Supreme Court’s Roe ruling would trample the religious freedom of every Jewish American

a reply to: tanstaafl

Sorry, but regardless of what the Supreme Court may or may not have ever said on the subject, the 1st Amendment only applies to CONGRESS, not State Governments.

Well, thank goodness for the 14th Amendment!

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

Sorry, but regardless of what the Supreme Court may or may not have ever said on the subject, the 1st Amendment only applies to CONGRESS, not State Governments.

Well, thank goodness for the 14th Amendment!

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

then what's the problem?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

Well, thank goodness for the 14th Amendment!

"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ...

Yeah... except that doesn't invalidate or replace the text in the 1st Amendment, but more importantly, the 'incorporation' theory relied upon to substantiate the claim is BS... they (the supremes) were incorporating things selectively and arbitrarily.

No, had the intention of the 14th amendment been to simply apply the BoR to the States, it would have simply said so, something like "The first 8 amendments to the Constitution for these United States of America are hereby made applicable to the States and local/municipal governments."

But good on ya for believing the gobbledyspeak of the machine.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Yeah... except that doesn't invalidate or replace the text in the 1st Amendment,

You sure about that?

Cantwell v. Connecticut, 1940
In this case, the Court was asked to decide if a Connecticut state statute violated the First Amendment because it required a permit to be obtained in order to solicit for religious purposes. The Supreme Court rules unanimously against the state. The reasoning behind the decision was that the state would effectively be determining religious truth by deciding which causes were religious and which were not as they issued or denied permits. This was deemed to be a violation of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments. This case is also particularly important because it is the first time the Supreme Court applied the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to state government as well as federal.

Edwards v. South Carolina, 1963
This case involved 187 black high school and college students who had assembled to protest laws in South Carolina which they alleged “prohibited Negro privileges”. The students had gathered peacefully at the site of the state government and were told by police that they would have to disperse within 15 minutes or face the possibility of being arrested. The students refused to leave and instead sang patriotic and religious songs. They were eventually arrested and convicted of breach of the peace. When the case eventually reached the Supreme Court, the Court ruled that South Carolina has violated the students’ First Amendment rights in three different ways. The state had infringed upon their rights of free speech, free assembly and freedom to petition for a redress of grievances.

baldanilaw.com...

SCOTUS Rules That California Violated the First Amendment

Supreme Court rules Boston violated First Amendment rights

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

You sure about that?

100%. My words were precise. No amount of equivocation changes the fact that the 14th Amendment did not use any words that invalidate or alter the text of any other part of the Constitution. Period. If you disagree, by all means, point to the words in the 14th amendment that invalidates or alters the text of anything in the Constitution.

When a law (or Constitutional Amendment) changes the text or words of any portion of any other law (or the Constitution), it should always do so in a very specific and precise way.

A perfect example of how this should be done was the repeal of prohibition, where the text opf the 21st Amendment is simple and unequivocal:

"The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."

If any attempt is made to alter an existing law (or the Constitution) in any other way, all you get is confusion and chaos - which is what we got from the 16th Amendment (which the Supreme Court ruled, contrary to what most people believe, unequivocally did not alter or amend the taxing power of the United States in any way.

If the intent was to make the BoR apply equally to all State and Municipal governments, the text of the 14th amendment would have simply been:

"All articles of the first 8 amendments to this Constitution, commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, are hereby made applicable to State and Local governments."

Or something like that.

a reply to: tanstaafl

No amount of equivocation changes the fact that the 14th Amendment did not use any words that invalidate or alter the text of any other part of the Constitution.

I never claimed the 14th invalidated the 1st Amendment. But, it did, along with the 13th Amendment, invalidate the 3/5th of a person clause from Article 1 Section 2 of the US Constitution.

I gave you 4 cases in which the US Supreme Court ruled state or local municipalities had violated the 1st Amendment. Your premise that states are exempt from acknowledging the 1st Amendment rights of their residents is false.

Oklahoma Legislature Passes Nation's Most Restrictive Abortion Ban

The bill would prohibit all abortions and would allow private citizens to sue providers.

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Oklahoma’s Legislature gave final approval Thursday to another Texas-style anti-abortion bill that providers say will be the most restrictive in the nation once the governor signs it.

The bill is part of an aggressive push in Republican-led states across the country to scale back abortion rights. It comes on the heels of a leaked draft opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court that suggests justices are considering weakening or overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nearly 50 years ago.The bill by Collinsville Republican Rep. Wendi Stearman would prohibit all abortions, except to save the life of a pregnant woman or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest that has been reported to law enforcement.

“Is our goal to defend the right to life or isn’t it?” Stearman asked her colleagues before the bill passed on a 73-16 vote mostly along party lines.

Overall, I wonder what the reaction to this will be.

a reply to: peaceinoutz

or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest that has been reported to law enforcement.

Oklahoma is about to become the national rape capitol!

a reply to: tanstaafl

No amount of equivocation changes the fact that the 14th Amendment did not use any words that invalidate or alter the text of any other part of the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment does not invalidate any other part of the US Constitution. Instead, it expands the constitutional regulations on government to that of the states. The primary purpose was to protect the right to vote, which is not in the Bill of Rights; it is implied throughout the body of the US Constitution itself. The political issue of the day was voting rights for the ex-slaves.

the language was left a bit "loose" so it would also cover the Bill of Rights for ex-slaves. They were no longer slaves, but there was a large contingent that wanted to treat them as such regardless. The full intention was to ensure that states could not violate the rights of the people, either enumerated, implied, or self-evident.

As much as it shocks me, I have to agree with Sookiechacha in this case. The 14th Amendment extends Constitutional restrictions to the states as well as the Federal government.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
PM for you.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Oklahoma is about to become the national rape capitol!

Fertilized eggs have Constitutional rights too.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Fertilized eggs have Constitutional rights too.

But a full term baby trying to be born does not.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

I never claimed the 14th invalidated the 1st Amendment.

To quote your response to my claim that it didn't: You sure about that?

I guess it helps to be able to speak with some degree of clarity and precision. Back to school

But, it did,

Really? So, you're claim now is that the 1st amendment no longer applies to Congress. Unbelievable.

along with the 13th Amendment, invalidate the 3/5th of a person clause from Article 1 Section 2 of the US Constitution.

Nope, again, wrong.

It didn't invalidate it, but I do understand your confusion. Since there was no more slavery or involuntary servitude after the 14th, that section no longer had any applicability, but the text was not altered or struck.

I gave you 4 cases in which the US Supreme Court ruled state or local municipalities had violated the 1st Amendment. Your premise that states are exempt from acknowledging the 1st Amendment rights of their residents is false.

And I gave you an example of how provisions within Constitutions and/or Laws are properly changed - by specifically calling out the exact words, clauses and/or phrases to be replaced, and what they are replaced with.

The cases you cited all were perfect examples of just how vague and twisted the 14th amendment was.

I guess maybe that is why it could only be ratified at gunpoint by actors masquerading as representatives of the people of the Southern States.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: tanstaafl

No amount of equivocation changes the fact that the 14th Amendment did not use any words that invalidate or alter the text of any other part of the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment does not invalidate any other part of the US Constitution. Instead, it expands the constitutional regulations on government to that of the states. The primary purpose was to protect the right to vote, which is not in the Bill of Rights; it is implied throughout the body of the US Constitution itself. The political issue of the day was voting rights for the ex-slaves.

the language was left a bit "loose" so it would also cover the Bill of Rights for ex-slaves.

No, it was left 'a bit loose' as you say because those who wrote it were the beginnings of the elite class now overtly destroying our country. They slipped in section 4, adding all of the extraneous reasons for it after the first and only part they actually needed in there, making it a Constitutional prohibition for anyone to ever be able to 'question the public debt'.

As much as it shocks me, I have to agree with Sookiechacha in this case. The 14th Amendment extends Constitutional restrictions to the states as well as the Federal government.

Yeah, except that is my point, which you apparently made, then missed, because you started out correctly stating that it doesn't invalidate anything. That is specifically what he is claiming. He said it INVALIDATES it. It didn't, otherwise it would no longer apply to Congress, OR the States. Invalidated means precisely that.

My argument is a semantical one, and I enjoy watching Sookie flail around like a chicken with it's head cut off (I've whacked more than a few chicken heads - brings back some memories, let me tell ya)...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
But a full term baby trying to be born does not.

I'm pretty sure in nearly all instances they do.

a reply to: tanstaafl

My argument is a semantical one, and I enjoy watching Sookie flail around like a chicken with it's head cut off

If your argument is semantic, then you do't have an argument. Besides, why try to trick someone into making a mistake when all one has to do is wait a few minutes and they'll make a bigger mistake without help.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: tanstaafl

If your argument is semantic, then you do't have an argument.

Do you understand the meaning of the word semantics? It simply means precision with words.

Besides, why try to trick someone into making a mistake when all one has to do is wait a few minutes and they'll make a bigger mistake without help.

Not trying to trick anyone, like I said, just entertaining myself