Should states outlaw Scientology?

[Stormy Daniels]

Scientology is protected under the 1st Amendment

So the federal government can't outlaw it. But I'm talking about states outlawing it.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

They can't, they have to follow the constitution.

If the courts get to decide that "follow the constitution" means making up new things that the constitution doesn't say, then sure. But my point would still be true.

 

[2aguy]

So the federal government can't outlaw it. But I'm talking about states outlawing it.

Nope....the Bill of Rights applies to the states........slavery is outlawed....the states can't have slavery simply because they do it at the state level.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

No. They can't make a change just because they want to do so.

But that's what the courts have done. The 1st amendment never applied to the states, only to the federal government. In fact, the Supreme Court repeatedly affirmed that fact for decades. But later, the courts simply made a change because they wanted to.

 

[buckeye45_73]

If the courts get to decide that "follow the constitution" means making up new things that the constitution doesn't say, then sure. But my point would still be true.

They can't, they will try, but eventually it will be struck down, like Roe.....it's not in there, but to the people thinking guns can be, it can't, it's in the constitution and that really really pisses them off.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Nope....the Bill of Rights applies to the states.

Only because the Supreme Court to it upon itself to legislate it that way.

slavery is outlawed....the states can't have slavery simply because they do it at the state level.

Slavery is not part of the bill of rights.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

No. You’ve been through this. However, you remain wrong.

• First Amendment (fully incorporated)
  • Guarantee against the establishment of religion: Everson v Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
  • Free Exercise of Religion: Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California, 293 U.S. 245 (1934), Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)
  • Freedom of Speech: Gitlow v. New York 268 U.S. 652 (1925)
  • Freedom of the Press: Near v. Minnesota 283 U.S. 697 (1931)
  • Right of Assembly and Petition: DeJonge v. Oregon 299 U.S. 353 (1937)
  • Freedom of expressive association: Even though not directly mentioned in the Amendment, See Roberts v. United States Jaycees 468 U.S. 609 (1984) where the court states that “implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment is a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious and cultural ends.”

incorporation doctrine

www.law.cornell.edu

I’m absolutely certain that when the SCOTUS saw fit to incorporate every provision of the 1st Amendment over time, they were well aware of what they were doing and saying. In short, you unquestionably remain wrong.

Boy, that 14Th Amendment and the Due Process clause just mystify you, Drizzle. It seems to confuse the snot out of you that the Amendments ARE part OF the Constitution.

It wasn’t the Court making the law. It was the 14th Amendment itself which flatly commands: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ….”

 

[2aguy]

Only because the Supreme Court to it upon itself to legislate it that way.



Slavery is not part of the bill of rights.

The Bill of Rights doesn't create or protect Rights....they simply list some of them......we have those Rights regardless of the level of government.......states have no "Right," to deny us of those listed in the Bill of Rights.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Only because the Supreme Court to it upon itself to legislate it that way.



Slavery is not part of the bill of rights.

Any Amendment works, they are all part of the same constitution.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

They can't, they will try, but eventually it will be struck down, like Roe.

What are you talking about? It's already done. The only reason the Bill of Rights is enforced against the states is because the court has already changed the constitution.

But you're right about one thing. It was wrong for the Supreme Court to change the constitution by incorporating the Bill of Rights to the states, and it needs to be overturned.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

states have no "Right," to deny us of those listed in the Bill of Rights.

Actually, they can. Because the Bill of Rights doesn't restrict states governments, only the federal government.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

No. You’ve been through this. However, you remain wrong.

• First Amendment (fully incorporated)
  • Guarantee against the establishment of religion: Everson v Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
  • Free Exercise of Religion: Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California, 293 U.S. 245 (1934), Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)
  • Freedom of Speech: Gitlow v. New York 268 U.S. 652 (1925)
  • Freedom of the Press: Near v. Minnesota 283 U.S. 697 (1931)
  • Right of Assembly and Petition: DeJonge v. Oregon 299 U.S. 353 (1937)
  • Freedom of expressive association: Even though not directly mentioned in the Amendment, See Roberts v. United States Jaycees 468 U.S. 609 (1984) where the court states that “implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment is a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious and cultural ends.”

incorporation doctrine

www.law.cornell.edu

I’m absolutely certain that when the SCOTUS saw fit to incorporate every provision of the 1st Amendment over time, they were well aware of what they were doing and saying. In short, you unquestionably remain wrong.

Boy, that 14Th Amendment and the Due Process clause just mystify you, Drizzle. It seems to confuse the snot out of you that the Amendments ARE part OF the Constitution.

It wasn’t the Court making the law. It was the 14th Amendment itself which flatly commands: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ….”

*yawn*

You are making my point. The Supreme Court changed the meaning of the constitution because it wanted to. It created new things that never were there, and things that the Supreme Court itself had already rejected.

 

[buckeye45_73]

What are you talking about? It's already done. The only reason the Bill of Rights is enforced against the states is because the court has already changed the constitution.

But you're right about one thing. It was wrong for the Supreme Court to change the constitution by incorporating the Bill of Rights to the states, and it needs to be overturned.

Again, you're wrong. It's in the Constitution, the Constitution supercedes the state laws.....I just posted the link.

And what are the bill of rights? Admendments to that constiution.

And what are Amendments? They are changes to the Constitution through the process describe in the Constitution....so amendments are the constitution...there is no difference between the constitution and it's amendments.


How is this hard. How can you say the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states, on what basis?

 

[BackAgain]

*yawn*

You are making my point. The Supreme Court changed the meaning of the constitution because it wanted to. It created new things that never were there, and things that the Supreme Court itself had already rejected.

You’re unable to make a point. The only point is that the Constitution commanded the result. So, not only are you wrong and rather stupid, but stubbornly so.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The only point is that the Constitution commanded the result.

False. The Supreme Court invented the result, even after the Supreme Court had rejected the very same result.

 

[BackAgain]

False. The Supreme Court invented the result, even after the Supreme Court had rejected the very same result.

False. The 14th Amendment commands it:

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ….” End of story.

 

[buckeye45_73]

False. The 14th Amendment commands it:

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ….” End of story.

And that's on top of Article 6 Section 2 of the Constitution......which clearly states. The Constitution (and federal laws) overrule ANY state law or State Constitution.

 

[BackAgain]

And that's on top of Article 6 Section 2 of the Constitution......which clearly states. The Constitution (and federal laws) overrule ANY state law or State Constitution.

Shhh. Drizzle is confused enough.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

False. The 14th Amendment commands it:

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ….” End of story.

The 14th amendment requires equal protection of citizens. The states cannot outlaw black people from engaging in Scientology, while allowing white people to do so. Cruishank made this pretty clear.

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....For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and it has never been surrendered to the United States.

 

[Soupnazi630]

That's the thing, you don't have to. Because you can go to another state. Plus, the constitution applies to the federal government, not the states.

Wrong.

The BOR applies to ALL states