics class
 
OldGaffer said:
They can, but it wont hold up to a legal challenge.
Remember all those communities trying to prevent the building of Muslim Mosques?
Click to expand...

This was settled when the Incorporation clause of hte 14th Ammendment was ratified. FvckStick is just showing off his ignornace of The Constitution and basic Civics.
 
degsme said:
Wrong. Remember the narrowness of "respecting the establishment of religion



Is this civics 101? Please. This was argued back and forth initially with most of the ratifiers arguing that it precluded states as well (local towns are extensions of the state from a constitutional perspective)

It was solved by
  1. The Civil War
  2. Texas v White
  3. the 14th Amendment's Incorporation clause.



this brought to you courtesy of your local 11th Grade Civics class
Click to expand...

It may or may not have been argued amongest the framers, but their arguments are not incorporated into the 1st.
 
fxstc said:
It may or may not have been argued amongest the framers, but their arguments are not incorporated into the 1st.
Click to expand...




"This was argued back and forth initially with most of the ratifiers arguing that it precluded states as well"

That is what I am talking about.
 
No they were incorporated into the 5th Amendment's Due Process clause. Note that Am 5's Due process is not limited to Congress. Thus the rights protections were expected to extend into states as well. Pro-Slavery (aka "states rights") advocates sought a way around that and hence you had the arguement.

Which was settled by the combination of the three things I cited.
 
fxstc said:
"This was argued back and forth initially with most of the ratifiers arguing that it precluded states as well"

That is what I am talking about.
Click to expand...
Except its meaningless. Since the basis for that arguement really was slave holders. And Am 5's Due Process extends those rights protections (as it was "intended to") but FOR CLARIFICATION the "incorporation clause" applies this explicitly to the states after ratification of Am 14.

So its a meaningless bit of nonsnes you are talking about.
 
fxstc said:
So, civic laws have bypassed the constitution?
Click to expand...
Nope. But Freedom of religion does not give you the ability to violate the due process rights of others and to violate civic laws. Civic laws derive from Constitutional authority as well. Its called "the balance of rights and authorities". Its a long understood (back to 1787) Constitutional principal. And only those arguing about angels on a pinhead don't understand this.
 
worldlymrb said:
Civic laws trump first amendment?
Click to expand...

Nope. But neither does 1st amendment trump other parts of the Constitutional authorities or other individual rights.

So if you can practice your faith in your place of worship fine. If you want to run a business also fine. If you want to run a business though you have to abide by CIVIC laws. Since no one compells you to engage CIVICALLY, your religious rights are not trampled if civic laws limit your PUBLIC representation of religion.
 
By the same token, civic laws do not give you the ability to censor religious speech or supersede constitutional rights.
 
degsme said:
Except its meaningless. Since the basis for that arguement really was slave holders. And Am 5's Due Process extends those rights protections (as it was "intended to") but FOR CLARIFICATION the "incorporation clause" applies this explicitly to the states after ratification of Am 14.

So its a meaningless bit of nonsnes you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Meaningless nonsense that I am talking about??
You brought it up, and it doesnt even address the gist of the TP
 
worldlymrb said:
By the same token, civic laws do not give you the ability to censor religious speech or supersede constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Why not?
Congress shall not and will not pass a law one way or another.
Thats the point of the TP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top