Should states outlaw Scientology?

[BackAgain]

Yes. That's exactly what the constitution was created to do. This isn't even in dispute by anyone other than uneducated fools like you. It is fully settled law.



Look, I've already pointed out Supreme Court precedents going back nearly 200 years on this. Under the constitution as originally created, the Bill of Rights was only pressing upon the federal government. The people had to look to their state governments to create constitutions that satisfied the people of the individual states. It was only after the passage of the 14th amendment that incorporation doctrine appeared. And even then, it's been a long and drawn out process.

Incorporation doctrine is nothing more than changing the constitution's meaning over time when it suits the judiciary to do so.

It's quite revealing how angry you are about this.

You are delusional. Before the 14th Amendment the Bill of Rights was designed to constrain the Federal Government. It was the centralized Federal government which was feared. The states already had bills of rights of their own by and large, you abysmally ignorant dolt.

After the 14th Amendment, the incorporation doctrine was crafted to make sure that the new Amendments would be binding on the states some of which would likely otherwise have ignored them.

Later, the other Amendments (actually specific provisions of some of them over time) got incorporated so that there could be no question that no States could deny equal protection of any Constitutional Amendments (or their various provisions) to the people.

Your silly thesis is that it is judicial activism. You’re dopey. What grade school did you fail out of?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

It even states in the 10th Amendment, if it's not in THIS Constitution, it goes to the states.

See, you are just incredibly sloppy. You take three words, construct fifty more around them, and just say whatever you want. It's hard to figure out whether you are intentionally being stupid, or if you are sincerely uneducated.

The 10th amendment states that POWERS that are not DELEGATED to the federal government by the constitution are RETAINED by the states.

Absolutely no part of the 10th amendment says that powers PROHIBITED from the federal government are also prohibited from the states.

You know, on second thought, I this has to be intentional on your part. I have very clearly explained the whole thing forward and backward, and you are deliberately avoiding the glaring and most damning piece of evidence that has been staring you straight in the eye.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

See, you are just incredibly sloppy. You take three words, construct fifty more around them, and just say whatever you want. It's hard to figure out whether you are intentionally being stupid, or if you are sincerely uneducated.

The 10th amendment states that POWERS that are not DELEGATED to the federal government by the constitution are RETAINED by the states.

Absolutely no part of the 10th amendment says that powers PROHIBITED from the federal government are also prohibited from the states.

You know, on second thought, I this has to be intentional on your part. I have very clearly explained the whole thing forward and backward, and you are deliberately avoiding the glaring and most damning piece of evidence that has been staring you straight in the eye.

No, but you have been shown that the 14th Amendment does on numerous occasions!

 

[Stormy Daniels]

After the 14th Amendment, the incorporation doctrine was crafted to make sure that the new Amendments would be binding on the states some of which would likely otherwise have ignored them.

No. We've already been through this. In Cruishank the Supreme Court very explicitly rejected and repudiated that theory.

The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone. Barron v. The City of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 250; Lessee of Livingston v. Moore, id., 551; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 434; Smith v. Maryland, 18 id. 76; Withers v. Buckley, 20 id. 90; Pervear v. The Commonwealth, 5 Wall. 479; Twitchell v. The Commonwealth, 7 id. 321; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 id. 557. It is now too late to question the correctness of this construction. As was said by the late Chief Justice, in Twitchell v. The Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 325, "the scope and application of these amendments are no longer subjects of discussion here." They left the authority of the States just where they found it, and added nothing to the already existing powers of the United States.

 

[buckeye45_73]

See, you are just incredibly sloppy. You take three words, construct fifty more around them, and just say whatever you want. It's hard to figure out whether you are intentionally being stupid, or if you are sincerely uneducated.

The 10th amendment states that POWERS that are not DELEGATED to the federal government by the constitution are RETAINED by the states.

Absolutely no part of the 10th amendment says that powers PROHIBITED from the federal government are also prohibited from the states.

You know, on second thought, I this has to be intentional on your part. I have very clearly explained the whole thing forward and backward, and you are deliberately avoiding the glaring and most damning piece of evidence that has been staring you straight in the eye.

No I'm not

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives

www.archives.gov

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

That is the US Constitution Article 6 (VI) Section 2 (II)

It is IN the US Constitution....that is supercedes ANY state law or Constitution......And this is not an amendment, this was IN the ACTUAL Constitution......

So I have told you about the Supremacy clause, there it is in writing. I don't make shit up. The US Constitution overrides ANY law in the US, ANY LAW......and ALWAYS HAS.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No. We've already been through this. In Cruishank the Supreme Court very explicitly rejected and repudiated that theory.

The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone. Barron v. The City of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 250; Lessee of Livingston v. Moore, id., 551; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 434; Smith v. Maryland, 18 id. 76; Withers v. Buckley, 20 id. 90; Pervear v. The Commonwealth, 5 Wall. 479; Twitchell v. The Commonwealth, 7 id. 321; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 id. 557. It is now too late to question the correctness of this construction. As was said by the late Chief Justice, in Twitchell v. The Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 325, "the scope and application of these amendments are no longer subjects of discussion here." They left the authority of the States just where they found it, and added nothing to the already existing powers of the United States.

Will you please learn to read?

"Decades after Cruikshank, the Supreme Court began incorporating the Bill of Rights to apply to state governments. The Court incorporated the First Amendment's freedom of assembly in De Jonge v. Oregon (1937), while the Second Amendment was incorporated in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)."

United States v. Cruikshank - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Will you please learn to read?

"Decades after Cruikshank, the Supreme Court began incorporating the Bill of Rights to apply to state governments. The Court incorporated the First Amendment's freedom of assembly in De Jonge v. Oregon (1937), while the Second Amendment was incorporated in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)."

United States v. Cruikshank - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Right. So....it changed. Over time. The 14th amendment didn't incorporate the Bill of Rights onto the states. Activist judges have been doing that across 150 years.

 

[iceberg]

Let's say 25 states outlaw Scientology. That's fine, right? Anyone who wants to be a Scientologist can just move to another state, right?

There is no deeply held tradition in this country to engage in Scientology, so it's actually fine to outlaw it.

That's a stretch Armstrong in extra heavy duty proportions.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Right. So....it changed. Over time. The 14th amendment didn't incorporate the Bill of Rights onto the states. Activist judges have been doing that across 150 years.

But you are claiming that it never did, you freak!

 

[buckeye45_73]

Right. So....it changed. Over time. The 14th amendment didn't incorporate the Bill of Rights onto the states. Activist judges have been doing that across 150 years.

I just showed you. The Constitution as written, even before the Bill of Rights (meaning anything in the constitution or ANY amendment to the Constitution) is supreme. If it is in the Constitution it overrides the states, I really don't understand how you don't get it. It's literrally in the Constitution which was ratified by every state at the time and every state that enters the union has to abide by it.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

But you are claiming that it never did, you freak!

To be more accurate, I am arguing that if the courts can make this change just because they want to, then they can make any other change just because they want to.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

That's a stretch Armstrong in extra heavy duty proportions.

No, it's a consequence.

 

[HenryBHough]

One person's religion is another person's cult.
Cults are dangerous.
It's tempting to outlaw cults.
The Democrat party is obviously a cult bent on controlling the minds of children and murdering those it fears might not "join up".
They could protect themselves by claiming to be a a religion.
But they won't.
Indeed, anti-cult laws could be an important move toward bring liberty back to America!

 

[buckeye45_73]

To be more accurate, I am arguing that if the courts can make this change just because they want to, then they can make any other change just because they want to.

They can't, they have to follow the constitution......That's why if you want abortion, you need to pass an amendment or a federal law........

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

To be more accurate, I am arguing that if the courts can make this change just because they want to, then they can make any other change just because they want to.

No. They can't make a change just because they want to do so. Your argument was never in that direction, because it would be wrong. The court can only hear cases that have submitted and approve to rule upon. My God, you need a class in civics and government.

 

[iceberg]

No, it's a consequence.

It's a forced idea and a bad analogy.

 

[2aguy]

Let's say 25 states outlaw Scientology. That's fine, right? Anyone who wants to be a Scientologist can just move to another state, right?

There is no deeply held tradition in this country to engage in Scientology, so it's actually fine to outlaw it.

Scientology is protected under the 1st Amendment...killing a baby is not.

 

[2aguy]

Youre asking the wrong people if you are directing this to conservatives. They would gladly outlaw Scientology because anything that is outside of their morals or philosophy is something that must be eliminated. They don’t have actual principles.

Liberals would say “well Scientology is fucking stupid but we do have freedom of religion in this country so it shouldn’t be outlawed.”

and yet not one conservative is saying to outlaw it....

I am as conservative as it gets...I am an American Conservative which means I actually believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.........so any attempt to ban a religion is a violation of our Bill of Rights......

So you are an idiot to even suggest it.

 

[2aguy]

The IRS should remove Scientology's tax-exempt status, for sure. They are not a religion.

Define religion.........

We will wait and grow old as you attempt to do this...

 

[2aguy]

I think a case could be made that Scientology is an organized criminal enterprise.

You could do that...but that is different from banning them simply because you do not like them...