Incorporation via the 14th Amendment

[misterman]

They can't make laws which abridge the expression and practice of religion.

Right. But this isn't a law, it's a regulation, remember?

Do you get the point yet?

Public displays of religious symbols does not abridge the expression and practice of religion. Thus the People are not forbidden from erecting such symbols on their public land if they so choose. Making a law prohibiting that is a violation of the 1st as it is a law which abridges the expression and practice of religion (mostly expression in this case)

You're jumping ahead again.

 

[misterman]

Okay, to address the issue of whether religious displays actually violate the First Amendment. We might be thinking of different scenarios.

Scenario 1: A church asks to put up a display on public land. The government says okay. The government's policy is that anyone of any religion can put up a similar display. The government doesn't pay for the display with tax funds.

Just fine. People excercising their right to religious practice.

Scenario 2: The government buys a big display and puts it up. No other displays are allowed.

That's much much closer to establishment of religion. The government is paying for and putting up official religious displays and excluding all others.

 

[Ikari]

Right. But this isn't a law, it's a regulation, remember?

It doesn't matter. If the Congress doesn't posses the authority from the start, it cannot grant the authority to a sub-section of itself.

Do you get the point yet?

Do you? Because you're trying to make a point for policy change based on an extreme example. And doing so rarely results in anything good.

You're jumping ahead again.

Nope, it's all the same thing. Do you get the point yet?

 

[Ikari]

Scenario 1: A church asks to put up a display on public land. The government says okay. The government's policy is that anyone of any religion can put up a similar display. The government doesn't pay for the display with tax funds.

Just fine. People excercising their right to religious practice.

If the people of the community authorize it, then it's fine.

Scenario 2: The government buys a big display and puts it up. No other displays are allowed.

That's much much closer to establishment of religion. The government is paying for and putting up official religious displays and excluding all others.

If the people of the community authorize it, then it's fine.

 

[misterman]

It doesn't matter. If the Congress doesn't posses the authority from the start, it cannot grant the authority to a sub-section of itself.

Exactly.

So, could Congress give the Bureau of Land Management the authority to impose an official religion on public land?

 

[misterman]

If the people of the community authorize it, then it's fine.

If the people of the community authorize it, then it's fine.

No. Absolutely, totally wrong. The people may not violate the Constitution. They may not use the government to do so. Public land policy is set by the government. These are all very simple truths. If you can't grasp them, I don't know what else to say except you'd be laughed out of court if you tried them there.

 

[Ikari]

Exactly.

So, could Congress give the Bureau of Land Management the authority to impose an official religion on public land?

Why are you repeating this ad nauseum? If Congress does not have the power to make law infringing upon the freedom of expression and practice of religion, it cannot grant that authority to any other branch. Public displays of religious symbols is not a law nor does it infringe upon the freedom of expression and practice of religion. As such, the People are free to erect whatever religious display they wish on their public land.

 

[Ikari]

No. Absolutely, totally wrong. The people may not violate the Constitution. They may not use the government to do so. Public land policy is set by the government. These are all very simple truths. If you can't grasp them, I don't know what else to say except you'd be laughed out of court if you tried them there.

The People are not violating the Constitution. There is no law violating the freedom of expression and practice of religion in that circumstance. Thus it is not a violation of the Constitution. There are no rights infringed upon by the display of religious symbol on public land.

 

[misterman]

If Congress does not have the power to make law infringing upon the freedom of expression and practice of religion, it cannot grant that authority to any other branch.

Exactly. Including when it comes to management of public land.

Public displays of religious symbols is not a law nor does it infringe upon the freedom of expression and practice of religion. As such, the People are free to erect whatever religious display they wish on their public land.

You just can't seem to grasp the fact that every decision the people make about public land happens through the authority of the government, which is bound by the First Amendment. It's really quite amazing.

And you're STILL on that silly "law" thing.

I'm sorry, but I'm not used to dealing with people who require fundamental education about this stuff. I know that sounds arrogant, but so be it. You have some really whacky ideas about law, and they are completely unaccepted in any courtroom or law school. It's clear that further debate with you is pointless.

 

[Ikari]

You just can't seem to grasp the fact that every decision the people make about public land happens through the authority of the government, which is bound by the First Amendment. It's really quite amazing.

You still don't seem to grasp the fact that the authority the government wields is wield through the People. Government itself has no innate authority. Everything it has it has through the power and consent of the People. It's really quite amazing.

And you're STILL on that silly "law" thing.

It's what the first amendment states. Congress can make no law in respect to the free exercise and practice of religion. Putting religious displays on public land is not a law which abridges the free exercise and practice of religion. As such, it's not unconstitutional. It's consideration of the whole, not out of context parts which is the basis of your argument. If it doesn't abridge the expression and practice of religion, it's not unconstitutional as it relates to the 1st amendment.

I'm sorry, but I'm not used to dealing with people who require fundamental education about this stuff. I know that sounds arrogant, but so be it. You have some really whacky ideas about law, and they are completely unaccepted in any courtroom or law school. It's clear that further debate with you is pointless.

Appeal to authority and run away if you like. It's up to you. You've simply been unable to properly construct an argument which refutes what I said.

 

[misterman]

Government itself has no innate authority.

:roll:

Okay, I'll leave you with this. The people have authority - over the government. The government is bound by the First Amendment. The people can't bypass that.

And all authority exercised by the government is ultimately in the form of laws. It's called the rule of law.

Really, there's nothing more to say.

 

[misterman]

As for appeal to authority, that's what all discussions about law are, because in the real world they are settled by authorities, usually in court.

 

[Ikari]

:roll:

Okay, I'll leave you with this. The people have authority - over the government. The government is bound by the First Amendment. The people can't bypass that.

And all authority exercised by the government is ultimately in the form of laws. It's called the rule of law.

Really, there's nothing more to say.

Exactly. The government is bound by the First Amendment. The People cannot bypass that. The First Amendment says that Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment and practice of religion. The 14th applies it to State government as well. The State's Congress cannot pass a law which infringes upon the free establishment and practice of religion either. As the display of religious symbols on community public land does not abridge the establishment and practicing of religion (let alone is not a law passed by the State congress), it's not unconstitutional.

 

[Ikari]

As for appeal to authority, that's what all discussions about law are, because in the real world they are settled by authorities, usually in court.

Nothing prevents the courts from violating the Constitution. They can be equally corrupt as the other branches.

 

[misterman]

Okay, fine, one more stab at it.

Exactly. The government is bound by the First Amendment. The People cannot bypass that.

Right.

The First Amendment says that Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment and practice of religion. The 14th applies it to State government as well. The State's Congress cannot pass a law which infringes upon the free establishment and practice of religion either.

Okay.

As the display of religious symbols on community public land does not abridge the establishment and practicing of religion (let alone is not a law passed by the State congress), it's not unconstitutional.

But that's a different issue.

At least you're finally, finally admitting that public land management, like any government function, must follow the Constitution. I think.

 

[misterman]

Nothing prevents the courts from violating the Constitution. They can be equally corrupt as the other branches.

Of course. You're welcome to disagree with the courts, or anyone. As long as you understand that your views are extremely outside the mainstream.

 

[Ikari]

At least you're finally, finally admitting that public land management, like any government function, must follow the Constitution. I think.

I never said it didn't. I said the use of it is dictated by the People of the community as they own the land and the government which occupies the land. If they want to put up displays of religion, they are free to do so and it is not a violation of the Constitution. It's not a different issue since you based your argument on the 1st amendment. Public displays of religion are not a violation of the first amendment in the least.

 

[Ikari]

Of course. You're welcome to disagree with the courts, or anyone. As long as you understand that your views are extremely outside the mainstream.

No, it's not. The tyranny and treason of the Judicial branch is extremely outside the mainstream. My views have been well supported since the foundation of this Republic.

 

[misterman]

I never said it didn't. I said the use of it is dictated by the People of the community as they own the land and the government which occupies the land. If they want to put up displays of religion, they are free to do so and it is not a violation of the Constitution. It's not a different issue since you based your argument on the 1st amendment. Public displays of religion are not a violation of the first amendment in the least.

So you're saying it's never a violation of the Constitution if the people do it? That makes no sense.

 

[misterman]

No, it's not. The tyranny and treason of the Judicial branch is extremely outside the mainstream. My views have been well supported since the foundation of this Republic.

Yeah right.

Go find me a single court decision, from day one, that says only "laws" are covered by the First Amendment.

 

[Ikari]

So you're saying it's never a violation of the Constitution if the people do it? That makes no sense.

I'm saying that within the context of the debate, where we are talking merely about some religious display say a manger scene or something like that, on public property does not infringe upon the expression and practice of religion for anyone else.

 

[Ikari]

Yeah right.

Go find me a single court decision, from day one, that says only "laws" are covered by the First Amendment.

Laws is the word used. If the founders wanted something else, they would have put in something else. They weren't dumb. And that has nothing to do with the contention that the Judicial branch has well overstepped its bounds and is ruling on things which were specifically left to the State. That's where all this belongs, at the State and community level as dictated by the 9th and 10th amendment.

 

[misterman]

I'm saying that within the context of the debate, where we are talking merely about some religious display say a manger scene or something like that, on public property does not infringe upon the expression and practice of religion for anyone else.

That's different issue. It has nothing to do with whether "the people" decided to put the manger there.

 

[Ikari]

That's different issue. It has nothing to do with whether "the people" decided to put the manger there.

No, it's all the same thing. The People are perfectly free to put a manger scene on their public land. It does not violate the Constitution nor the rights of anyone else; so it's perfectly fine for them to do so.

 

[misterman]

Laws is the word used. If the founders wanted something else, they would have put in something else. They weren't dumb.

No they weren't. They knew that virtually every power they gave Congress involved making laws.

You yourself admitted Congress couldn't give the Dept. of Commerce the authority to regulate religion. That's because the Dept. of Commerce gets all of its power from a law, the one that created it, as well as the one that funds it.

Same goes for public land. A law bought it, a law created the office of the people managing it and deciding whether it can have mangers on it.

Rule of law.