Incorporation via the 14th Amendment

misterman · Dec 9, 2009

Ikari said:
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.

Okay, once again. If it's not unconstitutional that has nothing to do with "the people." You have admitted "the people" can't violate the constitution. If you still agree with that, we can move on.

Goobieman · Dec 9, 2009

misterman said:
Section 1. It says if you are a citizen of a state, you're a citizen of the United States too, so the rights you have as a U.S. citizen can't be taken away by the state government.

The reason I posted this is because in another thread, I explained that the Bill of Rights also limits the powers of state governments due to the 14th amendment. My link shows how this happened. Some people didn't know that, and insisted strenuously that it wasn't true, simply because they didn't know it.

You are, of course, correct, in all of the above.

misterman · Dec 9, 2009

Goobieman said:
You are, of course, correct, in all of the above.

Thanks!

Help me out some more.

Goobieman · Dec 9, 2009

misterman said:
Thanks!
Help me out some more.

You're fighting a losing battle - Ikari believes what he believes, and you wont sway him.

Ikari · Dec 9, 2009

Goobieman said:
You're fighting a losing battle - Ikari believes what he believes, and you wont sway him.

You can sway me. You just need an intelligent enough argument to do so. I've changed opinions based on good argument in the past. When you want to talk about the People of a community erecting religious symbols on their public property as a "law" and unconstitutional, well you've got yourself quite the uphill battle. Putting up a religious symbol on public property is not a law which infringes upon the free exercise and expression of the individual. As such, it is perfectly OK for people of a community to choose whether or not they want to put displays on their public property.

Goobieman · Dec 9, 2009

Ikari said:
When you want to talk about the People of a community erecting religious symbols on their public property as a "law" and unconstitutional, well you've got yourself quite the uphill battle. Putting up a religious symbol on public property is not a law which infringes upon the free exercise and expression of the individual.

The problem here is that you are arguing from a position of ideology rather than one of established jurispridence.

Jurispridence -clearly- states that you are wrong, in that any action of government - not just a law, but a regulation, an executive order, an official action by any actor of the state - can violate the constitution, and that a toen 'putting up religious symbols', in the context that you mean, does just that, in that, by creating such a display on public property the state is explicitly regocnizing a specific religion, which the Constitution says it shall not do.

The ONLY wiggle here is if the people of a town, not the town government, is settung up the display in that the actions are the peoples', in which case the state, by allowing them to do so, changes its implicitly rather than explicitly recognizing said religion.

Ikari · Dec 9, 2009

Goobieman said:
The problem here is that you are arguing from a position of ideology rather than one of established jurispridence.

Jurispridence -clearly- states that you are wrong, in that any action of government - not just a law, but a regulation, an executive order, an official action by any actor of the state - can violate the constitution, and that a toen 'putting up religious symbols', in the context that you mean, does just that, in that, by creating such a display on public property the state is explicitly regocnizing a specific religion, which the Constitution says it shall not do.

The ONLY wiggle here is if the people of a town, not the town government, is settung up the display in that the actions are the peoples', in which case the state, by allowing them to do so, changes its implicitly rather than explicitly recognizing said religion.

Fair enough. But even given that, the unconstitutional act is infringing upon the free exercise and expression of religion. Even if we take everything that you've said as the base of the argument, the display of a religious icon does not infringe upon exercise or expression of religion. Less there is a dynamic in there which either forces one to acknowledge a certain god or prevents them from believing in their own; there has been no action against the rights and liberties of the individual.

Furthermore, since government draws all authority from the People, the communities which display religious symbols on public land do so through the consent of their People. If the People didn't want it, they could easily get it removed. It's their choice.

While I understand what you have written, I don't see the display of religious icons as a violation of anyone's rights. I've seen plenty of manger scenes and crosses and christmas trees on public property. I'm still an atheist. I don't get thrown in jail for saying so or by not attending church. The display has in no way affected my rights or my free exercise thereof.

EpicDude86 · Dec 9, 2009

misterman said:
The government is bound by the First Amendment. The people can't bypass that.

How do the People bypass something meant to regulate the Government's actions? You mean people acting under the color of the State?

misterman · Dec 9, 2009

Ikari said:
When you want to talk about the People of a community erecting religious symbols on their public property as a "law"

We aren't talking about the people erecting religious symbols. We are talking about the GOVERNMENT ALLOWING it, or DOING it.

Bringing up "the people" is a red herring.

Putting up a religious symbol on public property is not a law which infringes upon the free exercise and expression of the individual.

But it may be "respecting an establishment of religion."

misterman · Dec 9, 2009

EpicDude86 said:
How do the People bypass something meant to regulate the Government's actions?

Good question. Ask Ikari.

misterman · Dec 9, 2009

Ikari said:
Even if we take everything that you've said as the base of the argument, the display of a religious icon does not infringe upon exercise or expression of religion.

Could you for once discuss that more instead of just repeating it?

EpicDude86 · Dec 9, 2009

misterman said:
If a state passes a law that, for instance, restricts your freedom of speech, then you have no right to freedom of speech. It's pointless to have a Bill of Rights if one government can still take away all your rights anyway.

Wrong-O

misterman · Dec 9, 2009

EpicDude86 said:
Wrong-O

:roll:

Great argument!

Just dismiss the entire purpose of passing the 14th amendment in one word! Plus violate logic.

EpicDude86 · Dec 9, 2009

misterman said:
:roll:

Great argument!

Just dismiss the entire purpose of passing the 14th amendment in one word! Plus violate logic.

I'm sorry, allow me to re-phrase:

Wrong-O, here's why.

Amendment 14 said:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

For an amendment you love, you sure don't know much about it...

misterman · Dec 9, 2009

EpicDude86 said:
I'm sorry, allow me to re-phrase:

Wrong-O, here's why.

For an amendment you love, you sure don't know much about it...

You're not serious, are you?

How does that negate my argument?

Why don't you also restate what you think my argument is so we're both sure you understand it. You may be confused. I can't tell.

EpicDude86 · Dec 9, 2009

misterman said:
If a state passes a law that, for instance, restricts your freedom of speech, then you have no right to freedom of speech. It's pointless to have a Bill of Rights if one government can still take away all your rights anyway.

Ok, I restated your argument verbatim. or at least the part I'm taking issue with.

Ikari · Dec 9, 2009

misterman said:
Could you for once discuss that more instead of just repeating it?

I have discussed it, and given personal testimony towards it.

misterman · Dec 9, 2009

EpicDude86 said:
Ok, I restated your argument verbatim. or at least the part I'm taking issue with.

Right. You understand me correctly. You also understand the entire stated purpose of passing the 14th amendment in the first place. It wasn't my idea.

So explain how the section you quoted negates my argument please.

misterman · Dec 9, 2009

Ikari said:
I have discussed it, and given personal testimony towards it.

No, you just keep yammering on about "the people". That's not a discussion about constitutionality.

Ikari · Dec 9, 2009

misterman said:
No, you just keep yammering on about "the people". That's not a discussion about constitutionality.

sigh

Ikari said:
I don't see the display of religious icons as a violation of anyone's rights. I've seen plenty of manger scenes and crosses and christmas trees on public property. I'm still an atheist. I don't get thrown in jail for saying so or by not attending church. The display has in no way affected my rights or my free exercise thereof.

See, I stated it explicitly.

EpicDude86 · Dec 9, 2009

misterman said:
Right. You understand me correctly. You also understand the entire stated purpose of passing the 14th amendment in the first place. It wasn't my idea.

So explain how the section you quoted negates my argument please.

misterman said:
If a state passes a law that, for instance, restricts your freedom of speech, then you have no right to freedom of speech. It's pointless to have a Bill of Rights if one government can still take away all your rights anyway.

Amendment 14 said:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

I'm just seeing some discrepancies in your argument...for instance it could never happen within the bounds of the United States Constitution as it stands now.

misterman · Dec 9, 2009

EpicDude86 said:
I'm just seeing some discrepancies in your argument...for instance it could never happen within the bounds of the United States Constitution as it stands now.

Please answer my question. How does what you quoted from the 14th disprove that the 14th incorporates the bill of rights, or that it's absurd to think that if a state can take away all of your rights, you still have rights?

What do you mean it could never happen in the bounds of the Constitution as it stands now? Well, yeah, because of the 14th amendment.

EpicDude86 · Dec 9, 2009

misterman said:
Please answer my question. How does what you quoted from the 14th disprove that the 14th incorporates the bill of rights,

Where did I say it didn't? Did I somewhere say that the 14th amendment was something else other than applying your rights on the State level?

misterman said:
or that it's absurd to think that if a state can take away all of your rights, you still have rights?

You'd be laughed out of every State legislature if you even suggested such nonsense...Go ahead, call your state congress and ask someone.

misterman said:
What do you mean it could never happen in the bounds of the Constitution as it stands now? Well, yeah, because of the 14th amendment.

You need to take a Constitutional Law course or read some textbooks on the subject, it would seem that you have a skewed view of what the 14th Amendment does...

misterman · Dec 9, 2009

EpicDude86 said:
You'd be laughed out of every State legislature if you even suggested such nonsense...Go ahead, call your state congress and ask someone.

You are completely confused. This is standard, accepted law, and any good state legislator knows it.

If the state can just pass a law putting you in a cage, for instance, it's silly to say you have a right as a U.S. citizen not to be put in a cage, isn't it? How is being a U.S. citizen worth anything if being a citizen of, say, Alabama takes all those rights away? That's why the 14th was passed.

You need to take a Constitutional Law course or read some textbooks on the subject, it would seem that you have a skewed view of what the 14th Amendment does...

Either you are totally confused, or you don't understand what I'm saying. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Tell me, do you understand what incorporation of the bill of rights is? Do you understand the purpose of passing the 14th amendment? Tell me what you think it was so I can make sure we're not just talking past each other.

EpicDude86 · Dec 9, 2009

misterman said:
You are completely confused. This is standard, accepted law, and any good state legislator knows it.

If the state can just pass a law putting you in a cage, for instance, it's silly to say you have a right as a U.S. citizen not to be put in a cage, isn't it? How is being a U.S. citizen worth anything if being a citizen of, say, Alabama takes all those rights away? That's why the 14th was passed.

Either you are totally confused, or you don't understand what I'm saying. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Tell me, do you understand what incorporation of the bill of rights is? Do you understand the purpose of passing the 14th amendment? Tell me what you think it was so I can make sure we're not just talking past each other.

Ok, I think I see the discrepancy here...You're using examples that wouldn't happen to prove how the 14th Amendment WOULD work in such cases?