Posted on 09/19/2013 3:20:48 PM PDT by digger48
That is no doubt their goal. But it didn't really work out that way for Vlad's peeps, now did it? Uprooted seeds all over the place.
HOWEVER ...
While I'm giving Mr. Van Tuinen the benefit of the doubt in this case, there is a question if both he and the Fx News person who wrote the article do not understand that the Founding States had never intended for our constitutionally protected rights to be absolute.
More specifically, as I have mentioned in related threads, Thomas Jefferson had noted that the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment in part to clarify that the Founding States had reserved government power to reasonably regulate our constitutionally protected freedoms to themselves, regardless that they had also made the 1st Amendment in part to prohibit such powers entirely to Congress.
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed; (emphasis added) …" --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.
Note that 10th Amendment protected state power to regulate things like free speech is now limited by the 14th Amendment.
So what we may seeing in Mr. Van Tuinen's case is a possible violation of zoning code on Mr. Van Tuinen's part, or local codes that are either too strict or are being interpreted too strictly by law enforcement personnel.
Again, when a college-indoctrinated reporter is not familiar with the nuances of our constitutionally protected freedoms then we can essentially expect an incomplete report which makes it harder to judge the situation.
More broadly, my point was really about businesses and restaurants. If a pizza place were to hang a sign that said "No Spanish allowed", I would have no problem with it -- and I think the Constitution would have no problem with it. Sure, it might be a stupid business decision, and a lot of people would freak out, but if a restaurants wants to restrict my speech, I would shrug and move along.
I just think it's worth pointing out that the Constitution limits the federal government: not us. In this particular case, if the junior college is a (state) government institution, then I guess I see that they did a bad thing.
I agree with the point about the restaurant. I think government overreaches when they prohibit a pizza place from doing as you suggest (they do prohibit it in a lot of cites, and it ticks me off).
But under the 14th Amendment, the State Governments are bound by the same Constitution as the Federal Government. This interpretation of the 14th has led to a lot of mischief, but we’re seeing some good results when this principle is applied to the second amendment. In the end, however, this College will get away with this.
Excellent.
Thank you gibsosa. I made that several years ago and I still like to watch it and the message it brings.
If he had been wearing a Keffiyeh or Burkha they wouldn’t have even bothered him...
Yep.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
