Snyder versus Phelphs hits Supreme Court...must vent

[spanko]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BTLDreef http:///forum/thread/381003/snyder-versus-phelphs-hits-supreme-court-must-vent#post_3317155
Spanko, the Supreme Court needs to hear this case because it has much to do with the Constitutional right of free speech and how that right is to be interpreted. Unfortunately without them stepping in, there is no clear cut answer to whether or not these idiots have the right to do this.
If you read how the suit has been worded and filed, they actually have legitimate arguments on both sides, although I think that the church might just loose this battle. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
Has nothing to do with the constitution and free speech. This is a local issue and should be handled as such. Here is the wording of the 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. "
Please note that it says "Congress shall make no law" For the supreme court to hear a case it would be for a violation of this. Congress has made no law here, this is a local....state issue and the 9 people in robes have no jurisdicition. We cannot let them make case law, they are there to uphold the constitution.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by spanko http:///forum/thread/381003/snyder-versus-phelphs-hits-supreme-court-must-vent/20#post_3317211
Has nothing to do with the constitution and free speech. This is a local issue and should be handled as such. Here is the wording of the 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. "
Please note that it says "Congress shall make no law" For the supreme court to hear a case it would be for a violation of this. Congress has made no law here, this is a local....state issue and the 9 people in robes have no jurisdicition. We cannot let them make case law, they are there to uphold the constitution.
Yeah but you have the supremacy thingy to consider. If congress can't make a law restricting a constitutional right neither can a local government. This case was tried at the local level, appealed and then finally appealed to the supreme court as is proper.

 

[spanko]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/381003/snyder-versus-phelphs-hits-supreme-court-must-vent/20#post_3317288
t ha
Yeah but you have the supremacy thingy to consider. If congress can't make a law restricting a constitutional right neither can a local government. This case was tried at the local level, appealed and then finally appealed to the supreme court as is proper.
Congress has no supremacy when it comes to the constitution. If they want to change something, they can call for an amendment. The constitution is a limiting document. Local government and the people have all the powers not granted to the feds. Free speech is a right that the feds cannot create laws to limit, however states and local governments can. States can secede from the "Union" if they so desire.

 

[darthtang aw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by spanko http:///forum/thread/381003/snyder-versus-phelphs-hits-supreme-court-must-vent/20#post_3317316
Congress has no supremacy when it comes to the constitution. If they want to change something, they can call for an amendment. The constitution is a limiting document. Local government and the people have all the powers not granted to the feds. Free speech is a right that the feds cannot create laws to limit, however states and local governments can. States can secede from the "Union" if they so desire.
States and local governments CAN NOT limit free speech. Unless the speech poses a danger to the Public.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by spanko http:///forum/thread/381003/snyder-versus-phelphs-hits-supreme-court-must-vent/20#post_3317316
Congress has no supremacy when it comes to the constitution. If they want to change something, they can call for an amendment. The constitution is a limiting document. Local government and the people have all the powers not granted to the feds. Free speech is a right that the feds cannot create laws to limit, however states and local governments can. States can secede from the "Union" if they so desire.
I am talking the constitution's supremacy, not Congress. And no, A state cannot limit a constitutional right.

 

[spanko]

Show me the constitutional right to free speech. Cite where in the constitution it is guaranteed.
The First Amendment does not grant you that right. You have the right to free speech, as well as all of the other rights that come from being a free person, such as the right to self-defense and freedom of worship, not because some governmental entity grants them to you, but because you are human. What the First Amendment does is explicitly clarify that the government is restricted only to certain enumerated powers, that it shall not, in particular, step on your inherent freedom of speech.

 

[darthtang aw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by spanko http:///forum/thread/381003/snyder-versus-phelphs-hits-supreme-court-must-vent/20#post_3317345
Show me the constitutional right to free speech. Cite where in the constitution it is guaranteed.
The First Amendment does not grant you that right. You have the right to free speech, as well as all of the other rights that come from being a free person, such as the right to self-defense and freedom of worship, not because some governmental entity grants them to you, but because you are human. What the First Amendment does is explicitly clarify that the government is restricted only to certain enumerated powers, that it shall not, in particular, step on your inherent freedom of speech.
And in turn neither can the local, as the local MUST follow the constitution as well.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by spanko http:///forum/thread/381003/snyder-versus-phelphs-hits-supreme-court-must-vent/20#post_3317345
Show me the constitutional right to free speech. Cite where in the constitution it is guaranteed.
The First Amendment does not grant you that right. You have the right to free speech, as well as all of the other rights that come from being a free person, such as the right to self-defense and freedom of worship, not because some governmental entity grants them to you, but because you are human. What the First Amendment does is explicitly clarify that the government is restricted only to certain enumerated powers, that it shall not, in particular, step on your inherent freedom of speech.
First amendment guarantees the right. Just like the second amendment doesn't create the right to own a gun, it protects it. Both are constitutional rights.

 

[spanko]

For a better understanding of what we are discussing here, and to understand where my points are coming from, please have a read here and let's discuss some more. I do understand where you are coming from, but I disagree from a constitutional standpoint.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0505a.asp

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by spanko http:///forum/thread/381003/snyder-versus-phelphs-hits-supreme-court-must-vent/20#post_3317377
For a better understanding of what we are discussing here, and to understand where my points are coming from, please have a read here and let's discuss some more. I do understand where you are coming from, but I disagree from a constitutional standpoint.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0505a.asp
OK, so using your standard local governments can limit free speech. How about the right to bare arms? It doesn't say states can't ban guns.

 

[spanko]

Same thing my friend. Think about the civil war. People thought Lincoln to be a wonderful president. Fought a war over slavery. Wrong. That war was fought over the rights of states to govern themselves, slavery was just the vehicle to get there.
On gun ownership, I wrote a post in another thread when the Chicago case came up in the supreme court and said they shouldn't be hearing it. If we allow the supreme court to "legalize" gun ownership it is not too far away that they will be allowing or disallowing what size bullets etc. etc.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by spanko http:///forum/thread/381003/snyder-versus-phelphs-hits-supreme-court-must-vent/20#post_3317528
Same thing my friend. Think about the civil war. People thought Lincoln to be a wonderful president. Fought a war over slavery. Wrong. That war was fought over the rights of states to govern themselves, slavery was just the vehicle to get there.
On gun ownership, I wrote a post in another thread when the Chicago case came up in the supreme court and said they shouldn't be hearing it. If we allow the supreme court to "legalize" gun ownership it is not too far away that they will be allowing or disallowing what size bullets etc. etc.
The court didn't legalize guns, the second amendment did. The constitution is the document by which the several states would be governed. What good would it do for the people to pass laws guaranteeing freedom at the federal level if the states could turn around and take them away?
By virtue of being placed in the constitution the power to ensure freedom of speech, to own firearms etc. are indeed delegated to the Federal Government and not subject to the 10th amendment.
Any case which brings up the issue of constitutionality would be perfectly appropriate being appealed to the Supreme Court. Despite what some justices might think their only official task is to decide if the constitution has been followed in the cases brought before them.

 

[spanko]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/381003/snyder-versus-phelphs-hits-supreme-court-must-vent/20#post_3317535
The court didn't legalize guns, the second amendment did. The constitution is the document by which the several states would be governed. What good would it do for the people to pass laws guaranteeing freedom at the federal level if the states could turn around and take them away?
By virtue of being placed in the constitution the power to ensure freedom of speech, to own firearms etc. are indeed delegated to the Federal Government and not subject to the 10th amendment.
Any case which brings up the issue of constitutionality would be perfectly appropriate being appealed to the Supreme Court. Despite what some justices might think their only official task is to decide if the constitution has been followed in the cases brought before them.
The second amendment did not legalize guns, It is an inherent right granted by the creator along with the freedom of speech, life liberty ect. etc. The government does not grant rights. The constitution does not grant rights. The constitution LIMITS the government. The supreme courts only task is to ensure the government acts within its limited powers afforded it by the constitution.
If that is to be changed, it is to be changed by the process the founders put in place, the amendment process. Nothing else trumps it.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by spanko http:///forum/thread/381003/snyder-versus-phelphs-hits-supreme-court-must-vent/20#post_3317610
The second amendment did not legalize guns, It is an inherent right granted by the creator along with the freedom of speech, life liberty ect. etc. The government does not grant rights. The constitution does not grant rights. The constitution LIMITS the government. The supreme courts only task is to ensure the government acts within its limited powers afforded it by the constitution.
If that is to be changed, it is to be changed by the process the founders put in place, the amendment process. Nothing else trumps it.
Who gets to decide what is a right from God and what is a privilege from the government? You have a right to own a gun, go try to buy a hand grenade. Only those rights spelled out in the bill of rights and placed into the constitution are protected. By the same token any right protected by the constitution becomes a matter for the Supreme court if called into question.

 

[spanko]

The Judicial branch was again limited in what they could hear.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
Read the bill of rights. Again a limiter for the federal government so that they could not usurp their powers.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by spanko http:///forum/thread/381003/snyder-versus-phelphs-hits-supreme-court-must-vent/20#post_3317665
The Judicial branch was again limited in what they could hear.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
Read the bill of rights. Again a limiter for the federal government so that they could not usurp their powers.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Declaration of independence and the constitution are two different things. Only the constitution carries the weight of law.

 

[spanko]

Yes sir, I agree and know this, however it gives you the feeling of the founders as they began to set up the system. They did not want a system of government that any way resembled what they were leaving. No centralized power that could exert undo power over the states. Freedom of people to develop their states the way they wished without intervention from a centralized government. their idea was not THE United States, but THESE United States. A distinction they were very clear about.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by spanko http:///forum/thread/381003/snyder-versus-phelphs-hits-supreme-court-must-vent/20#post_3317713
Yes sir, I agree and know this, however it gives you the feeling of the founders as they began to set up the system. They did not want a system of government that any way resembled what they were leaving. No centralized power that could exert undo power over the states. Freedom of people to develop their states the way they wished without intervention from a centralized government. their idea was not THE United States, but THESE United States. A distinction they were very clear about.
What they intended, what they created and what we have are all different. Did they intend that the federal government meddle in local issues? Of course not. But they absolutely felt that the rights included in the bill of rights be secure for all the people be it from the federal government or local government.
Once the supreme court rules there are only 2 things short of revolution that can change it, a constitutional amendment or the court reversing itself. Like it or not we are stuck with what we have unless the republicans control the white house, have 60 seats in the Senate and at least one justice from the liberal block leaves.

 

[spanko]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/381003/snyder-versus-phelphs-hits-supreme-court-must-vent/20#post_3317766
What they intended, what they created and what we have are all different. Did they intend that the federal government meddle in local issues? Of course not. But they absolutely felt that the rights included in the bill of rights be secure for all the people be it from the federal government or local government.
Once the supreme court rules there are only 2 things short of revolution that can change it, a constitutional amendment or the court reversing itself. Like it or not we are stuck with what we have unless the republicans control the white house, have 60 seats in the Senate and at least one justice from the liberal block leaves
Not true sir the congress can tell the supreme court in effect to pound sand. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=overruling_the_court, http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/jcoc2ay.htm
Also read here
http://www.jmu.edu/madison/gpos225-madison2/madexpcontojeff.htm

 

[spanko]

Another good read, again as an understanding of the framers thoughts,
"The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government. Many people today find this to be an incredible fact. The fact is, prior to incorporation, discussed below, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. This is, however, quite in line with what the Constitution was originally designed to be: a framework for the federal government. In other words, though the federal government was banned from violating the freedom of the press, states were free to regulate the press. For the most part, this was not an issue, because the state constitutions all had bills of rights, and many of the rights protected by the states mirrored those in the federal Bill, and many went further than the federal Bill.
This point is best illustrated by one of the amendments that Madison proposed in his initial speech:

Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:
No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.

This clause, seemingly innocuous to us today, was rejected by the Senate in its final draft of the Bill, and the concept that any part of the Bill of Rights would apply to the states was still 100 years away. Several cases that came before the Supreme Court in the 19th century attempted to have the Court establish that the Bill should apply to the states, to no avail:
In Barron v Baltimore (32 U.S. 243 [1833]), the Court ruled that the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment did not apply to the City of Baltimore and the State of Maryland by extension. Succinctly, the Court wrote: "...the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states."
In Pervear v Massachusetts (72 U.S. 475 [1866]), the Court was asked to rule on fines imposed upon a liquor dealer by the state. Pervear was licensed by the United States under the current internal revenue code to keep and sell liquor. He was fined and sentenced to three months of hard labor for not maintaining a state license for his liquor business. Part to the defense attempted to invoke the 8th Amendment's Excessive Fines and Cruel and Unusual Punishment clauses. The Court, again quite succinctly, said: "Of this proposition it is enough to say that the article of the Constitution relied upon in support of it does not apply to State but to National legislation."
As to the Bill of Rights being a bar to federal acts, the Bill took some knocks in the first years of the new nation. The 1798 Alien and Sedition Act, for example, made nationals of countries the United States was at war with subject to summary arrest, and also made "false, scandalous and malicious" writings about the government a crime, with the burden of proof placed squarely on the shoulders of the defendant rather than the state. Madison and Thomas Jefferson were both adamantly opposed to the Act, and said that being unconstitutional, states were free to ignore (or nullify) the law. The Act, repealed in 1801, was never ruled unconstitutional."