NationStates Jolt Archive

First Amendment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

That is the first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It seems to me that many judges have misread it. Can anybody explain to me...

how this amendment has anything to do with laws that are passed by states?

how this amendment has anything to do with court house decorations ( such as the 10 commandmants) ?

how this amendment guarentees a right to flag burning?

why so many fail to realize that this amendment only applies to LAWS THAT ARE PASSED BY CONGRESS?

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights is the legal doctrine by which portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights are applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Bill of Rights was incorporated by a series of United States Supreme Court decisions, mostly in the 1940's and 1950's.

Though the Bill of Rights was originally written to limit only the power of the federal government, the Supreme Court has ruled that most of its guarantees protect citizens against state governments. Because the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1872 found only a very limited number of privileges inherent in federal citizenship, the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has not been used to incorporate the Bill of Rights. This has meant that the Due Process Clause was the means by which incorporation occurred.

That's how it applies to the states.

Small thing called the 14 Amendment, which applied the amendments to everyone.

That's how it applies to the states.

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"


That just is not so. The due process clause reads: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

The first amendment stops Congress from passing a law that violates those rights. The due process clause of the 14th amendment ONLY refers to the states. They are talking about two different bodies.

a 5-4 decision in 1873 hardly justifies the judicial activism that we suffer from today. The Privileges or Immunities Clause does state that each of the amendments applies to the individual states but that has nothing to do with the first amendment. The first amendment ONLY MENTIONS LAWS THAT CONGRESS PASSES. To say that the first amendment applies to states and by "Congress" it means " state legislatures" than does that mean that the powers granted to the President are now also given to each state governor?

ALSO, how does this amendment have anything to do with flag burning, a teacher putting up Christmas decorations, or a " seperation of church and state? I can't find one here.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

That is the first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It seems to me that many judges have misread it. Can anybody explain to me...

how this amendment has anything to do with laws that are passed by states?Incorporation by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.

how this amendment has anything to do with court house decorations ( such as the 10 commandmants)?Establishment clause. The Supreme Court has ruled that such decorations may be legal, if a) the primary purpose is "historical" rather than religious; and b) such displays are not imposed on a "captive audience."

how this amendment guarentees a right to flag burning?Symbolic speech.

why so many fail to realize that this amendment only applies to LAWS THAT ARE PASSED BY CONGRESS?Again, incorporation.

Incorporation by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.

how this amendment has anything to do with court house decorations ( such as the 10 commandmants)?[/QUOTE]Establishment clause. The Supreme Court has ruled that such decorations may be legal, if a) the primary purpose is "historical" rather than religious; and b) such displays are not imposed on a "captive audience."

Symbolic speech.

Again, incorporation.[/QUOTE]

You say that the first amendment applies to states and by "Congress" it means " state legislatures". Does that mean that the powers granted to the President are now also given to each state governor? That sounds dangerous.

I know the supreme court made up a ruling but I want to know why they made it up. I believe that unless Congress passed a law that said the teacher had to put up Christmas decorations the first amendment has nothing to do with what that teacher decides to do.

The first amendment says nothing about "symbolic speech". It just says speech. Speech is by definition: The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words. I do not see what that has got to do with flag burning.

The due process clause reads: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

The first amendment stops Congress from passing a law that violates those rights. The due process clause of the 14th amendment ONLY refers to the states. They are talking about two different bodies.

Right, but at some point the Court had to ask, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, "what liberty" does it protect?

To answer this question, they employed a popular and rather obvious method: they checked the legislative history of the Amendment and found that the Congressional record justified the conclusion that the word "liberty" was to be read broadly: the Fourteenth Amendment does not simply prohibit the states from imprisoning people without due process--it actually prohibits the states from unreasonably restricting the fundamental civil liberties of American citizens?

What liberties are "fundamental"? Well, that's a harder question... but the Court has reasoned that the Bill of Rights is a good place to start.

Note that not all of the clauses in the first ten amendments have been incorporated to apply to the states... In order to incorporate a clause, the Court has to be convinced that the right at stake is truly "fundamental." (For instance, I think that the "unreasonable bail" and "double jeopardy" clauses have never been incorporated, although most states have similar provisions of their own anyway.)

well none of this matters anymore as we are moving into a military dictatorship run by the bush family and their cohorts. Vote Jeb Bush/ American born Saudi in '08!!:upyours: or vote for someone else, they control the voting machines!

Right, but at some point the Court had to ask, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, "what liberty" does it protect?

To answer this question, they employed a popular and rather obvious method: they checked the legislative history of the Amendment and found that the Congressional record justified the conclusion that the word "liberty" was to be read broadly: the Fourteenth Amendment does not simply prohibit the states from imprisoning people without due process--it actually prohibits the states from unreasonably restricting the fundamental civil liberties of American citizens?

What liberties are "fundamental"? Well, that's a harder question... but the Court has reasoned that the Bill of Rights is a good place to start.

Note that not all of the clauses in the first ten amendments have been incorporated to apply to the states... In order to incorporate a clause, the Court has to be convinced that the right at stake is truly "fundamental." (For instance, I think that the "unreasonable bail" and "double jeopardy" clauses have never been incorporated, although most states have similar provisions of their own anyway.)

YES but the problem is even if you pretend ( and I will) that the rights in the first amendment apply to the states in some way...it is still very obvious that they have been stretched far beyond their meaning. We now have a "seperation of church and state" and" the right to burn a flag". I just don't see where those are found in the first amendement.

Flag burning is a peaceful form of protest, and I would agree that it is symbolic speech.

The Establishment Clause says that Congress, basically, may not usurp the authority of the Church. Putting up the Ten Commandments, or Christmas trees, anywhere in the public place is fine. When the gov't prevents it, that is a violation of the Free Exercise clause. Yes, the courts are anti-Christian, destroying Roy Moore's right to freely display his religion. The government is trying to outlaw Christianity, in effect.

well none of this matters anymore as we are moving into a military dictatorship run by the bush family and their cohorts. Vote Jeb Bush/ American born Saudi in '08!!:upyours: or vote for someone else, they control the voting machines!

UP, HERE IT IS, THE FIRST FLAME INVOLVING GEORGE BUSH. I am shocked it took this long. Well, your comment just is not very relevant to the discussion at hand.

I think my previous post should answer your question as to how the Court reached their various decisions to incorporate clauses from the Bill of Rights. (By the way, you misread the post about the privileges and immunities clause... Incorporation today has nothing to do with a case from the 1870's, which only decided that the immunities clause does NOT incorporate any broad concept of liberty. It was decided much later, in this century, that the due process clause does.)

The first amendment says nothing about "symbolic speech". It just says speech. Speech is by definition: The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words. I do not see what that has got to do with flag burning.

The question that the courts usually ask is not, "what is the dictionary definition of this word," but rather "what did the authors mean when they wrote it," or "what purpose was this clause meant to serve?"

In the case of the free speech clause, the Court has reasoned that the ideal of free speech is to protect communication... and especially political communication. Thus, Congress and/or the states may not ban an action simply because they do not like what they represents: the purpose of flag-burning prohibitions is quite clearly to prohibit the message that the action is meant to send. Therefore, such legislation violates the First Amendment.

Note that the Court has upheld convictions for flag-burning... when the law under which a person was convicted stated a general prohibition on burning. Thus, if you burn a flag during a burn ban... or you burn it on the street out front, where city ordinance prohibits burning things... you cannot rely on the First Amendment for protection.

God separated Church and State in the Bible, but it is not the same kind as liberals perceive it. By separation of Church and State, Jefferson meant they are different institutions with different responsibilities.

The God-given duty of civil government is to administer justice. The Church has other duties.

However, liberals think that "separation of church and state" means the free exercise of Christianity is illegal outside the privacy of your home.

UP, HERE IT IS, THE FIRST FLAME INVOLVING GEORGE BUSH. I am shocked it took this long. Well, your comment just is not very relevant to the discussion at hand.
I sure hope you have not bought into the lie that Bush is conservative. "Compassionate conservative" is a synonym for liberal. I am off-topic, but join the Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.org/).

YES but the problem is even if you pretend ( and I will) that the rights in the first amendment apply to the states in some way...it is still very obvious that they have been stretched far beyond their meaning. We now have a "seperation of church and state"
And what exactly do you think the Establishment Clause means?

Flag burning is a peaceful form of protest, and I would agree that it is symbolic speech.
.

But the text does not say anything about symbolism in speech. It just says speech. Speech is defined as the faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words. Lighting an object on fire that has symbolic significance is not speech.

But the text does not say anything about symbolism in speech. It just says speech. Speech is defined as the faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words. Lighting an object on fire that has symbolic significance is not speech.
Are you suggesting that the First Amendment outlaws burning things? Sure, free speech doesn't really have much to do with flag burning, but I can still burn things... I just don't. We can do what we want as long as we do not violate God's Law, in which case civil government must administer justice in the cases that apply (as in, within its jurisdiction).

I think my previous post should answer your question as to how the Court reached their various decisions to incorporate clauses from the Bill of Rights. (By the way, you misread the post about the privileges and immunities clause... Incorporation today has nothing to do with a case from the 1870's, which only decided that the immunities clause does NOT incorporate any broad concept of liberty. It was decided much later, in this century, that the due process clause does.)

The question that the courts usually ask is not, "what is the dictionary definition of this word," but rather "what did the authors mean when they wrote it," or "what purpose was this clause meant to serve?"

In the case of the free speech clause, the Court has reasoned that the ideal of free speech is to protect communication... and especially political communication. Thus, Congress and/or the states may not ban an action simply because they do not like what they represents: the purpose of flag-burning prohibitions is quite clearly to prohibit the message that the action is meant to send. Therefore, such legislation violates the First Amendment.

Note that the Court has upheld convictions for flag-burning... when the law under which a person was convicted stated a general prohibition on burning. Thus, if you burn a flag during a burn ban... or you burn it on the street out front, where city ordinance prohibits burning things... you cannot rely on the First Amendment for protection.

I agree that a fair reading of the constitution goes beyond the dictionary definitions but when speech becomes communication and communication becomes political communication and political communication becomes any act that communicates a political thought and any act that communicates a political thought now includes lighting objects on fire I think that the interpretation has gone way WAY too far.

But the text does not say anything about symbolism in speech. It just says speech. Speech is defined as the faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words. Lighting an object on fire that has symbolic significance is not speech.
Sucks to be a mute ... not having the freedom to express your thoughts garonteed

By separation of Church and State, Jefferson meant they are different institutions with different responsibilities.Actually, Jefferson suggested a "wall of separation" doctrine that the Court has never embraced... because it would involve a much more extreme separation than they have been willing to enforce.

Basically, the doctrine we have now is one of "neutrality" such that, in the words of the Supreme Court, government shall "neither promote nor inhibit" religion.

Since (some) public religious displays may have as their primary purpose or effect the promotion of religious values, they are unconstitutional.

Most public displays, however, such as Christmas decorations, have been viewed by the Court as cultural or historical displays... although cities run the risk of a Court challenge if their display is too heavily religious, displayed before a "captive audience," or does not allow room for alternative religious displays.

God separated Church and State in the Bible, but it is not the same kind as liberals perceive it. By separation of Church and State, Jefferson meant they are different institutions with different responsibilities.

The God-given duty of civil government is to administer justice. The Church has other duties.

However, liberals think that "separation of church and state" means the free exercise of Christianity is illegal outside the privacy of your home.


I sure hope you have not bought into the lie that Bush is conservative. "Compassionate conservative" is a synonym for liberal. I am off-topic, but join the Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.org/).

I could care less what Jefferson meant. He was in France when the first amendment was written and never sat on the Supreme Court or any other court. The concept that churches and the state should be walled apart was created by Hugo Black ( a member of the court who was from Alabama and was once in the Klan) during the civil rights movement. Forgive me for not being shocked that he did that.

Even if the first amendment doesn't apply to the states---Every state has been required to include the basic rights in their constitution before it can be admitted as a state. So, if not the federal constitution then the state constitution is violated.

But the text does not say anything about symbolism in speech. It just says speech. Speech is defined as the faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words. Lighting an object on fire that has symbolic significance is not speech.

It also does not mention writing... And don't try to rest any such right on the freedom of the "press." Even if this extends past professional journalism, surely the word "press" cannot be extended to hand-written signs or pamphlets... or even letters... Hell, for that matter I guess you don't have the right to express thoughts on papers printed from a computer, since surely this bears no relation to the meaning of the word "press" in 1790.

The dictionary has never been a particularly useful interpretive tool.

Sucks to be a mute ... not having the freedom to express your thoughts garonteed

It just says that Congress can not pass a law that hurts freedom of speech and the press. Outside of that it guarentees nothing. I do not see where you are going with the mute thing.

Are you suggesting that the First Amendment outlaws burning things? Sure, free speech doesn't really have much to do with flag burning, but I can still burn things... I just don't. We can do what we want as long as we do not violate God's Law, in which case civil government must administer justice in the cases that apply (as in, within its jurisdiction).

NO, I am suggesting that it does not give you the right to or take away your right to burn thing things. It simply does not mention burning things.

Actually, Jefferson suggested a "wall of separation" doctrine that the Court has never embraced... because it would involve a much more extreme separation than they have been willing to enforce.

Basically, the doctrine we have now is one of "neutrality" such that, in the words of the Supreme Court, government shall "neither promote nor inhibit" religion.

Since (some) public religious displays may have as their primary purpose or effect the promotion of religious values, they are unconstitutional.

Most public displays, however, such as Christmas decorations, have been viewed by the Court as cultural or historical displays... although cities run the risk of a Court challenge if their display is too heavily religious, displayed before a "captive audience," or does not allow room for alternative religious displays.
This borders on the upmost absurd. You are right that it is a "wall of separation," and right that the Supreme Court never embraced the correct interpretation, but what you think is the correct interpretation is fascist and anti-Christian, aside from simply being anti-freedom of religion. The Supreme Court does not really carry out neutrality -- it is assaulting religion anywhere it appears.

The Constitution does not forbid the promotion of religion as long as laws passed by Congress do not respect an establishment of one. The text is very clear.

You are clearly against religion, and that has affected your interpretation of things in a very negative way. You are clearly not an American -- "American" meaning believing in the values of our Founding Fathers. You are in a war against Christianity, which means you're in a war against what's left of the real America.

NO, I am suggesting that it does not give you the right to or take away your right to burn thing things. It simply does not mention burning things.
Well you are right, so why even bring it up, unless you are simply wishing to point out that the Supreme Court simply misinterpreted?

Actually, Jefferson suggested a "wall of separation" doctrine that the Court has never embraced... because it would involve a much more extreme separation than they have been willing to enforce.

Basically, the doctrine we have now is one of "neutrality" such that, in the words of the Supreme Court, government shall "neither promote nor inhibit" religion.

Since (some) public religious displays may have as their primary purpose or effect the promotion of religious values, they are unconstitutional.

Most public displays, however, such as Christmas decorations, have been viewed by the Court as cultural or historical displays... although cities run the risk of a Court challenge if their display is too heavily religious, displayed before a "captive audience," or does not allow room for alternative religious displays.

Two things:
1) Jefferson was a great man but has nothing to do with the first Amendment.
2) the amendment's text says that you cannot "establish" religion. To establish somthing you must set somthing up or found somthing. Religous decorations ( no matter what their motive) so not set up or found a religion.

It also does not mention writing... And don't try to rest any such right on the freedom of the "press." Even if this extends past professional journalism, surely the word "press" cannot be extended to hand-written signs or pamphlets... or even letters... Hell, for that matter I guess you don't have the right to express thoughts on papers printed from a computer, since surely this bears no relation to the meaning of the word "press" in 1790.

The dictionary has never been a particularly useful interpretive tool.

There is a difference between what people wish the consitution says and what it does say.

Thomas Jefferson's wall of seperation has nothing to do with the amendment, its history, or the text. It was introduced to the Supreme Court by Hugo Black, a KKK member , during the civil rights movement.....Fascinating.

There is a difference between what people wish the consitution says and what it does say.
Precisely. Don't let them lead you astray. Extremism, in the defense of liberty, is no vice; moderation, in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue!

2) the amendment's text says that you cannot "establish" religion. To establish somthing you must set somthing up or found somthing. Religous decorations ( no matter what their motive) so not set up or found a religion.

You quoted the First Amendment, yet apparently you did not read it carefully enough.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Precisely. Don't let them lead you astray. Extremism, in the defense of liberty, is no vice; moderation, in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue!

I am impressed.

You are clearly against religion, and that has affected your interpretation of things in a very negative way. You are clearly not an American -- "American" meaning believing in the values of our Founding Fathers. You are in a war against Christianity, which means you're in a war against what's left of the real America.

I'm sorry, it seems we cannot continue this. I don't deal very well with delusional people.

But the text does not say anything about symbolism in speech. It just says speech. Speech is defined as the faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words. Lighting an object on fire that has symbolic significance is not speech.

You need to find a better speech teacher.

Speech is the use of symbols to send a coded message from one mind to another. WORDS do not have meaning in and of themselves. If they did you could understand every language in the world. Words are an agreed upon code made up of symbols. Those that know the code can decifer the symbols and thereby understand what was in the mind of the sender.

Speech is not just vocal. take for instance a deaf person using symbols made up of hand movements to send code from one person to the next. Not a word is said, but meaning is transfered. They "speak" to each other.

The flag itself is nothing but a symbol, As with any symbol it is NOT what it symbolizes. It only has an agreed upon meaning for those who know the code. Would it bother you if someone burned the flag of Outer Mongolia? NO, because that symbol would not express to meaning to you.

The meaning isn't in the word or the object or the letters on a page. It is in the mind of the sender and receiver. When meaning is transfered--THAT is speech.

Originally Posted by First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

so.....Congress shall make no law respecting a founding or creation of religion

what does that have to do with decorations?

There is a difference between what people wish the consitution says and what it does say.

If the Framers of the Constitution really were the witless fools you make them out to be, convinced that ideas and terms suited for 1790 would be appropriate for centuries afterward, the Consitution would be worthless and should have been abandoned long ago.

This borders on the upmost absurd. You are right that it is a "wall of separation," and right that the Supreme Court never embraced the correct interpretation, but what you think is the correct interpretation is fascist and anti-Christian, aside from simply being anti-freedom of religion. The Supreme Court does not really carry out neutrality -- it is assaulting religion anywhere it appears.

The Constitution does not forbid the promotion of religion as long as laws passed by Congress do not respect an establishment of one. The text is very clear.

You are clearly against religion, and that has affected your interpretation of things in a very negative way. You are clearly not an American -- "American" meaning believing in the values of our Founding Fathers. You are in a war against Christianity, which means you're in a war against what's left of the real America.
Exactly. Only Christians can be REAL Americans, and even then only if they agree with the values of our Founding Fathers, like slavery and forbidding women to vote.

I am impressed.
Deep down, I know he's Right. :D

Originally Posted by First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

so.....Congress shall make no law respecting a founding or creation of religion

what does that have to do with decorations?
A better word for "respecting," in modern day language, would be "concerning"; likewise, better words for "establishment" would be "foundation" or "institution." So, Congress shall make no law concerning a foundation or institution of religion; nor shall it prohibit the free exercise thereof.

Thus, setting up religious decorations are fine, or doing anything else religious in public is fine, as long as it was not a law created by Congress. Otherwise, it falls within the jurisdiction of the constitutional and God-given liberty of freedom of conscience (and freedom of speech, or the freedom to display your conscience or religion).

so.....Congress shall make no law respecting a founding or creation of religion

what does that have to do with decorations?

You who invoke the dictionary should use it more often.

es·tab·lish·ment n.
2. Something established, as:
a. An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
c. An established church.
d. A place of residence or business with its possessions and staff.
e. A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=establishment

You need to find a better speech teacher.

Speech is the use of symbols to send a coded message from one mind to another. WORDS do not have meaning in and of themselves. If they did you could understand every language in the world. Words are an agreed upon code made up of symbols. Those that know the code can decifer the symbols and thereby understand what was in the mind of the sender.

Speech is not just vocal. take for instance a deaf person using symbols made up of hand movements to send code from one person to the next. Not a word is said, but meaning is transfered. They "speak" to each other.

The flag itself is nothing but a symbol, As with any symbol it is NOT what it symbolizes. It only has an agreed upon meaning for those who know the code. Would it bother you if someone burned the flag of Outer Mongolia? NO, because that symbol would express to meaning to you.

The meaning isn't in the word or the object or the letters on a page. It is in the mind of the sender and receiver. When meaning is transfered--THAT is speech.

First of all lets take the nasty personal comments out of this please!!!

The deaf people speak using words in sign language. To speak you must be using words, no matter what language it is or mode of broadcast. My computer transfered the meaning of what I typed on my keyboard to the screen of our computers. My keyboard, the screens, and me did not speak one word. Speech is made up of words by its very nature. Communicating/expressing ideas and speech are seperate things.

Flag burning is an expression of an idea ( and a poor one at that).

Originally Posted by First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

so.....Congress shall make no law respecting a founding or creation of religion

what does that have to do with decorations?

"Establishment" of religion in the late eighteenth century referred to the practice of a government "establishing" a state religion... which might be one they found or create, but was usually an existing (Christian) sect which they simply "adopted" as the state religion.

At the time the Bill of Rights was written, the states had various churches of their own... especially in New England, some of these were official state religions.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment explicitly prohibits the federal government from "establishing" a religion... and everyone at the time knew quite well what that meant, because it was a common practice.

Actually, it did more: it prohibited the federal government from enacting a law that even "respects" the establishment of religion. In other words, they could not even hint at their preference, if they had one. This includes decorations that favor one religion over another.

Deep down, I know he's Right. :D

You are really knocking my socks off with the Goldwater references.

Two things:
1) Jefferson was a great man but has nothing to do with the first Amendment.
2) the amendment's text says that you cannot "establish" religion. To establish somthing you must set somthing up or found somthing. Religous decorations ( no matter what their motive) so not set up or found a religion.

1) Except that it was his most famous protege, James Madison, who wrote them, having learned the idea from an earlier bill written by TJ for the Virginia house of Burgesses (Sp?). Madison, by the way, was another one of those enlightenment deists who advocated for a wall of seperation (right up there with Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, in fact).

2) Actually, the issue is both free worship, and "establishment". Not only do we have the writing of Jefferson and others affirming the "wall of seperation", but we also have the fact that freedom of worship means not having someone else's religion forced on to you when you cannot escape it (like in a school building). Worship is not just the positive of worshipping a specific, but also the negative of not worshiping the other specifics. Establishment basically says that the gov't won't try to change church doctorine, except when it violates laws that have nothing to do with religion (like ones that advocate for ritual sacrifice, which violates laws regarding killing people, and not religion) and that the gov't will not establish any requirement of worship or beleif (or pressure to do either) upon anyone. That means that a display by the government that pressures people to worship or acknowledge any other religion is a violation of establishment.

Litteralism is for the barely-litterate. Anyone who had so much as a High School Diploma can tell you that in any peice of writing, there are things that are not said, but are implied by the author. The same is true of the Bill of Rights.

Edit: It is best, when lecturing someone about litteracy, to not spell words incorrectly. *doh*

It just says that Congress can not pass a law that hurts freedom of speech and the press. Outside of that it guarentees nothing. I do not see where you are going with the mute thing.
That’s exactly it ... their method of "Speech" is not vocal therefore using the narrow definition of Speech they have no guaranteed right to express themselves

If congress wished to make a rule banning sign language it would not be protected by the first amendment

I was using it as an example that strict definitions may not get to the heart of the constitution

Originally Posted by First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

so.....Congress shall make no law respecting a founding or creation of religion

what does that have to do with decorations?
Would you vote your tax dollars to put up decorations for Kwanza or passover, or Ramadan or a budhist holiday or a shinto holiday.

I doubt it.

You demand the government cater (establish) only Christian holidays.

"Establishment" of religion in the late eighteenth century referred to the practice of a government "establishing" a state religion... which might be one they found or create, but was usually an existing (Christian) sect which they simply "adopted" as the state religion.

At the time the Bill of Rights was written, the states had various churches of their own... especially in New England, some of these were official state religions.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment explicitly prohibits the federal government from "establishing" a religion... and everyone at the time knew quite well what that meant, because it was a common practice.

Actually, it did more: it prohibited the federal government from enacting a law that even "respects" the establishment of religion. In other words, they could not even hint at their preference, if they had one. This includes decorations that favor one religion over another.
False. Because religious displays are not laws legislated by Congress, it is not unconstitutional. (However, if Congress actually had a bill saying that there has to be a Ten Commandments everywhere, it would be unconstitutional.)

Litteralism is for the barely-litterate.

Hear, hear! It most certainly seems to apply to the OP.

"

Actually, it did more: it prohibited the federal government from enacting a law that even "respects" the establishment of religion. In other words, they could not even hint at their preference, if they had one. This includes decorations that favor one religion over another.

Yet Madison ( the author of the Amendment) attended Christian church services on the floor of the House of Reps. the same week that Congress passed thAmendment. Was he insane? Did he forget what he wrote? I doubt it. I think that the meaning of the amendment had simply not been warped by judicial activists yet.

UP, HERE IT IS, THE FIRST FLAME INVOLVING GEORGE BUSH. I am shocked it took this long. Well, your comment just is not very relevant to the discussion at hand.



THANK YOU!!!!!

1) Except that it was his most famous protege, James Madison, who wrote them, having learned the idea from an earlier bill written by TJ for the Virginia house of Burgesses (Sp?). Madison, by the way, was another one of those enlightenment deists who advocated for a wall of seperation (right up there with Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, in fact).

2) Actually, the issue is both free worship, and "establishment". Not only do we have the writing of Jefferson and others affirming the "wall of seperation", but we also have the fact that freedom of worship means not having someone else's religion forced on to you when you cannot escape it (like in a school building). Worship is not just the positive of worshipping a specific, but also the negative of not worshiping the other specifics. Establishment basically says that the gov't won't try to change church doctorine, except when it violates laws that have nothing to do with religion (like ones that advocate for ritual sacrifice, which violates laws regarding killing people, and not religion) and that the gov't will not establish any requirement of worship or beleif (or pressure to do either) upon anyone. That means that a display by the government that pressures people to worship or acknowledge any other religion is a violation of establishment.

Litteralism is for the barely-litterate. Anyone who had so much as a High School Diploma can tell you that in any peice of writing, there are things that are not said, but are implied by the author. The same is true of the Bill of Rights.

Edit: It is best, when lecturing someone about litteracy, to not spell words incorrectly. *doh*
That depends on what you mean with "by the government." By the Constitution, Congress may not promote religion in its laws, but Congressman are certainly entitled to freely exercise their religion in public. There is no right to freedom from religion, just as there is no right to not be offended by the free exercise of freedom of speech. If someone criticises George Bush in public (I encourage them to), no one can stop them even if George is offended. And if Roy Moore wants to put up the Ten Commandments in the courthouse, he is certainly entitled to, even if it offends nonbelievers.

That’s exactly it ... their method of "Speech" is not vocal therefore using the narrow definition of Speech they have no guaranteed right to express themselves

If congress wished to make a rule banning sign language it would not be protected by the first amendment

I was using it as an example that strict definitions may not get to the heart of the constitution

No, sign language is very much protected by the first Amendment. The nature of speech has nothing to do with vocalization. Speech consists of the communication of words ( vocal or not). Therefore, sign language is speech ( it consists of words). Flag burning is not speech ( it does not consist of words).

Flag burning is an expression of an idea ( and a poor one at that).
Using words (nothing more than symbols) is an expression of an idea. Nothing more, nothing less.

You don't need words to communicate. A facial expression can communicate, a nod of the head can communicate, the type of car you drive communicates, a wedding ring communicates, The flag communicates. ALL are symbols used as a code to pass a message from one mind to another.

No, sign language is very much protected by the first Amendment. The nature of speech has nothing to do with vocalization. Speech consists of the communication of words ( vocal or not). Therefore, sign language is speech ( it consists of words). Flag burning is not speech ( it does not consist of words).
Please, do tell me: what is your point with this? I mostly agree with you, but I don't see why it matters whether or not flag burning is speech. It simply is not illegal, so who cares?

Would you vote your tax dollars to put up decorations for Kwanza or passover, or Ramadan or a budhist holiday or a shinto holiday.

I doubt it.

You demand the government cater (establish) only Christian holidays.

I would not vote for my tax dollars to be spent on Kwanza, passover, Ramadan, or a Shinto holiday for two simple reasons.

1) None of those are federal holidays (Christmas is)
2) less than 5% of Americans celebrate those holidays so even if we were to include all religions in our national holidays I would only support 5% of the decorations going to celebrate the above stated holidays.

No, sign language is very much protected by the first Amendment. The nature of speech has nothing to do with vocalization. Speech consists of the communication of words ( vocal or not). Therefore, sign language is speech ( it consists of words). Flag burning is not speech ( it does not consist of words).

So, what you're saying is that if someone wears a peace sign they can be incarcerated because it's not a word? Or because someone draws something, like a painting, they can be incarcerated because it's not a word? Or because they wear a certain style of clothing? Or because they dye their hair a certain colour?

Sorry, but that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Flag burning is not speech ( it does not consist of words).

It is meant to impart a message, which it pretty clearly does. Thus, it is a form of communication, and protected.

The First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of "speech," but we have long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word. While we have rejected "the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled `speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea," United States v. O'Brien, supra, at 376, we have acknowledged that conduct may be "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments," Spence, supra, at 409.

In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, we have asked whether "[a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it." 418 U.S., at 410 -411. Hence, we have recognized the expressive nature of students' wearing of black armbands to protest American military involvement in Vietnam, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 505 (1969); of a sit-in by blacks in a "whites only" area to protest segregation, Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131, 141 -142 (1966); of the wearing of American military uniforms in a dramatic presentation criticizing American involvement in Vietnam, Schacht v. United States, 398 U.S. 58 (1970); and of picketing about a wide variety of causes, see, e. g., Food Employees v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc., 391 U.S. 308, 313 -314 (1968); United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 176 (1983).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=491&page=397

Using words (nothing more than symbols) is an expression of an idea. Nothing more, nothing less.

You don't need words to communicate. A facial expression can communicate, a nod of the head can communicate, the type of car you drive communicates, a wedding ring communicates, The flag communicates. ALL are symbols used as a code to pass a message from one mind to another.

You did not mention "speech" once in your post. Unless you are trying to say that all symbols are words. That could get confusing pretty fast.

That depends on what you mean with "by the government." By the Constitution, Congress may not promote religion in its laws, but Congressman are certainly entitled to freely exercise their religion in public. There is no right to freedom from religion, just as there is no right to not be offended by the free exercise of freedom of speech. If someone criticises George Bush in public (I encourage them to), no one can stop them even if George is offended. And if Roy Moore wants to put up the Ten Commandments in the courthouse, he is certainly entitled to, even if it offends nonbelievers.

I agree with everything up to, but not including the last sentence. Roy Moore, however, as a representative of the government of the United States, speaks for the government in what he puts up. He may put up smiley faces, upside down flags, white power symbols, or even turn his court into a strip-bar, but he must not establish a religious precident for his court (but if he were to put them up in his private office, or even wear a shirt when not actively carrying out his duties which proclaimed his faith, he would be absolutely fine).

It's also a matter of consideration, but that's not a legal thing, it's a personal thing.

So, what you're saying is that if someone wears a peace sign they can be incarcerated because it's not a word? Or because someone draws something, like a painting, they can be incarcerated because it's not a word? Or because they wear a certain style of clothing? Or because they dye their hair a certain colour?

Sorry, but that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
I already asked him a similar question. His response:
NO, I am suggesting that it does not give you the right to or take away your right to burn thing things. It simply does not mention burning things.
I still don't see, however, why it matters whether or not it mentions burning things (or other symbols of protest), as long as he doesn't believe in outlawing them.

You did not mention "speech" once in your post. Unless you are trying to say that all symbols are words. That could get confusing pretty fast.

They are. Everything has more meaning than just words. Verbal communication is just one form of communication, and the speech of the founding fathers was that of all communication.

Is art speech? Music? Writing? The answer to all of them is yes. If that is the case, so is flag-burning.

You also forgot the right to protest.

Please, do tell me: what is your point with this? I mostly agree with you, but I don't see why it matters whether or not flag burning is speech. It simply is not illegal, so who cares?

Activist judges have tried to rewrite and expand the constitution as a "living breathing document (weird)". They have invented new rights and liberties that are not protected in the text of the document. Texas, along with many other states and local townships had outlawed flag burning until the activist court created a new right.

Activist judges have tried to rewrite and expand the constitution as a "living breathing document (weird)". They have invented new rights and liberties that are not protected in the text of the document. Texas, along with many other states and local townships had outlawed flag burning until the activist court created a new right.
I do not agree with outlawing flag burning, but I do agree that judicial acitivism is extremely dangerous. "To believe that the Constitution is living is to believe that it is dead."

I would not vote for my tax dollars to be spent on Kwanza, passover, Ramadan, or a Shinto holiday for two simple reasons.

1) None of those are federal holidays (Christmas is)

Let's take this to court. Sounds unconstitutional to me.

So, what you're saying is that if someone wears a peace sign they can be incarcerated because it's not a word? Or because someone draws something, like a painting, they can be incarcerated because it's not a word? Or because they wear a certain style of clothing? Or because they dye their hair a certain colour?

Sorry, but that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

I would hope that no state would pass such a law. That would be terrible.

[QUOTE=Soheran]It is meant to impart a message, which it pretty clearly does. Thus, it is a form of communication, and protected.



QUOTE]

But go read the text again. Communication is not protected. Speech is protected. Speech is only one out of many forms of communication.

I already asked him a similar question. His response:

I still don't see, however, why it matters whether or not it mentions burning things (or other symbols of protest), as long as he doesn't believe in outlawing them.

His response remains equally stupid. A painting is not a word, but an expression of an idea, and now he wants to claim paintings are protected? Paintings aren't mentioned. By his inane logic, paintings shouldn't be protected. They clearly are, though, because one need be a fool to think that the only way human beings "speak," i.e. communicate, is through words. We speak our minds by painting, by playing music, by wearing certain clothing, by raising our hands, by moving our bodies, by, yes, burning something.

I agree with everything up to, but not including the last sentence. Roy Moore, however, as a representative of the government of the United States, speaks for the government in what he puts up. He may put up smiley faces, upside down flags, white power symbols, or even turn his court into a strip-bar, but he must not establish a religious precident for his court (but if he were to put them up in his private office, or even wear a shirt when not actively carrying out his duties which proclaimed his faith, he would be absolutely fine).

It's also a matter of consideration, but that's not a legal thing, it's a personal thing.
I don't see the difference between the general concept of freedom of speech and freely expressing religion in public. They both are simply expressing the opinions of the person responsible. Speech can influence people just as easily as religion can, so what's the difference between outlawing religious symbols in public and outlawing free speech in public? None, for they both are really just freedom of thought and expressing your thoughts.

You did not mention "speech" once in your post. Unless you are trying to say that all symbols are words. That could get confusing pretty fast.
ALL words are nothing more than symbols. All transfer of meaning between humans (speech) is done by symbols.

I would hope that no state would pass such a law. That would be terrible.

Fortunately for you, the people on SCOTUS, and most other people, aren't idiots, and thus understand that such laws would be unconstitutional.

I still don't see, however, why it matters whether or not it mentions burning things (or other symbols of protest), as long as he doesn't believe in outlawing them.

I would like to outlaw flag burning. Peace signs? Of course not. I am offended by flag burning. I think it is best to let the people decide and debate such things. Just like we would in a democracy without judicial tyranny.

I don't see the difference between the general concept of freedom of speech and freely expressing religion in public. They both are simply expressing the opinions of the person responsible. Speech can influence people just as easily as religion can, so what's the difference between outlawing religious symbols in public and outlawing free speech in public? None, for they both are really just freedom of thought and expressing your thoughts.

Speech and expression are both reasonable in public. The problem is not the actions of private citizens, but in representitives of the government showing religious bias while in the course of discharging their duties.

If a private business wants to put up a cross, they should feel free. I won't shop there (because I don't like being preached at), but I would be enraged were the government to try and take the cross away. A court, however, is not a private establishment, it is a public establishment where people are a "captive audience".

I applaud all free speech as requiring courage, and that includes religious speech (even if it annoys me for the most part), but the dichotomy between a private citizen (who has the right to expression) and the representative of government (who does not), is one to keep in mind.

I would like to outlaw flag burning. Peace signs? Of course not. I am offended by flag burning. I think it is best to let the people decide and debate such things. Just like we would in a democracy without judicial tyranny.
We are not a democracy, but a constitutional, representative republic. In a democracy, flag burning is not protected because there is majoritarian rule over the minority. While in a republic like ours, it is irrelevant what you or the majority thinks: there is a certain jurisdiction for the government, and for it to outlaw flag burning would violate the bounds of such jurisdiction. Civil gov't exists to protect rights, or to administer justice, not to arrest peaceful protesters. You do not have a right to *not* be offended.

Is art speech? Music? Writing? The answer to all of them is yes. If that is the case, so is flag-burning.



Art is not speech. Art is artwork.
Writing may be speech. I could go either way on that one.
Music has words in it. That is speech.
Flag burning.....let's change the word flag to the word cigarette.

Is cigarette smoking speech? Give me a break.

I don't see the difference between the general concept of freedom of speech and freely expressing religion in public.
Who said you can't publicly express religion in public. Go express all you want. Just don't ask the government to help you.

I would like to outlaw flag burning. Peace signs? Of course not. I am offended by flag burning. I think it is best to let the people decide and debate such things. Just like we would in a democracy without judicial tyranny.

You don't get to outlaw things that make you offended or angry (and that's a childish thing to do anyway). That's not only stupid, it's unconstitutional (after all, the constitution doesn't have a clause that says "Free expression only applies to things that don't offend people, by the way").

Where's Cat Tribes when you need him?

You don't get to outlaw things that make you offended or angry (and that's a childish thing to do anyway). That's not only stupid, it's unconstitutional (after all, the constitution doesn't have a clause that says "Free expression only applies to things that don't offend people, by the way").
I wanna outlaw fluffy bunnies. Those little pricks really piss me off. I HATE FLOWERS AND SUNSHINE. No more rainbows! Ever! Rainbows offend me! :(

His response remains equally stupid. A painting is not a word, but an expression of an idea, and now he wants to claim paintings are protected? Paintings aren't mentioned. By his inane logic, paintings shouldn't be protected. They clearly are, though, because one need be a fool to think that the only way human beings "speak," i.e. communicate, is through words. We speak our minds by painting, by playing music, by wearing certain clothing, by raising our hands, by moving our bodies, by, yes, burning something.

First of all, stop the name calling!

Second, the actions that you describe are forms of communication and the spread of ideas. Speech and communication are different. Speech is a form of communication. Not all communication is speech. For example, if you were to drop an important paper and I gave you an icy stare....I just expressed my displeasure. YET I DID NOT SPEAK.

I am offended by flag burning.
And that my friend it the total reason we need to have the freedoms of the 1st amendment.

Art is not speech. Art is artwork.
Writing may be speech. I could go either way on that one.
Music has words in it. That is speech.
Flag burning.....let's change the word flag to the word cigarette.

Is cigarette smoking speech? Give me a break.

Not all music has speech in it, but I can convey strong ideas without a word of speach. Art expresses ideas and concepts. It is more than just images, it is a surrogate for words. It is speech just like writing, and like music.

Burning ciggaretes harms a persons physical health (and, except for in a few cases, is not political speech), unlike burning flags (after all, they aren't rat poison), which is why it is being outlawed where it can harm people; it is not a matter of being offended by it.

I would like to outlaw flag burning. Peace signs? Of course not. I am offended by flag burning. I think it is best to let the people decide and debate such things. Just like we would in a democracy without judicial tyranny.

No one but me has the right to "decide and debate" actions of mine that do not harm anyone else. That would indeed be "tyranny."

Speech and expression are both reasonable in public. The problem is not the actions of private citizens, but in representitives of the government showing religious bias while in the course of discharging their duties.

If a private business wants to put up a cross, they should feel free. I won't shop there (because I don't like being preached at), but I would be enraged were the government to try and take the cross away. A court, however, is not a private establishment, it is a public establishment where people are a "captive audience".

I applaud all free speech as requiring courage, and that includes religious speech (even if it annoys me for the most part), but the dichotomy between a private citizen (who has the right to expression) and the representative of government (who does not), is one to keep in mind.
You are being reasonable within the context of our current government. But were we a truly constitutional republic as we were founded, people would not be so concerned about the government officials displaying their religion.

The problem is that government is supposed to serve the people. We are its Masters, they the Servants/Slaves. However, the reason why I say you are being reasonable is that in modern times, the responsibilities have switched. Now, the government is the Master, and we are its Slaves/Servants. So when Master shows religious bias, we feel obligated to conform, just as people have felt obligated to buy into Bush's lies about Iraq that he used to justify its invasion.

If our liberties were truly protected, and our position was restored as Master, then we need not worry about the government showing religion, because in such a correct, more perfect Union, We the People are the government. It's just not so anymore, not in this elitist world.

ALL words are nothing more than symbols. All transfer of meaning between humans (speech) is done by symbols.

Speech is not " all transfer of meaning between humans". Think of all of the ways that you can transfer meaning without speaking!

First of all, stop the name calling!

What you're saying is stupid, and I will call it that.

Second, the actions that you describe are forms of communication and the spread of ideas. Speech and communication are different. Speech is a form of communication. Not all communication is speech. For example, if you were to drop an important paper and I gave you an icy stare....I just expressed my displeasure. YET I DID NOT SPEAK.

Thus you should be thrown in jail. It doesn't mention stares - so stares aren't protected! Off to jail with you! Staring isn't "speaking!" :rolleyes:

Please. Stop the inanity, already.

Fortunately for you, the people on SCOTUS, and most other people, aren't idiots, and thus understand that such laws would be unconstitutional.


Stop the insults. I don't do it to you.

Is cigarette smoking speech? Give me a break.
What if someone is protesting anti-smoking laws?

You are being reasonable within the context of our current government. But were we a truly constitutional republic as we were founded, people would not be so concerned about the government officials displaying their religion.

The problem is that government is supposed to serve the people. We are its Masters, they the Servants/Slaves. However, the reason why I say you are being reasonable is that in modern times, the responsibilities have switched. Now, the government is the Master, and we are its Slaves/Servants. So when Master shows religious bias, we feel obligated to conform, just as people have felt obligated to buy into Bush's lies about Iraq that he used to justify its invasion.

If our liberties were truly protected, and our position was restored as Master, then we need not worry about the government showing religion, because in such a correct, more perfect Union, We the People are the government. It's just not so anymore, not in this elitist world.
What part of no establishment of religion don't you understand?

You are being reasonable within the context of our current government. But were we a truly constitutional republic as we were founded, people would not be so concerned about the government officials displaying their religion.

The problem is that government is supposed to serve the people. We are its Masters, they the Servants/Slaves. However, the reason why I say you are being reasonable is that in modern times, the responsibilities have switched. Now, the government is the Master, and we are its Slaves/Servants. So when Master shows religious bias, we feel obligated to conform, just as people have felt obligated to buy into Bush's lies about Iraq that he used to justify its invasion.

If our liberties were truly protected, and our position was restored as Master, then we need not worry about the government showing religion, because in such a correct, more perfect Union, We the People are the government. It's just not so anymore, not in this elitist world.

You wanna take away the government's guns? Because that is why it is the "master" to reign tyranny down as it's abusers please. All authority stems from guns. In the modern world, nuclear weaponry, other weapons of terrible power, and a powerful military mean that the government is obeyed because it has insurmountable power to harm.

The civil war basically decided who was master.

Your rhetoric strikes me as oddly anarchistic though, so keep that in mind as well. If we are master and the government is servant, then who is to keep the masters in line? If the government is master, overseen by lady blind-justice, it is controlled, and our liberty is protected.

Who said you can't publicly express religion in public. Go express all you want. Just don't ask the government to help you.
If I were you, I would reconsider after reading this: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35420

You don't get to outlaw things that make you offended or angry (and that's a childish thing to do anyway). That's not only stupid, it's unconstitutional (after all, the constitution doesn't have a clause that says "Free expression only applies to things that don't offend people, by the way").

Many laws are created to stop people from doing things that make others offended or angry. ( Murder, rape, drunk driving, public nudity, etc.)

Where did you read a right to "freedom of expression"?

I just expressed my displeasure. YET I DID NOT SPEAK.
Then a deaf or mute person is not covered.

No one but me has the right to "decide and debate" actions of mine that do not harm anyone else. That would indeed be "tyranny."

If you take cocaine in the privacy of your own home it does not harm anybody else......

Many laws are created to stop people from doing things that make others offended or angry. ( Murder, rape, drunk driving, public nudity, etc.)

Where did you read a right to "freedom of expression"?

All of those laws relate not to offending others, but to harming others. Except the public ndity one. You may have a point there...

This arguement doesn't work for any of those except maybe the nudity ones. ABOLISH BANS ON PUBLIC NUDITY!!!!

Speech is not " all transfer of meaning between humans". Think of all of the ways that you can transfer meaning without speaking!
And all are covered by the first amendment. Either speech or press--both the use of symbols to communicate.

What you're saying is stupid, and I will call it that.



:rolleyes:

Please. Stop the inanity, already.

You continue with the name calling and insult throwing. Please just debate and put forth your best ideas. That is what I do.

Many laws are created to stop people from doing things that make others offended or angry. ( Murder, rape, drunk driving, public nudity, etc.)

Where did you read a right to "freedom of expression"?

It's what is implied by freedom of speech. Words themselves have more meaning than just what they say. A litteralist will never understand the real world. By researching the people who would have firmly fought for these rights to be included, it becomes apparent that they, in fact, did mean communication.

Does freedom of speech include freedom of subtext to speech? If I say something with loaded subtext, should I be punished for the subtext if it is "offensive".

By the by, we make laws that prevent HARM not offense. If you want to demonstrate viable economic or physical harm directly relating to the issue of flag burning that is serious enough to justify doing away with it completely, be my guest.

Public Nudity laws are silly, and fivolous, and really should be done away with.

Many laws are created to stop people from doing things that make others offended or angry. ( Murder, rape, drunk driving, public nudity, etc.)

Where did you read a right to "freedom of expression"?
Murder, rape, and drunk driving do a little more than offend people. Being offensive is the least of the reasons why they are illegal.

If I were you, I would reconsider after reading this: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35420
Looks like an unbiased source. :rolleyes:

What if someone is protesting anti-smoking laws?

I judicial activist would say that cigarette smoking is speech! wow.

You wanna take away the government's guns? Because that is why it is the "master" to reign tyranny down as it's abusers please. All authority stems from guns. In the modern world, nuclear weaponry, other weapons of terrible power, and a powerful military mean that the government is obeyed because it has insurmountable power to harm.

The civil war basically decided who was master.

Your rhetoric strikes me as oddly anarchistic though, so keep that in mind as well. If we are master and the government is servant, then who is to keep the masters in line? If the government is master, overseen by lady blind-justice, it is controlled, and our liberty is protected.
Not anarchic, but just more libertarian/constitutionalist.

"then who is to keep the masters in line?" -- Considering the current President of the US, would you not agree that we would do a much better job as masters than as servants?

The government, master, does not recognize any sovereign authority. It does not recognize the sovereign authority of the God of the Bible, the Constitution, or the People who keep Caesar in check. Justice protects Liberty, and Justice is not being administered.

Then a deaf or mute person is not covered.

We already went over this. Icy stares are not speech. Sign language is speech. Flag burning is not speech. Shouting that Bush is evil is speech.

Not anarchic, but just more libertarian/constitutionalist.

"then who is to keep the masters in line?" -- Considering the current President of the US, would you not agree that we would do a much better job as masters than as servants?

The government, master, does not recognize any sovereign authority. It does not recognize the sovereign authority of the God of the Bible, the Constitution, or the People who keep Caesar in check. Justice protects Liberty, and Justice is not being administered.

Agreed, agreed, agreed. The question is what can be done about it? I put to you that short of a disaster that utterly destroys all modern technology, the government is unsurmountably master.

All of those laws relate not to offending others, but to harming others. Except the public ndity one. You may have a point there...

This arguement doesn't work for any of those except maybe the nudity ones. ABOLISH BANS ON PUBLIC NUDITY!!!!

That would require legislative action ( which I might support). I doubt that there is a right to public nudity in the constitution sadly....

And all are covered by the first amendment. Either speech or press--both the use of symbols to communicate.

speech consists of words. Words are a type of symbol but not all symbols are words. It really is not very complicated.

We already went over this. Icy stares are not speech. Sign language is speech. Flag burning is not speech. Shouting that Bush is evil is speech.
So who died and made you the decider (heh) of what is, or is not, speech?

Your grasp of the Constitution and US law is... frightning to say the very least.

That would require legislative action ( which I might support). I doubt that there is a right to public nudity in the constitution sadly....

Yeah. Its unlikely to happen. Would be greatly amusing, however.

We already went over this. Icy stares are not speech. Sign language is speech. Flag burning is not speech. Shouting that Bush is evil is speech.
Thank you. Sign language is speech ---even though it is not vocal---because it uses symbols to convey meaning from one mind to another. A flag is a piece of cloth---unless it is a symbol that conveys meaning from one mind to another.

speech consists of words. Words are a type of symbol but not all symbols are words. It really is not very complicated.

Litteralism is clownish and childish. Do words always mean on their own what they mean when put together in certain ways? The answer is no, so think about that before deciding that the framers of the constitution really meant to protect what we say, but not other means of communication.

Agreed, agreed, agreed. The question is what can be done about it? I put to you that short of a disaster that utterly destroys all modern technology, the government is unsurmountably master.
The Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party are both working towards a common goal of restoring the Constitution to its rightful place. However, if we fail, God will already be taking care of the disaster: http://www.climatecrisis.net/

So who died and made you the decider (heh) of what is, or is not, speech?

.

Nobody. I always thought that it was obvious what speech was. Speech is communication that uses words. We do it when we speak. Deaf people do it when they use sign language. Any sybmol is not speech. Not all symbols are made up of words.

The modern Judicial activist stretching of what the constitution and U.S. law means is frightening.

Yeah. Its unlikely to happen. Would be greatly amusing, however.

It would be scary if my town allowed nudity. So many olddddd people. haha.

Litteralism is clownish and childish. Do words always mean on their own what they mean when put together in certain ways? The answer is no, so think about that before deciding that the framers of the constitution really meant to protect what we say, but not other means of communication.

Fine then. Let's use your rationale of context and apply it.

"Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech."

It seems to be very clear what they intended.

Litteralism is clownish? Would you like a balloon animal?

Nobody. I always thought that it was obvious what speech was. Speech is communication that uses words. We do it when we speak. Deaf people do it when they use sign language. Any sybmol is not speech. Not all symbols are made up of words.

The modern Judicial activist stretching of what the constitution and U.S. law means is frightening.
Somehow 230 some odd years of laws and precident has passed you by. This is sad.

Go to findlaw.com, go read.

Fine then. Let's use your rationale of context and apply it.

"Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech."

It seems to be very clear what they intended.

If you look at it litterally, you should still have some reserves. Why would only the physical action of saying words be protected, when other means of communication are not? Does that even make sense? It would be nonsensical to ban drawing a painting which demonstrated the evil of GWB, but to protect the ablity to say you thought he was evil.

. This is sad.

Go to findlaw.com, go read.

Again the insults. I never talk like that to people on these forums no matter how much of a difference of opinion I have from them. My advice to you is to be the same way!

It would be scary if my town allowed nudity. So many olddddd people. haha.


Ooooohhhh, thats a great set of images you just put in my head. Which have now burned themselves into my brain.

Oh God!

It's gonna be a looooong night.

Thanks. Thanks ever so very much!

Nobody. I always thought that it was obvious what speech was. Speech is communication that uses words. We do it when we speak. Deaf people do it when they use sign language. Any sybmol is not speech. Not all symbols are made up of words.

The modern Judicial activist stretching of what the constitution and U.S. law means is frightening.
Barry I have a Masters in Speech-Communication. I've taught this for 10 years. I have debated hundreds of students on it. WORDS have no meaning. Words are symbols. We can make up what ever symbols we want and if we agree that a specific symbol has a specific meaning between us, we have created a word. All of the little smileys are words.:confused: :eek: :mad: :rolleyes: :cool: :p ;) :( :gundge: :) They convey meaning from one mind to another. That is what a word does.

It would be nonsensical to ban drawing a painting which demonstrated the evil of GWB, but to protect the ablity to say you thought he was evil.

Congress has banned criticism of the government in numerous incidents through American history. The sedition acts outlawed all criticism. During World War one many anti-war protesters were arrested for their opinions. The reason is that not all ideas are expressed through speech. I see your point about how it does not make sense to just protect speech. The reason that it is so limited is that speech is the most basic form of expression. The bill of rights is...after all...only about the most basic of rights.

Ooooohhhh, thats a great set of images you just put in my head. Which have now burned themselves into my brain.

Oh God!

It's gonna be a looooong night.

Thanks. Thanks ever so very much!

I am soooo sorry. eww. I really am. :D
I will never insult your senses in such a way again.

If you look at it litterally, you should still have some reserves. Why would only the physical action of saying words be protected, when other means of communication are not? Does that even make sense? It would be nonsensical to ban drawing a painting which demonstrated the evil of GWB, but to protect the ablity to say you thought he was evil.
Let's get one thing straight. Everyone.

Literal, Literally, and Literalism each have one 'T' only.

Congress has banned criticism of the government in numerous incidents through American history. The sedition acts outlawed all criticism. During World War one many anti-war protesters were arrested for their opinions. The reason is that not all ideas are expressed through speech. I see your point about how it does not make sense to just protect speech. The reason that it is so limited is that speech is the most basic form of expression. The bill of rights is...after all...only about the most basic of rights.

What about the right to protest? That is also included in the First Ammendmant? Or do they only mean the right to get together and write a petition to the government? :rolleyes:

Barry I have a Masters in Speech-Communication. I've taught this for 10 years. I have debated hundreds of students on it. WORDS have no meaning. Words are symbols. We can make up what ever symbols we want and if we agree that a specific symbol has a specific meaning between us, we have created a word. All of the little smileys are words.:confused: :eek: :mad: :rolleyes: :cool: :p ;) :( :gundge: :) They convey meaning from one mind to another. That is what a word does.

You certainly have a background in the subject but I disagree with your most basic point. It is true that words are a kind of symbol. That DOES NOT mean that every kind of symbol is a word!! Are you telling me that flag burning is a word? Those smileys are neat. They convey meaning. They are not words. A smiley is not a word. They merely stand in for words: confused, frusterated etc.

I am soooo sorry. eww. I really am. :D
I will never insult your senses in such a way again.

Oh, its quite all right. Now I have the excuse of not having slept due to disturbing images for being intensely tired in vll my classes tomorrow.

Congress has banned criticism of the government in numerous incidents through American history. The sedition acts outlawed all criticism. During World War one many anti-war protesters were arrested for their opinions. The reason is that not all ideas are expressed through speech. I see your point about how it does not make sense to just protect speech. The reason that it is so limited is that speech is the most basic form of expression. The bill of rights is...after all...only about the most basic of rights.
During war the government gets away with a lot of things. Need I say "Patriot Act" (talk about a warping of the agreed upon meaning of symbols) need I say "Iraqui Freedom".

Lincoln during the civil war was little more than a dictator. That doesn't make his or any of the actions mentioned constitutional.

You certainly have a background in the subject but I disagree with your most basic point. It is true that words are a kind of symbol. That DOES NOT mean that every kind of symbol is a word!! Are you telling me that flag burning is a word? Those smileys are neat. They convey meaning. They are not words. A smiley is not a word. They merely stand in for words: confused, frusterated etc.

IN that case, flag burning is like a smiley. It stands in for words expressing your frustration with the governemtn, ir dislike for that country. Or just its flag.

What about the right to protest? That is also included in the First Ammendmant? Or do they only mean the right to get together and write a petition to the government? :rolleyes:

There is a right to peaceful assembly. :rolleyes:

did anyone read the text on my first post that started the thread yet? It's there.

You certainly have a background in the subject but I disagree with your most basic point. It is true that words are a kind of symbol. That DOES NOT mean that every kind of symbol is a word!! Are you telling me that flag burning is a word? Those smileys are neat. They convey meaning. They are not words. A smiley is not a word. They merely stand in for words: confused, frusterated etc.
Then if I make a poster showing GW with a dog at a prisoner's throat and walk down the street without saying anything, I'm not covered because there are no words.

During war the government gets away with a lot of things. Need I say "Patriot Act" (talk about a warping of the agreed upon meaning of symbols) need I say "Iraqui Freedom".

Lincoln during the civil war was little more than a dictator. That doesn't make his or any of the actions mentioned constitutional.

Well, none of what you posted has anything to do with the first amendment. I believe that the patriot act and Operation Iraqi Freedom do not fall under special war powers because they were not passed during a war. Let's not get off topic though...

IN that case, flag burning is like a smiley. It stands in for words expressing your frustration with the governemtn, ir dislike for that country. Or just its flag.

Right.

There is a right to peaceful assembly. :rolleyes:

did anyone read the text on my first post that started the thread yet? It's there.

Well, flag burning is a form of protest, it is peaceful, and if you do it in a place where burning things is not illegal, and, I suppose, with some other people there, it is a form of peaceful protest, no? The meanings flag burning convey include protest against a government or country.

Then if I make a poster showing GW with a dog at a prisoner's throat and walk down the street without saying anything, I'm not covered because there are no words.

Well I don't know about that. Your right to assemble as a protest is protected. The sign would not be. You would not get in trouble unless the state or nation had a law that said that you could not make such a sign. That thought seems impossible to me. What state legislature or Congress would pass such a measure. Such a possibility does not seem relevant.

Well, flag burning is a form of protest, it is peaceful, and if you do it in a place where burning things is not illegal, and, I suppose, with some other people there, it is a form of peaceful protest, no? The meanings flag burning convey include protest against a government or country.

The text does not say that there is a right to all forms of peaceful protest.
The text says that there is a right to peaceful assembly ( in which you may protest). It talks about how you have a right to stand there and shout, dress funny, and carry signs, etc.

Again the insults. I never talk like that to people on these forums no matter how much of a difference of opinion I have from them. My advice to you is to be the same way!
Insult? No, no insult. I have noted nothing more than the fact that you seemingly do not understand what has happened in the past 230+ years in terms of law devlopment within the United States. This is indeed sad as it means you do not understand the current functioning of the nation, or why it is the way it is. Such understanding would answer your questions. My suggestion of findlaw.com comes from knowing them as a good source for explaining said devlopment and a good place to start.

As I said, go read.

Decades of activism on the court do not change what I believe.

Here, for those of you who may just be checking this thread out, is the text:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Thats all it says.

Nothing about freedom of expression.
Nothing about a " wall of seperation" between religion and the government.
Nothing about my town's Christmas decorations

Decades of activism on the court do not change what I believe.

Here, for those of you who may just be checking this thread out, is the text:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Thats all it says.

Nothing about freedom of expression.
Nothing about a " wall of seperation" between religion and the government.
Nothing about my town's Christmas decorations
It also says nothing about you being able to vote. Or marry. Or own a car. Or have privacy for your medical records. Or being able to go where you will, when you will.

The Constitution doesn't say a lot of things that you currently take as rights. The SCOTUS has determined those rights from what the document actually says and amendment 10.

It also says nothing about you being able to vote. Or marry. Or own a car. Or have privacy for your medical records. Or being able to go where you will, when you will.

.

It talks a lot about voting rights. I don't know how you came up with that one.

The definition of marriage and who gets to marry is determined by the various states. This has always been the case.The right to own a car cannot be taken away without due process ( it is property). medical privacy ( and the level thereof) is determined by the states. Being able to go where you will and when you will cannot be taken away without due process under the 14th amendment.

Our topic is the first Amendment. All of the above is irrelevant to that discussion.

Well I don't know about that. Your right to assemble as a protest is protected. The sign would not be. You would not get in trouble unless the state or nation had a law that said that you could not make such a sign. That thought seems impossible to me. What state legislature or Congress would pass such a measure. Such a possibility does not seem relevant.
So such a protest without words (by your definition of words) is not covered. The sit down protests of the civil rights era were not covered. The sit down strikes of the early union era were not covered. Ben Franklin's political cartoons were not covered.

It talks a lot about voting rights. I don't know how you came up with that one.

The states control voting rights not the feds. Although that has changed a bit with amendments that allowed black men to vote and women to vote, and 18 year olds to vote. But then those rights are only in federal elections. By your picky attitude, they don't apply to state elections.

So such a protest without words (by your definition of words) is not covered. The sit down protests of the civil rights era were not covered. The sit down strikes of the early union era were not covered. Ben Franklin's political cartoons were not covered.

Wrong.

Sit down protests are "peaceful assembly"
Sit down strikes are " peaceful assembly"
Ben Franklin's cartoons were printed on a 'printing press'.

All three are covered in every way possible. The straw man arguement that you have made is flawed.

The states control voting rights not the feds. Although that has changed a bit with amendments that allowed black men to vote and women to vote, and 18 year olds to vote. But then those rights are only in federal elections. By your picky attitude, they don't apply to state elections.

nope. Wrong. Here's what it says:

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Choosing Senators."

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

"The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."


That is just what I said: "a lot"

ok, now that I have settled that.....may I remind you....it is not relevant to our discussion ( the first amendment).

It talks a lot about voting rights. I don't know how you came up with that one.
No, actually it does not. It never mentions in the whole of the document or the Bill of Rights, that the people have the right to vote.

Sorry, so if you read it literally, you have no right for that.

Aren't you glad that we don't take it literally?

Wrong.

Sit down protests are "peaceful assembly"
Sit down strikes are " peaceful assembly"
Ben Franklin's cartoons were printed on a 'printing press'.

All three are covered in every way possible. The straw man arguement that you have made is flawed.
But one person in a sit down isn't covered

A poster made with an ink jet---or paint isn't covered.

Wrong.

Sit down protests are "peaceful assembly"
Sit down strikes are " peaceful assembly"
Ben Franklin's cartoons were printed on a 'printing press'.

All three are covered in every way possible. The straw man arguement that you have made is flawed.
Oh dear... YOUR TYPING ISN'T COVERED! IT'S ON THE INTERWEB AAAAAAAH!

No, actually it does not. It never mentions in the whole of the document or the Bill of Rights, that the people have the right to vote.

Sorry, so if you read it literally, you have no right for that.

Aren't you glad that we don't take it literally?

I'm sorry. By "it" I meant the constitution. It does talk alot about voting rights. The first Amendment does not.

And you were saying that I needed to read.....

But one person in a sit down isn't covered

A poster made with an ink jet---or paint isn't covered.

I would disagree with those two statements.

Oh dear... YOUR TYPING ISN'T COVERED! IT'S ON THE INTERWEB AAAAAAAH!

Congress could regulate the internet and what goes on it. It chooses not to. (at least for now)

I would disagree with those two statements.
Certianly glad you're not on the court. Don't think even Thomas would agree.

Heading to bed. Talk tomorrow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Lifes
But one person in a sit down isn't covered

A poster made with an ink jet---or paint isn't covered.


Bary Goldwater: I would disagree with those two statements.


So you think that Thomas would disagree that a poster made with an ink jet and a one person sit down are covered by the first amendment? I don't think he is that insane. I think you misread what I wrote.
Have a good night.

nope. Wrong. Here's what it says:

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Choosing Senators."
Does not actually GIVE the right to vote to the people.

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."14th Amendment, 1860's, almost a hundred years AFTER the document was written, but the right to vote had been established already outside of the strict text of the document.

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.18th, early 1900's 150 years after it was written.

That is just what I said: "a lot"
Nice try.

And yes, it is relevant because many of what we take as laws or rights have been established though court cases and laws based upon inturpatation of the Constitution. That's how it was designed to funtion way back in Madison when SCOTUS noted that the framers established it as the final abriter as to what the document says.

I find that those who harp for strict text only, usually mean how THEY read the document (Usually to deny rights or events that they don't like, like you are attempting to, to other people) while retaining all rights they happen to like, no matter if said rights appeared in the document or not.

Congress could regulate the internet and what goes on it. It chooses not to. (at least for now)
Then by your definition, anything that is not printed on paper by a printing press or spoken can be stifled.

And you claim to be looking OUT for our freedoms?

And yes, it is relevant because many of what we take as laws or rights have been established though court cases and laws based upon inturpatation of the Constitution. That's how it was designed to funtion way back in Madison when SCOTUS noted that the framers established it as the final abriter as to what the document says.

I find that those who harp for strict text only, usually mean how THEY read the document (Usually to deny rights or events that they don't like, like you are attempting to, to other people) while retaining all rights they happen to like, no matter if said rights appeared in the document or not.

The document says what it says. The supreme court decides what it means. There is a difference. You can disagree with what the Supreme court says it means ( like I do in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson or Roe v. Wade)

I deny that any right is in the constitution that is not ....in the text constitution. It is just that simple. You have accused me in your last sentence of pretending that rights that I like are in the constitution when they are not. Can you give me an example of when I have done this?

Then by your definition, anything that is not printed on paper by a printing press or spoken can be stifled.

And you claim to be looking OUT for our freedoms?

Any document that is printed falls into "the press". Any communication that uses words is "speech". You got my definitions wrong...again. To print somthing you don't need an old fashioned printing press. To perform speech you don't need vocalized words.

I am looking out for the U.S. Constitution. The most misused and stretched legal document that I can imagine.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That's all the amendment says.

No wall of seperation between church and state
No right to all forms of freedom of expression
No hidden sentence that limits what Christmas decorations my county courthouse puts up......

Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Lifes
But one person in a sit down isn't covered

A poster made with an ink jet---or paint isn't covered.


Bary Goldwater: I would disagree with those two statements.


So you think that Thomas would disagree that a poster made with an ink jet and a one person sit down are covered by the first amendment? I don't think he is that insane. I think you misread what I wrote.
Have a good night.
You're right, I misread the dis in disagree. But you were arguing that we had to follow specific language then you did a change-up on me. I guess that's why I'm not good at baseball.

So, does the 1st cover nonverbal and pictorial and other symbolistic communications or not?

I don't see the difference between the general concept of freedom of speech and freely expressing religion in public. They both are simply expressing the opinions of the person responsible. Speech can influence people just as easily as religion can, so what's the difference between outlawing religious symbols in public and outlawing free speech in public? None, for they both are really just freedom of thought and expressing your thoughts.

No one is outlawing public expressions of religion. What concerns us is government advocacy of religion, which is unconstitutional.

Where this becomes problematic is when government officials make religious declarations or erect public religious displays. The argument you suggest, that this is merely free speech, not establishment, is in fact the argument most commonly used to justify such displays: sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Examples? In Engels v. Vitale a public school board instituted a policy requiring students to read Bible passages and to recite a non-denominational prayer each morning. The Supreme Court ruled, reasonably enough, that this is illegal: schools funded and run by the government may not compel students to recite prayers--even non-denominational ones.

The classic (if somewhat problematic) statement of Establishment law is from the opinion in Lemon v. Kurtzman: to be constitutional, a government action must have 1) a secular legislative purpose; 2) a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion; and 3) must not create excessive entanglement between government and religion.

This test was later weakened, replacing the "excessive entanglement" prong with "political divisiveness." Now, I don't see what you think is so unreasonable about this: surely the Framers who wrote that government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" meant, in essence, that government shall neither advance nor inhibit religious practice. (At the very least, no government held to such a clause can advance religion.)

Now, you have harped on about how the First Amendment only mentions "Congress" and not other government agents. What you fail to realize is that, whether or not the Constitution is a "living document," surely the United States has not frozen in the eighteenth century. Rather, our country has changed in ways the Framers could never have imagined... including, for instance, the development of a massive Executive bureaucracy and extensive Executive rule-making.

You would like us to believe that none of these officials should be held to the standards of the First Amendment... Yet surely a religion established by Executive Order would offend them just as much--if not more!! And what is a decision to decorate the public square besides a low-level executive decision? Surely you do not believe that the lowliest executive official possesses a power so invidious that it would be specifically proscribed by the very first amendment to the Constitution?

I would like to outlaw flag burning. Peace signs? Of course not. I am offended by flag burning. I think it is best to let the people decide and debate such things. Just like we would in a democracy without judicial tyranny.

The problem with this is that you need to state a rule to tell the difference between what should be allowed and what should not. What is the difference between the peace sign and flag burning, such that one should be allowed and the other should not?

If you cannot state this difference--if you cannot make a convincing legal case--then you open it up to arbitrary distinctions... and where distinctions are arbitrary, power can be abused. Politicians can prohibit messages they don't like, and allow messages they do.

The whole basis for the First Amendment is the notion that democracy cannot thrive without the free expression of ideas. If the majority (or an elite minority able to exert political influence) can ban ideas simply because they object to them, then you do not have democracy, but ochlocracy (at best) or tyranny at worst.

Art is not speech. Art is artwork.
Writing may be speech. I could go either way on that one.
Music has words in it. That is speech.
Flag burning.....let's change the word flag to the word cigarette.

Is cigarette smoking speech? Give me a break.

If flag-burning is not speech--if it "says nothing"--then why would a state want to ban flag-burning, but not the burning of other things? Under the flag-burning laws that have been struck down, I could burn a blank piece of fabric, or I could burn the flag of another country, or I could burn a piece of fabric featuring any other pattern... but not a flag. Now, if burning a flag is equivalent to burning a cigarette, or a piece of fabric... then why would anyone government bother to single it out?

First of all, stop the name calling!

Second, the actions that you describe are forms of communication and the spread of ideas. Speech and communication are different. Speech is a form of communication. Not all communication is speech. For example, if you were to drop an important paper and I gave you an icy stare....I just expressed my displeasure. YET I DID NOT SPEAK.

No, you didn't.

However, what you obstinately refuse to admit is that the terms "freedom of speech" actually meant something circa 1790. They did not materialize in the First Amendment having never been seen before, so that citizens had to run for their dictionaries to figure out what "freedom" and "speech" mean, so that they would understand the term "freedom of speech." Instead, it represented a well-known, popular political doctrine that the people of the day wanted to enshrine in the federal constitution.

It stood for freedom of conscience, the freedom to think and believe what one wants, and the freedom to try to convince others to agree. It represented the core values of free expression.

You would respond, perhaps, that if the Framers meant to protect all "expression," they should have said so. Well, they did. Using a common phrase that everyone would recognize, they did.

Do you think their "speech" against the British Crown was all words? Hardly. Indeed, satirical political cartoons were as popular--if not more popular--than written pamphlets and political treatises.

Yes, this was the "speech" they were trying to protect. It is a credit to our courts that they have had the wisdom to include contextual factors in their interpretation of the document. The words themselves say nothing... that is why they beg for interpretation.

By your reasoning, the Second Amendment would protect my right to keep and bear nuclear arms... because the words themselves do not specify.

Indeed, by your reasoning the First Amendment's protections should be expanded even as they contract. Crying fire in a crowded building? Yep, that's speech: protected. Clear and present danger doctrine? Yep, that names things that one may not speak--I guess we're allowed to intentionally incite violence now.

You concocted this sour interpretation. I hope you're ready to swallow the whole thing.

If I were you, I would reconsider after reading this: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35420

Thank you, I did.

The first thing I noticed is that this website does not bother to name the actual court cases involved... after looking into things further, I realized that this is clearly because they do not want their readers to have all the facts.

They want us to believe that there is some sort of "war on religion" in America. Let's review:

In Texas, a U.S. District judge decreed that any student uttering the word "Jesus" at his school's graduation would be arrested and locked up. "And make no mistake," announced Judge Samuel B. Kent, "the court is going to have a United States marshal in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of court."All right, Justice Kent's decision seems a little extreme for kids who just want to say "Jesus". But what was this case actually about?

The case is Santa Fe v. Doe, and the issue was not "students uttering the word 'Jesus' at his school's graduation"... The real issue was this: The school, in a blatant attempt to sidestep Establishment doctrine, set up elections for a "senior class chaplain" who would recite prayers over the loudspeaker at football games, graduation, and other school events. On appeal, the Supreme Court decided that because the elections employed "the apparatus of the state," because school officials would set aside time at school events for statements by a "class chaplain," and because audience members at such events were essentially a "captive audience" subjected to state-sponsored religious speech, the policy was unconstitutional.

Not quite what you were led to believe, eh? Well, how about the next one...

In Missouri, when fourth-grader Raymond Raines bowed his head in prayer before his lunch in the cafeteria of Waring Elementary School in St. Louis, his teacher allegedly ordered him out of his seat, in full view of other students present, and sent him to the principal’s office. After his third such prayer "offense," little Raymond was segregated from his classmates, ridiculed for his religious beliefs, and given one week's detention.

What this fails to mention is that the facts of the case were far from clear, the parents repeatedly changed their story, and school officials--including a school board one member of which was a pastor--thoroughly investigated the matter and found that the boy was disciplined for unrelated behavioral issues... not prayer. The school, in fact, consistently maintained that they had no problem whatsoever with private sutdent prayers.

The 10-year-old boy in St. Louis whom House Speaker-to-be Newt Gingrich said was put in detention for saying grace in a public school cafeteria was in fact disciplined for matters entirely unrelated to praying in school, according to the superintendent of St. Louis schools.

Gingrich highlighted the case on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday as evidence that public schools are repressing the rights of students who wish to pray. But the case of Raymond Raines is being contested in federal court in St. Louis, and the facts are far from clear.

"He was disciplined for some matters that were totally independent of silent praying,'' Superintendent David Mahan said. "We did a very thorough investigation. We talked to teachers, administrators and also to some students, and we could not find any evidence of the allegations that the parent and the student made.''
But school officials said the incident never happened. Rather, they said, Raymond was disciplined for fighting in the cafeteria.

"I can tell you he was not reprimanded for praying," said Kenneth Brostron, the school's lawyer. "Do you think it makes sense that the teachers would look around the cafeteria and target the one student who was praying quietly at his seat?"

Calling the report that Raymond was caught praying "absolutely not true," school Principal Cleveland Young said: "How would I even know about something like that?"

Needless to say, the parents' obviously frivolous lawsuit went nowhere.

Finally, we get this tasty tidbit:
In New York, kindergartner Kayla Broadus recited the familiar and beloved prayer – "God is great, God is good. Thank you, God, for my food" – while holding hands with two students seated next to her at her snack table at her Saratoga Springs school early last year. But she was silenced and scolded by her teacher, who reported the infraction to the school’s lawyer, Gregg T. Johnson, who concluded that Kayla’s behavior was indeed a violation of the "separation of church and state."

Okay, this much is true. But, the whole story hardly plays out as a "war" on religion. The fact of the matter is that an overzealous teacher misrepresented the law... and was duly corrected by the federal courts, which ruled in favor of the little girl. Subsequently, she was allowed to pray as much as her little heart desired.

I hardly need to point out that this website of yours had to reach back in time ten years just to dig up THREE badly cited cases as evidence of the great anti-religious conspiracy. Three cases in ten years wouldn't amount to much even if they DID get the facts right... which they didn't.

First Amendment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

That is the first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It seems to me that many judges have misread it. Can anybody explain to me...

how this amendment has anything to do with laws that are passed by states?

how this amendment has anything to do with court house decorations ( such as the 10 commandmants) ?

how this amendment guarentees a right to flag burning?

why so many fail to realize that this amendment only applies to LAWS THAT ARE PASSED BY CONGRESS?
A) What is it, precisely, that you are complaining about?

B) What are you doing, if anything, besides complaining? Are you suggesting any course of action you think would be better?

C) What part of incorporation do you not understand? Not only does the 14th Amendment apply all the amendments to the states, requiring them to comply with them, but in the original body of the Constitution itself, it says that if there is a conflict between state and federal law, federal law will govern. So if the 1st Amendment is interpreted to protect flag burning but ban school prayer, then it's just tough if a state doesn't like it.