Free speech vs. taxation without representation

[manifold]

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that determined that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools.

Engel v. Vitale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If your claim is correct, then explain this ruling.

 

[manifold]

When your done with that one, explain this one next.

Cohen v. California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that determined that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools.

Engel v. Vitale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If your claim is correct, then explain this ruling.

I said prove me wrong via the Constitution and our supporting founding documents. Citing me a SCOTUS ruling doesn't cut it. You found a SCOTUS ruling that fit your view. You haven't proved me wrong yet. You had to Google for a possible answer? That tells me you don't know what you are talking about and had to go fishing for an answer.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Try reading my previous post again. Meet the challenge. Can you do it without Googling? Doesn't look like it.

 

[manifold]

Hey everybody, BasicDumbAss thinks he's a greater authority on constitutional application than the Supreme Court!

Perhaps he should check out the Fourteenth Amendment, which had been interpretted to restrict all state and local governments from violating the First Amendment. What an idiot.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Hey everybody, BasicDumbAss thinks he's a greater authority on constitutional application than the Supreme Court!

Perhaps he should check out the Fourteenth Amendment, which had been interpretted to restrict all state and local governments from violating the First Amendment. What an idiot.

I am not an idiot. You cannot meet the challenge. Instead, you come in the thread with an arrogant attitude towards me and insult me. You don't seem to be able to handle real debate.

I didn't ask you for SCOTUS opinion. I asked you to prove me wrong via the Constitution and our supporting founding documents. You don't seem to be able to do that. Calling me names is a clear sign you are losing the debate and have a limited vocabulary. If that makes your night, have at it. If that is the best you can do, you can argue with yourself.

 

[manifold]

Hey everybody, BasicDumbAss thinks he's a greater authority on constitutional application than the Supreme Court!

Perhaps he should check out the Fourteenth Amendment, which had been interpretted to restrict all state and local governments from violating the First Amendment. What an idiot.

I am not an idiot. You cannot meet the challenge. Instead, you come in the thread with an arrogant attitude towards me and insult me. You don't seem to be able to handle real debate.

I didn't ask you for SCOTUS opinion. I asked you to prove me wrong via the Constitution and our supporting founding documents. You don't seem to be able to do that. Calling me names is a clear sign you are losing the debate and have a limited vocabulary. If that makes your night, have at it. If that is the best you can do, you can argue with yourself.

You're right, I can't prove you wrong in your theoretical fantasyland.

But here in the real world, state laws that violate the first amendment get overturned.

 

[del]

Hey everybody, BasicDumbAss thinks he's a greater authority on constitutional application than the Supreme Court!

Perhaps he should check out the Fourteenth Amendment, which had been interpretted to restrict all state and local governments from violating the First Amendment. What an idiot.

states were free to establish official religions until the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868. the practice had died out for the most part in the early 1800's.

OTOH, who cares?

a distinction without a difference

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Hey everybody, BasicDumbAss thinks he's a greater authority on constitutional application than the Supreme Court!

Perhaps he should check out the Fourteenth Amendment, which had been interpretted to restrict all state and local governments from violating the First Amendment. What an idiot.

I am not an idiot. You cannot meet the challenge. Instead, you come in the thread with an arrogant attitude towards me and insult me. You don't seem to be able to handle real debate.

I didn't ask you for SCOTUS opinion. I asked you to prove me wrong via the Constitution and our supporting founding documents. You don't seem to be able to do that. Calling me names is a clear sign you are losing the debate and have a limited vocabulary. If that makes your night, have at it. If that is the best you can do, you can argue with yourself.

You're right, I can't prove you wrong in your theoretical fantasyland.

But here in the real world, state laws that violate the first amendment get overturned.

Applying the Constitution as it should be, is not theoretical fantasyland, in my opinion. If the government is misapplying the Constitution, it is illogical to use that same perversion as foundation for the argument, in my opinion. Supporting such a position only enables the very behavior that shouldn't be happening in the first place.

Just because the government has seen fit to extend its power against the states via judicial fiat, that does not mean that we should keep on accepting it, allowing the federal government to take more and more power from the states. Just because the SCOTUS made a ruling, that doesn't mean they were right nor does it mean that said ruling is forever to be written in stone never to be undone. That is how our system has evolved over the decades. That is not how it is supposed to be.

So many people have grown up believing what you posted, because it was drilled into their head year after year. And sadly, many haven't stopped and questioned. They just keep going about what they are doing, and the government infringement grows.

Thank you for toning down the rhetoric.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This is probably a bit of a stretch, but I couldn't think of the proper words to describe what is going on with the disruptive tea party brigade.

I've been reading that they are disrupting town hall meetings about health care all across the country. While I certainly think they have a right to be assholes, I'm not convinced they have a right to prevent the people that attend these meetings from interacting with their representatives. They are disrupting the free flow of information and IMO are lower than scum.

What do you think?

Ya, HOW DARE THEY voice their opinion.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

[Ravi]

The First Amendment forbids Congress from passing any law... It does not prevent the local and state governments from passing laws that regulate the exercise of the First Amendment.

No...state and local governments cannot violate constitutionally protected rights of American citizens.

I am correct.

"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."

Note "Congress shall make no law..." The restriction is on the federal government not the respective states.

I see it has already been posted but it bears repeating.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

 

[Gunny]

This is probably a bit of a stretch, but I couldn't think of the proper words to describe what is going on with the disruptive tea party brigade.

I've been reading that they are disrupting town hall meetings about health care all across the country. While I certainly think they have a right to be assholes, I'm not convinced they have a right to prevent the people that attend these meetings from interacting with their representatives. They are disrupting the free flow of information and IMO are lower than scum.

What do you think?

Pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I don't adhere to any ideology. I'm an independent thinker and I vote for who I believe will do the least amount of harm. I do find that I favor more of the conservative principles than that of the liberals in that I believe in less government, personal responsibility, national security and I believe that the US is a noble nation that has done far more good than bad.

I can agree with that.

But I don't understand why you seem to want to imply that rule of the majority applies in the United States.

Because in some cases it does as I've pointed out.." a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums"

One example of this is Prop 8 in California where the voters overturned same-sex marriage rights.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

This is probably a bit of a stretch, but I couldn't think of the proper words to describe what is going on with the disruptive tea party brigade.

I've been reading that they are disrupting town hall meetings about health care all across the country. While I certainly think they have a right to be assholes, I'm not convinced they have a right to prevent the people that attend these meetings from interacting with their representatives. They are disrupting the free flow of information and IMO are lower than scum.

What do you think?

Ya, HOW DARE THEY voice their opinion.

I dont think he is complaining about them voicing an opinion. I think he is talking about them acting all code pink and just shouting people down.

Since I dont like the healthcare plan as proposed I dont mind the behavior too much but some video i've seen is out of hand.

They should stick to protesting outside and asking civil, but tough, questions inside.

Shouting people down isn't getting your message out, its marginalizing it.

 

[manifold]

I don't adhere to any ideology. I'm an independent thinker and I vote for who I believe will do the least amount of harm. I do find that I favor more of the conservative principles than that of the liberals in that I believe in less government, personal responsibility, national security and I believe that the US is a noble nation that has done far more good than bad.

I can agree with that.

But I don't understand why you seem to want to imply that rule of the majority applies in the United States.

Because in some cases it does as I've pointed out.." a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums"

One example of this is Prop 8 in California where the voters overturned same-sex marriage rights.

Ok then, perhaps we are in violent agreement. Yes, we do have I believe, 3 avenues of pure democratic process available: Referendum, Petition and Recall. However, the town hall meetings that are the subject of this thread involve none of these. They are basically a dog and pony show trying to sell people on the Obama healthcare reform, but it's not like people get to vote on it. So I accept your point, but stress that in this discussion it is purely academic and only tangentially relevant.

On a side note, here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, our elected leaders tend to ignore referendums and such, making these pure democratic avenues more like dead ends.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I can agree with that.

But I don't understand why you seem to want to imply that rule of the majority applies in the United States.

Because in some cases it does as I've pointed out.." a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums"

One example of this is Prop 8 in California where the voters overturned same-sex marriage rights.

Ok then, perhaps we are in violent agreement. Yes, we do have I believe, 3 avenues of pure democratic process available: Referendum, Petition and Recall. However, the town hall meetings that are the subject of this thread involve none of these. They are basically a dog and pony show trying to sell people on the Obama healthcare reform, but it's not like people get to vote on it. So I accept your point, but stress that in this discussion it is purely academic and only tangentially relevant.

On a side note, here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, our elected leaders tend to ignore referendums and such, making these pure democratic avenues more like dead ends.

True, we don't get to vote on it. However we do get to voice our concerns and displeasures that will, in effect, force the respective representative to bend to the will of the people or risk not being re-elected. And as we all know, elections are won by majority vote.

Has Massachusetts ever been a republic? Or is that just wishful thinking on your part?

I've always thought Massachusetts was officially a "commonwealth".

 

[manifold]

Yes, MA is officially a commonwealth. But in reality it looks, walks and quacks more like a socialist republic.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Yes, MA is officially a commonwealth. But in reality it looks, walks and quacks more like a socialist republic.

I live here.

The govt here tells us you must have insurance or pay a yearly tax/fine to the govt for not having it. I call that govt intrusion but not socialism.

We dont have socialism in my state, we have very liberal legislative and executive politicial tendancies though.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And how is healthcare in Ma.?

MASSACHUSETTS HAS been lauded for its healthcare reform, but the program is a failure. Created solely to achieve universal insurance coverage, the plan does not even begin to address the other essential components of a successful healthcare system.

Mass. healthcare reform is failing us - The Boston Globe''

BOSTON — The new state budget in Massachusetts eliminates health care coverage for some 30,000 legal immigrants to help close a growing deficit, reversing progress toward universal coverage just as Congress looks to the state as a model for overhauling the nation’s health care system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/us/15insure.html

WASHINGTON - The Massachusetts health care system, widely regarded as an example of how to provide universal coverage and keep costs low, is in fact faltering badly and should not be held up as a national model for reform, according to a study released this week by Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) and Public Citizen.

Massachusetts is no model for national health care reform | Physicians for a National Health Program