Posted on 12/14/2007 11:32:59 AM PST by RDTF
Note that Madison understood full well that the First Amendment depended on the existence of the Third Amendment. From time to time I post the whole argument that links the First, Second and Third together as a rational basis for LIBERTY.
A poster just above argued that James Madison, who wrote the Bill of Rights, said the federal government had no right to shut this woman up. By extension neither do the states, and certainly not that neighborhood.
Some actually prefer the colorful "grill".
Now, regarding early pornography, there are these drawings done in the 7th, 8th, 9th century in Scandinavia ~ incredible ~ all with a political implication in fact.
Political porn is the foundation of politics in Western civilization (in part).
i.e., I was anticipitating cursing in public!
Local governments have limits on their authority to regulate profanity (see post #97). The judge ruled correctly in this case.
The constitution is a limitation on federal power, not state power:
Constitutional Law is based on a formal document that defines broad powers. Federal constitutional law originates from the U.S. constitution. State constitutional law originates from the individual state constitutions.
Statutes and Ordinances are legislation passed on the federal, state, or local levels.
The US constitution had no jurisdiction and was irrelevant to Ms. Herb's case and it is important for you to understand that.
In my neighborhood it is understood that when a man starts working on something, he will have an audience of other men in a short time.
Now its going to drive me crazy knowing that you will be working on your car and I probably have a tool that you need.
I can hear a mitre saw from a mile away and my brand new 18volt lithium ion combo kit cries out to me until I can’t take it anymore and I have to go investigate.
Wrong with regard to state power.
1. See Art. I, Sec. 10. The phrase "No State shall..." appears 3 times, IIRC.
2. Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment XIV: 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.
Constitutional Law is based on a formal document that defines broad powers. Federal constitutional law originates from the U.S. constitution. State constitutional law originates from the individual state constitutions.
Correct.
Statutes and Ordinances are legislation passed on the federal, state, or local levels.
Correct again.
The US constitution had no jurisdiction and was irrelevant to Ms. Herb's case and it is important for you to understand that.
Wrong.
Article VI: 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's 2 out of 4 correct, with some fundamental misunderstandings in your incorrect answers. Recommended remedial reading:
dang
You're referring to the section that deals with trade, or a FEDERAL matter. Unless, you're trying to make a connection through interstate commerce? It's been done before, so who could blame you for trying again, but some of us conservatives haven't given up trying to point out that the interstate clause is a judicial over reach.
2. Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people...
...should they decide that they want to define public decorum.
For instance, when the first draft of the first amendment was written, it was feared that it was too stringent and would force the closure of the then established state religions, demonstrating that the first amendment was to limit the federal establishment of religion, but not the state established religions.
I rest my case.
Article XIV: 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.
Of course, we were talking about the first amendment and the framer's intent. Interesting that you are finally able to buttress your belief in the supremacy of the central government with the amendment that was fraudulently ratified by the "great centralizer 80 years later." It appears, however, that you missed this escape clause, "... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Besides never being lawfully ratified, the fourteenth amendment has other problems in that it attempts to circumvent congressional ability to define the jurisdiction of the courts and making illegals equivalent to citizens. In summary, swearing at your toilet isn't polite social behavior, but let's not make a federal issue out of it, okay?
This is a good ruling, considering profanity is the official language of plumbing.
I cited I.10 as one of the counterpoints to your claim that the Constitution only limits the feds. I have no idea why you brought the Commerce Clause into this.
For the record, I agree with Justice Thomas, rather than Justice Scalia, on the original meaning of the Commerce Clause.
Which of the two do you think has it right?
...the amendment that was fraudulently ratified by the "great centralizer 80 years later."
My favorite Justice, Clarence Thomas, appears to accept XIV as legitimate:
Justice Washington's opinion in Corfield indisputably influenced the Members of Congress who enacted the Fourteenth Amendment. When Congress gathered to debate the Fourteenth Amendment, members frequently, if not as a matter of course, appealed to Corfield, arguing that the Amendment was necessary to guarantee the fundamental rights that Justice Washington identified in his opinion.
--Saenz v Roe
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.