FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
There are hundreds of FReepers who have said exactly the same things for many years.
So does that mean that the mayor or city council of my town can pass a city ordinance prohibiting criticism of the city government?
I’d rather the first amendment apply to all levels of government.
for later
The Constitution itself is based on a presumption expressed in the Declaration of Independence - that individuals are born with a God-given right to life, liberty, and pursuits. The presumption is expressed in the 10th Amendment that wherever powers the states did not delegate to the federal government remains a power of the states and the people.
Over the years beginning around 1900, the Fabian Progressive Socialists have inverted this presumption and essentially nullified the 10th Amendment and have instead used a twisted application of the 14th Amendment to justify federal power to restrain states and individuals. But the 14th Amendment only gives the federal government power in one specific area to enforce over the states: forbidding state laws forcing segregation. This original intent was confirmed by SCOTUS in the Slaughterhouse cases in the 1800's.
The Constitution and the first ten amendments are pointed at limiting the federal government, not giving the federal government power to enforce over the states with the one exception in the 14th Amendment. If the feds won't overturn these unconstitutional, precedent-breaking decisions of the 1900's, then state courts should begin nullifying back to the original SCOUTS decisions of the 1800's that kept the Constitution intact and the federal government in its constitutional cage.
I don’t like this ruling at all. The reason is, it will force the recognition of non-Christian prayers (you see those drooling atheists out there?) The ruling made it clear that the prayers was permitted ONLY because it was non-discriminatory.
Having litigated many a Constitutional issue, the First Amendment applies to any government restriction. That was not how this was ruled.
I remember years ago, I taught a Sunday School class about prayer in school. I was, at least at the beginning of the class, the only one against it and was typically known as the most conservative member of the Congregation. In the end, I made it clear that ... rest assured, it will NOT end up being the Prayer you want.
The Constitution thinks long term. That’s it’s genius and inspiration. That’s the “God” in it. This is a short term decision. This can be used to stifle our beliefs.
Be careful what you wish for ...
Correct! And the Equal Protection of Amendment XIV ensures that this unique protection against Congress is to be applied equally to all citizens. That was the intent in 1787. It was the intent after the War of Secession. And it should ring true today.
Bm
But in becomes a two edge sword regarding speech. .that means everyone but congress can limit speech..
It means everyone on but congress can establish a local religion.
And if you apply to guns..
It means everyone but congress is free to take them from you.
Truth is we live in a world of government and buercrat anarchy...
There a collection of federal, state & local agencies can do to you whatever then dam well please at their whim and toss enough legal BS justification spin that they get away with it.
They have a very low and tight lid screwed on the jar grasshopper
——Congress and Congress alone is bound down by the chains of the First Amendment.——
Now if we could bound down Obama and his EO’s
The man thinks he is King.....
Profoundly true and most problematic when, for example, the Islamic lobby pushes campus code-type laws and restraints, as far as state constitutions allow, at the state level.
It and the Constitution limits ALL of the Federal Government.
Bkmk
At the moment, though, a typical state operates like a smaller version of the federal government with all the same potential abuses of power.
Perhaps what we need are city rights or town rights. People could then pick and choose the town or city that's right for them, or incorporate a new town or city. Reducing the restraints on any government larger than that though is just too dangerous.
Wily decision: the court ruled that the states couldn't restrict free speech because that First Amendment right was "incorporated" at the state level by the Fourteenth Amendment, but Gitlow still lost his appeal because he advocated violent overthrow of the government.
There are PLENTY OF STATES which will welcome atheists...there is no need to shove them down the throats of those states that don’t want that crap.
In recent times, we have learned that local governments and schools have been making special accommodations to Muslims. Where before, any number of groups would have virulently fought any special accommodations to Christian groups, there is a strange silence regarding Muslims. By its ruling, the courts have now wiped away potentially thousands of lawsuits by religious groups or their opponents regarding prayer or religious services in public meetings or school facilities.
I think the fights now are not whether prayer or religious matters can be considered in Government buildings, but whether one religious group can be excluded while a different religious group can be championed.
"Freedom is the sure possession of those alone
who have the courage to defend it."~Pericles
Please support Free Republic
click the pic
