| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
11 Jul 2005 09:40:15 AM |
| Object: |
Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
"StephenJ" <c20@setyrtfj.77com> wrote:
:|I've heard that the 14th amendment makes the bill of rights protections
:|binding on state and local governments.
:|
:|Could someone tell me what clause in A14 does this? Or is it something that
:|courts have inferred via interpretation over time? If so, can anyone name a
:|case?
:|
:|Thanks!
* Fourteenth Amendment
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
*************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "The Bandit" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
11 Jul 2005 11:52:27 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Conservatism has made "states rights" a centerpiece bit of nonsense in
their core ideology
Except when they reversed themselves in 2000 and sided with government
against state judiciaries to get your lying sack of ***** appointed.
That's odd, I thought the Congress had been invested with the power
over
the manner of how federal elections are to be executed. One of the
primary purposes of the Supreme Court was to handle constroversies
arising between two states or between states and the federal govt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
12 Jul 2005 07:46:24 AM |
|
|
On 11 Jul 2005 21:52:27 -0700, in alt.atheism , "The Bandit"
<no-reply@idexer.com> in
<1121143947.513108.84060@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Adenoid-Hinkel@LoonyRighwing.com wrote:
Conservatism has made "states rights" a centerpiece bit of nonsense in
their core ideology
Except when they reversed themselves in 2000 and sided with government
against state judiciaries to get your lying sack of ***** appointed.
That's odd, I thought the Congress had been invested with the power
over
the manner of how federal elections are to be executed. One of the
primary purposes of the Supreme Court was to handle constroversies
arising between two states or between states and the federal govt.
So how about how the Republicans have overruled the states on
environmental protection and drug use and death with dignity? How
about the Terri Schiavo case where they made wholesale public
abandonment of states rights?
Or, to take a amusing case, the recent eminent domain case. The
Supreme Court refused to over rule the states, the court refused to
substitute its judgment for the executive branch. A clear conservative
strict constructionist decision, and everyone (liberal and
conservative) has their knickers in a twist.
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
12 Jul 2005 10:33:34 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
Or, to take a amusing case, the recent eminent domain case. The
Supreme Court refused to over rule the states, the court refused to
substitute its judgment for the executive branch. A clear conservative
strict constructionist decision, and everyone (liberal and
conservative) has their knickers in a twist.
I would describe the ruling as non-activist (allowing the elected
branches their will) but liberal (more power for government). Whether
or not it was constructionist is open to debate based on the original
understanding of "public use" and whether there was an original
understanding that the 14th applied takings to the states.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
12 Jul 2005 11:39:06 AM |
|
|
On 12 Jul 2005 08:33:34 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@att.com> in
<1121182414.627232.55970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
Or, to take a amusing case, the recent eminent domain case. The
Supreme Court refused to over rule the states, the court refused to
substitute its judgment for the executive branch. A clear conservative
strict constructionist decision, and everyone (liberal and
conservative) has their knickers in a twist.
I would describe the ruling as non-activist (allowing the elected
branches their will) but liberal (more power for government). Whether
or not it was constructionist is open to debate based on the original
understanding of "public use" and whether there was an original
understanding that the 14th applied takings to the states.
Governments can take land now, that is not disputed. Than can also
take land that they have and give it to a private party. If that is
not for the public good then it should be banned. All that was in
question here was could they do the two things close together in time.
It was really a non-issue. It is a *political* issue on whether or not
we want to allow it. The various levels of government will have to
decide. I am not sure where I stand, it depends on how it is written.
Here is my bet: congress will bluster on this, both sides will make
great speeches on how they find the decision terrible and will correct
it. And nothing will happen because when they write it they will find
that they will be closing off too much, particularly too much
development.
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
12 Jul 2005 11:56:17 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 12 Jul 2005 08:33:34 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@att.com> in
<1121182414.627232.55970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
I would describe the ruling as non-activist (allowing the elected
branches their will) but liberal (more power for government). Whether
or not it was constructionist is open to debate based on the original
understanding of "public use" and whether there was an original
understanding that the 14th applied takings to the states.
Governments can take land now, that is not disputed. Than can also
take land that they have and give it to a private party. If that is
not for the public good then it should be banned. All that was in
question here was could they do the two things close together in time.
It was really a non-issue.
I don't agree. The extent and definition of "public use" is a
legitimate constitutional issue.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
12 Jul 2005 12:17:31 PM |
|
|
On 12 Jul 2005 09:56:17 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@att.com> in
<1121187377.273793.191690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 12 Jul 2005 08:33:34 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@att.com> in
<1121182414.627232.55970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
I would describe the ruling as non-activist (allowing the elected
branches their will) but liberal (more power for government). Whether
or not it was constructionist is open to debate based on the original
understanding of "public use" and whether there was an original
understanding that the 14th applied takings to the states.
Governments can take land now, that is not disputed. Than can also
take land that they have and give it to a private party. If that is
not for the public good then it should be banned. All that was in
question here was could they do the two things close together in time.
It was really a non-issue.
I don't agree. The extent and definition of "public use" is a
legitimate constitutional issue.
Why would it be acceptable for the government to give the NY Jets the
westside rail yards (a big local issue), supposedly for the public
good, but not condemn the land by eminent domain and the give it to
them. I don't see how the public good is different in the two cases.
(No, the case here did not involve eminent domain.)
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
12 Jul 2005 12:40:57 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 12 Jul 2005 09:56:17 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@att.com> in
<1121187377.273793.191690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Why would it be acceptable for the government to give the NY Jets the
westside rail yards (a big local issue), supposedly for the public
good, but not condemn the land by eminent domain and the give it to
them. I don't see how the public good is different in the two cases.
(No, the case here did not involve eminent domain.)
The former isn't a taking because the land isn't owned by private
interests, and hence there is no constituional question of public use.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
12 Jul 2005 12:56:17 PM |
|
|
On 12 Jul 2005 10:40:57 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@att.com> in
<1121190057.037453.104030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 12 Jul 2005 09:56:17 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@att.com> in
<1121187377.273793.191690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Why would it be acceptable for the government to give the NY Jets the
westside rail yards (a big local issue), supposedly for the public
good, but not condemn the land by eminent domain and the give it to
them. I don't see how the public good is different in the two cases.
(No, the case here did not involve eminent domain.)
The former isn't a taking because the land isn't owned by private
interests, and hence there is no constituional question of public use.
So the time delay between the taking and the giving makes it a
constitutional issue? The government can buy land and give it away. It
can condemn it, change its mind and hold on to it, then give it away.
But the direct clear connection makes it constitutional. Sorry, but
the more I think about it the more it seems like a nice conservative
decision. The courts should not be deciding what is appropriately
public use and what is not. At least, this case does not help with
that. I would hope that the government can't just give away land, as
they do all the time, without it being for public use.
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
12 Jul 2005 03:17:53 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 12 Jul 2005 10:40:57 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@att.com> in
<1121190057.037453.104030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Why would it be acceptable for the government to give the NY Jets the
westside rail yards (a big local issue), supposedly for the public
good, but not condemn the land by eminent domain and the give it to
them. I don't see how the public good is different in the two cases.
(No, the case here did not involve eminent domain.)
The former isn't a taking because the land isn't owned by private
interests, and hence there is no constituional question of public use.
So the time delay between the taking and the giving makes it a
constitutional issue? The government can buy land and give it away. It
can condemn it, change its mind and hold on to it, then give it away.
But the direct clear connection makes it constitutional.
If the government condemned land and waited some period of time before
giving it away to private interests solely as a pre-text to avoid the
constituional question of public use, that should be rejected (the
taking and subsequent giving might still be OK, but the question of
public use should be judicated).
But in the case of the Westside Stadium, the land was not taken by the
government as a pre-text to enrich the Jets. As such, the land was
already legitimately owned by the government for public use, and giving
it to the Jets is not subject to any further constitutional public-use
scrutiny.
Sorry, but
the more I think about it the more it seems like a nice conservative
decision.
As I said, it can be characterized as non-activist. But, a decision
that gives more power to the government and less to individuals should
not be characterized as conservative.
The courts should not be deciding what is appropriately
public use and what is not. At least, this case does not help with
that. I would hope that the government can't just give away land, as
they do all the time, without it being for public use.
If the courts are to have no role in determining what public use is (as
you desire) in a taking, there is no chance of your hope being
realized.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
17 Jul 2005 08:54:41 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
[...]
As I said, it can be characterized as non-activist. But, a decision
that gives more power to the government and less to individuals should
not be characterized as conservative.
So you would say that the The Comprehensive Crime
Control Act of 1984 and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
of 1986--which added new forfeiture laws and new civil
penalties, among many stringent provisions, both passed
by a republican senate and signed by a republican president--
were not conservative?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
18 Jul 2005 07:46:06 AM |
|
|
Del wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
[...]
As I said, it can be characterized as non-activist. But, a decision
that gives more power to the government and less to individuals should
not be characterized as conservative.
So you would say that the The Comprehensive Crime
Control Act of 1984 and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
of 1986--which added new forfeiture laws and new civil
penalties, among many stringent provisions, both passed
by a republican senate and signed by a republican president--
were not conservative?
If drug usage is a victimless crime, yes. If not, no.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
19 Jul 2005 06:58:20 AM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Del wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
[...]
As I said, it can be characterized as non-activist. But, a decision
that gives more power to the government and less to individuals should
not be characterized as conservative.
So you would say that the The Comprehensive Crime
Control Act of 1984 and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
of 1986--which added new forfeiture laws and new civil
penalties, among many stringent provisions, both passed
by a republican senate and signed by a republican president--
were not conservative?
If drug usage is a victimless crime, yes. If not, no.
They are commonly referred to as such though a better
term is consensual crime. True crimes are malum in
se. Drug offenses are not. They are malum prohibitum:
"Malum in se -- evil in itself; naturally evil as adjudged
by the sense of a civilized society. It refers to an act or
case involving illegality from the very nature of the
transaction, upon principles of natural, moral and public
law. For example murder is malum in se because even
without a specific criminal prohibition the community
would think it to be an evil and wrongful act. Compare
malum prohibitum"
"Malum prohibitum -- Wrong because it is prohibited;
made unlawful by statue for the public welfare, but not
inherently evil and not involving moral turpitude."
---Steven H. Gifis Law Dictionary, Barron's, Woodbury,
New York, 1975 p. 124-125
T
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
12 Jul 2005 05:18:33 PM |
|
|
On 12 Jul 2005 13:17:53 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@att.com> in
<1121199473.282354.259140@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 12 Jul 2005 10:40:57 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@att.com> in
<1121190057.037453.104030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Why would it be acceptable for the government to give the NY Jets the
westside rail yards (a big local issue), supposedly for the public
good, but not condemn the land by eminent domain and the give it to
them. I don't see how the public good is different in the two cases.
(No, the case here did not involve eminent domain.)
The former isn't a taking because the land isn't owned by private
interests, and hence there is no constituional question of public use.
So the time delay between the taking and the giving makes it a
constitutional issue? The government can buy land and give it away. It
can condemn it, change its mind and hold on to it, then give it away.
But the direct clear connection makes it constitutional.
If the government condemned land and waited some period of time before
giving it away to private interests solely as a pre-text to avoid the
constituional question of public use, that should be rejected (the
taking and subsequent giving might still be OK, but the question of
public use should be judicated).
But in the case of the Westside Stadium, the land was not taken by the
government as a pre-text to enrich the Jets. As such, the land was
already legitimately owned by the government for public use, and giving
it to the Jets is not subject to any further constitutional public-use
scrutiny.
I gave that as an example, I know it was not an eminent domain case.
It was still a give away. What people seem to be saying here is that
it is acceptable for the government to give away land with no public
purpose as long as they did not use eminent domain. I find that an odd
position.
Sorry, but
the more I think about it the more it seems like a nice conservative
decision.
As I said, it can be characterized as non-activist. But, a decision
that gives more power to the government and less to individuals should
not be characterized as conservative.
Really? Was Griswald liberal or conservative? Was Gideon and Miranda
liberal or conservative? Conservatives sure think that Lawrence and
Garner v. Texas was a liberal decision and, yet, that gave more power
to individual than to the state. Don't confuse what conservatives
claim they believe with what they do. "Power to the People" is a great
slogan for all sides.
The courts should not be deciding what is appropriately
public use and what is not. At least, this case does not help with
that. I would hope that the government can't just give away land, as
they do all the time, without it being for public use.
If the courts are to have no role in determining what public use is (as
you desire) in a taking, there is no chance of your hope being
realized.
I think that this case did present a good time to determine that.
Cities give land and tax breaks all the time to companies. From that
level this was no more and no less "public good". Again, I think that
the Court held to a legally, if not politically, conservative
position. The city was not doing anything unusual in this case so it
was as public good as anything else. Which was why I brought up the
Westside Stadium. The city wanted to give value to a private party
with the hope that it would help the city. It is up to the legislative
branch to set the standards here.
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
13 Jul 2005 07:56:10 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 12 Jul 2005 13:17:53 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@att.com> in
<1121199473.282354.259140@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
But in the case of the Westside Stadium, the land was not taken by the
government as a pre-text to enrich the Jets. As such, the land was
already legitimately owned by the government for public use, and giving
it to the Jets is not subject to any further constitutional public-use
scrutiny.
I gave that as an example, I know it was not an eminent domain case.
It was still a give away. What people seem to be saying here is that
it is acceptable for the government to give away land with no public
purpose as long as they did not use eminent domain. I find that an odd
position.
One case involves a taking, the other doesn't. IMO, that's a big
difference.
Sorry, but
the more I think about it the more it seems like a nice conservative
decision.
As I said, it can be characterized as non-activist. But, a decision
that gives more power to the government and less to individuals should
not be characterized as conservative.
Really? Was Griswald liberal or conservative? Was Gideon and Miranda
liberal or conservative? Conservatives sure think that Lawrence and
Garner v. Texas was a liberal decision and, yet, that gave more power
to individual than to the state.
In my view, Griswold and Lawrence were conservative (less government
power, more individual rights), activist (against the will of the
majority), non-constructionist (counter to original understanding)
decisions. I'm using conservative in a different manner than many do.
If the courts are to have no role in determining what public use is (as
you desire) in a taking, there is no chance of your hope being
realized.
I think that this case did present a good time to determine that.
Cities give land and tax breaks all the time to companies. From that
level this was no more and no less "public good". Again, I think that
the Court held to a legally, if not politically, conservative
position.
If by "legally conservative", you mean non-activist (allowing the will
of the majority), I agree.
The city was not doing anything unusual in this case so it
was as public good as anything else. Which was why I brought up the
Westside Stadium. The city wanted to give value to a private party
with the hope that it would help the city. It is up to the legislative
branch to set the standards here.
So sayeth The Court. Unlike the dissenters, I do not find that
automatically unacceptable when the taking is property that isn't
blighted. However unlike The Court, I wouldn't give total discretion
to the legislature because the pre-text of public benefit could be used
to enrich a private party while taking from another private party.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
13 Jul 2005 09:29:33 AM |
|
|
On 13 Jul 2005 05:56:10 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@att.com> in
<1121259370.879882.79640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 12 Jul 2005 13:17:53 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@att.com> in
<1121199473.282354.259140@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
Sorry, but
the more I think about it the more it seems like a nice conservative
decision.
As I said, it can be characterized as non-activist. But, a decision
that gives more power to the government and less to individuals should
not be characterized as conservative.
Really? Was Griswald liberal or conservative? Was Gideon and Miranda
liberal or conservative? Conservatives sure think that Lawrence and
Garner v. Texas was a liberal decision and, yet, that gave more power
to individual than to the state.
In my view, Griswold and Lawrence were conservative (less government
power, more individual rights), activist (against the will of the
majority), non-constructionist (counter to original understanding)
decisions. I'm using conservative in a different manner than many do.
You are using it in the way that modern American conservatives claim,
but clearly don't demonstrate. Of course liberals also claim more
individual rights. In fact traditional liberalism, going back to
Mills, stood for more individual rights.
If the courts are to have no role in determining what public use is (as
you desire) in a taking, there is no chance of your hope being
realized.
I think that this case did present a good time to determine that.
Cities give land and tax breaks all the time to companies. From that
level this was no more and no less "public good". Again, I think that
the Court held to a legally, if not politically, conservative
position.
If by "legally conservative", you mean non-activist (allowing the will
of the majority), I agree.
I mean both non-activist and by the standards American political
conservatives publicly claim they support.
The city was not doing anything unusual in this case so it
was as public good as anything else. Which was why I brought up the
Westside Stadium. The city wanted to give value to a private party
with the hope that it would help the city. It is up to the legislative
branch to set the standards here.
So sayeth The Court. Unlike the dissenters, I do not find that
automatically unacceptable when the taking is property that isn't
blighted. However unlike The Court, I wouldn't give total discretion
to the legislature because the pre-text of public benefit could be used
to enrich a private party while taking from another private party.
I would not give total discretion, I just don't see that the eminent
domain plays much of a role. If the government giving something away
is not in the public good, then it is wrong even if it is not using
eminent domain.
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
17 Jul 2005 09:08:51 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 12 Jul 2005 13:17:53 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@att.com> in
[...]
As I said, it can be characterized as non-activist. But, a decision
that gives more power to the government and less to individuals should
not be characterized as conservative.
Really? Was Griswald liberal or conservative? Was Gideon and Miranda
liberal or conservative? Cons ervatives sure think that Lawrence and
Garner v. Texas was a liberal decision and, yet, that gave more power
to individual than to the state. Don't confuse what conservatives
claim they believe with what they do.
Bingo. One of the darlings of the right is Robert Bork. Here i he is
in an interview in Christianity Today:
CT: You write that "Sooner or later censorship is
going to have to be considered as popular culture
continues plunging to ever more sickening lows."
Are you advocating censorship?
RB: Yes.
CT: What fine distinctions do you make?
RB: I don't make any fine distinctions; I'm just
advocating censorship. It's odd that we've grown
so sensitive about the topic of censorship that if
somebody mentions it everybody begins to shake all
over and say, "Oh my! That's an unthinkable
thought." We had censorship in this country up
until the last couple of decades. Almost all of
our national existence we had censorship. When I
was practicing law in Chicago as a young lawyer,
the city of Chicago had a censorship board for
movies. It didn't suppress any good art, it didn't
eliminate any ideas; but it did keep a certain
amount of filth out of the theaters.
CT: How would this censorship actually work?
RB: We don't have to guess how censorship would work;
we've seen it work. It's just like any other law.
You get the elected representatives to write a
code about what is obscene and can be prohibited,
and then an executive branch official applies the
code to some instance. If the person involved
thinks the code has been misapplied, or that the
code itself is defective, he goes to the courts
for relief.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court, in the service
of radical individualism (I am talking about Cohen
v. California), has set up three tests you have to
get through to prosecute obscenity, and it's
almost impossible to satisfy those three tests.
-= End Quote =-
So Robert Bork is a liberal? Working at the American
Enterprise Institute, where he is the John H.
Olin Scholar in Legal Studies?
I love his phrase "radical individualism." That about says
it all.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "gaffo" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
12 Jul 2005 11:02:04 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 03:36:37 GMT, gaffo <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote:
smell the coffee............this ain't the 1950s' and States Rights no
longer has ***** to do with Jim Crow.
But the rationale is still there.
When the set of principles that shot down Jim Crow are labeled
adversly, that's tacit approval of Jim Crown
Conservatism has made "states rights" a centerpiece bit of nonsense in
their core ideology
they give it lip service only.
Except when they reversed themselves in 2000 and sided with government
against state judiciaries to get your lying sack of ***** appointed.
exactly. or the Shivo case as well.
whats with "YOUR lying sack of ***** appoint" remark
Bu$hler should be tried for TREASON and hung on a tree for violating
Article 6 parapraph 2 (supremecy clause). Willfully violating the United
States Constitution after making an oath to defend it is an act of
treason. A Capital offence.
only Nazis support Bu$h.
You do see why everyone laughs at sleazy fucks when they believe "less
government" is their principles.
??? - no not really. I don't see. care to clearify?
--
It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the
other hand,presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still
both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to
take it upon yourselves to judge of both,and to determine the law as
well as the fact in controversy.
Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
11 Jul 2005 11:20:37 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 03:36:37 GMT, in alt.atheism , gaffo
<gaffo@usenet.net> in <9VGAe.502$c41.237@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 11 Jul 2005 07:57:23 -0700, in alt.atheism , "The Bandit"
<no-reply@idexer.com> in
<1121093842.968570.99880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
* Fourteenth Amendment
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
Oh how convenient that this page ommits any reference by the author of
the fourteenth amendment in defining the language and its scope of
application.
But I can't say I blame you loons for not wanting to discuss the
limitations imposed upon the 14th by the guy who wrote it or draw
attention to the framers own construction they left for courts to use
since it would burst the liberal bubble from out under them and expose
their quacky juriprudence for what it really is: quakery.
So your position is that the State government have more power over
individuals than the courts allow.
that would be counter to the 9th.
Unless your position is that the 9th applies the Bill of Rights to the
states you are wrong.
You think that liberals want to
restrict the governments actions and you object to that.
I support all limits on all governments myself.
All limits? What in the world does that mean.
power belongs to The People.
Argument by slogan, great. Does someone have the right to put poison
in a river if they own some of the bank and flow? Does someone have
the right to put poisonous smoke into the air? Let us say that this
poison will raise the death rate from cancer by 50%, but we can't
identify specific people hurt.
And let us all recognize the important uses of the 14th Amendment.
Brown vs Topeka was an application of the 14th. Bandit objects to
preventing the states from discriminating on the basis of race.
The
history of states rights has always centered around that issue.
this is a LIE. Death with Dignity, California's Medical
Marywana(sp)............
Which are positions *opposed* by our supposed states rights
conservatives. Those are liberal positions.
you are not being truthfull here - not in the least.
Sure I am, when those cases came up the big states rights voices in
the Republican Party kept their mouths shut. States rights has been a
major code word for keeping the ***** down since pretty much the
formation of the country.
The
states want the right to discriminate against blacks and object to the
courts preventing them.
*****.
Check your history. Check how states rights was and is used as
opposition to the Civil Rights acts and Voting Acts. Look at the
"States Rights Democratic Party" which was Thurmond's racist breakaway
splinter party. The Republicans gobbled them and their ideology up via
Nixon's Southern Strategy.
State's want Powers - so as to CHECK run away powers of the Executive
Branch of the Federal government from the likes of Bush and his henchmen.
State serve as a 4th Estate - -----------especially now with the
Pussified Press is not doing their job!!!!!!!
That does not come close to making sense.
.............its all about Balance of Powers.
Not as the term is usually used in the U.S. though it could be
construed that way.
thank god for Oregon and California!! - we need more States like them -
ones with balls to tell an overreaching fascistic Federal Executive
branch to go ***** themselves.
Of course there are other applications. Gideon, for example, a
decision that gave people the right to have a lawyer, used the 14th.
So Bandit thinks that the states should be able to try people even if
they can't afford a lawyer. Miranda used the 14th. Bandit thinks that
the States should have the power to arrest and interrogate people
without even telling them they can have a lawyer.
such things are counter to the Spirit of the Constitution and especially
the 9th. I would condemn such notions.
Which notions? The "notions" that the SCotUS applied to the States via
the 14th or the notion that the States should stop doing them. If the
former, and I think that is what you mean, they were only stopped from
doing that by the 14th.
Griswald used the 14th. Griswald said that there are areas of a
persons life so private that the states have to stay out. Griswald
prevented the state of CT from restricting the sale of condoms to
married couples. Expect Griswald, not Roe, to be overturned with the
next two justices. First, overturning Griswald allows the government
to tell you lots more about how and when and with what you can have
sex. There are already attempts to get this going. That is why we see
an upsurge (sorry for that), in laws and cases involving vibrators.
poeple love sex - it wil never happen.
Excepting, of course, that it did happen. And that states are passing
those laws today.
I expect Roe to be overturned however.............temorarily for 20 yrs
or so (like you 18th?)..........until it is ovbious that it cannot be
stoped.
They want to prepare an argument for overturning Griswald.
yes they do - but I don't think that angle with get them far.
maybe a gay angle......more deviant and all.
Does not matter, the way to Roe is through Griswald.
Then they
can attack Roe and the Sodomy case from the bottom (sorry again).
Bandit probably think it is good for the government to control those
aspects of people lives. But, at the least, he thinks that the states
should have that right even if the federal government does not.
States should ahve mre rights than they have curently however. Esp. with
the Nazis in federal executive and legislative branches in office now.
illegal Police State Laws - illegal wars of invasion and occupation
(violation of article 6)........etc............
We NEED The States!! - to limit this insanity from the WhiteHouse
smell the coffee............this ain't the 1950s' and States Rights no
longer has ***** to do with Jim Crow.
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "gaffo" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
12 Jul 2005 10:56:43 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 03:36:37 GMT, in alt.atheism , gaffo
<gaffo@usenet.net> in <9VGAe.502$c41.237@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 11 Jul 2005 07:57:23 -0700, in alt.atheism , "The Bandit"
<no-reply@idexer.com> in
<1121093842.968570.99880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
* Fourteenth Amendment
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
Oh how convenient that this page ommits any reference by the author of
the fourteenth amendment in defining the language and its scope of
application.
But I can't say I blame you loons for not wanting to discuss the
limitations imposed upon the 14th by the guy who wrote it or draw
attention to the framers own construction they left for courts to use
since it would burst the liberal bubble from out under them and expose
their quacky juriprudence for what it really is: quakery.
So your position is that the State government have more power over
individuals than the courts allow.
that would be counter to the 9th.
Unless your position is that the 9th applies the Bill of Rights to the
states you are wrong.
yep, that is my position.
You think that liberals want to
restrict the governments actions and you object to that.
I support all limits on all governments myself.
All limits? What in the world does that mean.
power belongs to The People.
Argument by slogan, great. Does someone have the right to put poison
in a river if they own some of the bank and flow? Does someone have
the right to put poisonous smoke into the air? Let us say that this
poison will raise the death rate from cancer by 50%, but we can't
identify specific people hurt.
And let us all recognize the important uses of the 14th Amendment.
Brown vs Topeka was an application of the 14th. Bandit objects to
preventing the states from discriminating on the basis of race.
The
history of states rights has always centered around that issue.
this is a LIE. Death with Dignity, California's Medical
Marywana(sp)............
Which are positions *opposed* by our supposed states rights
conservatives. Those are liberal positions.
so? relivance?
You are here condemning "State's Rights"!!!!!!!!
you must also condemn the actions of CA and Oregon then!
you are not being truthfull here - not in the least.
Sure I am, when those cases came up the big states rights voices in
the Republican Party kept their mouths shut.
so - of what relivant is this??
you are hear denouncing State's Rights.
I'm here defending them.
Who and what the Conservative Republicans beleive is of no relivance
here. What you beleive is!
States rights has been a
major code word for keeping the ***** down since pretty much the
formation of the country.
*****.
guess you forgot to tell Oregon and Califoria that Bubba.
you are still stuck in the 50's.
The
states want the right to discriminate against blacks and object to the
courts preventing them.
*****.
Check your history.
irrelivant today.........only relivance to history today is Herr Bu$hler
and his parallels to 1930's germany.
I support any State that will stand up against Tyrany from the Whitehouse.
Check how states rights was and is used as
opposition to the Civil Rights acts and Voting Acts.
I could care less.
the Nation is going into the shitter thanks to Bush and all you can
think about is 60 fucking yr old irrelivant history!
stop the Political Correct ***** thinking - we are in real trouble
right now! and it sure as ***** ain't about racism - but Nazism!
support Oregon and California - stop attacking them!
Look at the
"States Rights Democratic Party" which was Thurmond's racist breakaway
splinter party. The Republicans gobbled them and their ideology up via
Nixon's Southern Strategy.
I don't care - I know my history. I know the above. It is of ZERO
relivance today.
SUPPORT STATES RIGHTS - they will be the last check on Power after the
Judiciary falls to the Religious Riech..........for they now have the
Executive and the Judiciary.
SUPPORT OUR STATES!!!!!!!! They will need our support to fight the
Federal government.
We can no longer rely upon the Press to defend our
Liberties.........they have soldout.
State's want Powers - so as to CHECK run away powers of the Executive
Branch of the Federal government from the likes of Bush and his henchmen.
State serve as a 4th Estate - -----------especially now with the
Pussified Press is not doing their job!!!!!!!
That does not come close to making sense.
if not - then you are beyond my help and I'm wasting my time with you ;-/.
--
The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law
and the facts.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
12 Jul 2005 11:36:28 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 03:56:43 GMT, in alt.atheism , gaffo
<gaffo@usenet.net> in <%h0Be.838$c41.394@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 03:36:37 GMT, in alt.atheism , gaffo
<gaffo@usenet.net> in <9VGAe.502$c41.237@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 11 Jul 2005 07:57:23 -0700, in alt.atheism , "The Bandit"
<no-reply@idexer.com> in
<1121093842.968570.99880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
* Fourteenth Amendment
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
Oh how convenient that this page ommits any reference by the author of
the fourteenth amendment in defining the language and its scope of
application.
But I can't say I blame you loons for not wanting to discuss the
limitations imposed upon the 14th by the guy who wrote it or draw
attention to the framers own construction they left for courts to use
since it would burst the liberal bubble from out under them and expose
their quacky juriprudence for what it really is: quakery.
So your position is that the State government have more power over
individuals than the courts allow.
that would be counter to the 9th.
Unless your position is that the 9th applies the Bill of Rights to the
states you are wrong.
yep, that is my position.
So you like the results, just not the argument used. Oh well.
[snip]
this is a LIE. Death with Dignity, California's Medical
Marywana(sp)............
Which are positions *opposed* by our supposed states rights
conservatives. Those are liberal positions.
so? relivance?
You are here condemning "State's Rights"!!!!!!!!
No, I was saying that "state's rights" is a very suspect political
claim. And then we started talking way past each other. There is no
point is dealing with the rest because I misunderstood you then you
misunderstood me. Unless you want to fight and you have some clever
insults I see no point to going on.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "gaffo" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
17 Jul 2005 09:58:57 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
I misunderstood you then you
misunderstood me. Unless you want to fight and you have some clever
insults I see no point to going on.
[snip]
ok - peace!
--
The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law
and the facts.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
