Another blatant Constitutional violation

[YWN666]

Excuse me but where, SPECIFICALLY, does the constitution declare that you, as a private citizen, are barred from publically speaking about your religion or displaying a religious practice?

I am just riveted to see the justification for removing religious freedom here.

Actually, the Constitution says exactly the opposite

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Once again, we've already discussed that there are certain reasonable limitations on free speech but that isn't even the issue here. This case involves a school promoting religion and schools do not have constitutional rights. Individuals do (unless they are deemed to be acting on behalf of the school.)

 

[YWN666]

Excuse me but where, SPECIFICALLY, does the constitution declare that you, as a private citizen, are barred from publically speaking about your religion or displaying a religious practice?

I am just riveted to see the justification for removing religious freedom here.

Do you think that everything governed by the Constitution is specifically mentioned in it?

This instance however is specifically mentioned. Ernie pointed it out for you. Try and actually address it.

Where is it specifically mentioned? I don't know which poster "Ernie" is.

 

[YWN666]

For the 100th time, read the court decision I posted.

Fuck. The. Court. Tell me how YOU or anyone else would be compelled to join in the prayer if the person giving the comcencement speech said it.

Well, there you have it. The Court makes a decision you don't like so you dismiss the Court. As I told you, the decision explains how someone in a school setting can be considered to be coerced into joining in the prayer.

 

[FA_Q2]

Excuse me but where, SPECIFICALLY, does the constitution declare that you, as a private citizen, are barred from publically speaking about your religion or displaying a religious practice?

I am just riveted to see the justification for removing religious freedom here.

Actually, the Constitution says exactly the opposite

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Once again, we've already discussed that there are certain reasonable limitations on free speech but that isn't even the issue here. This case involves a school promoting religion and schools do not have constitutional rights. Individuals do (unless they are deemed to be acting on behalf of the school.)

But SHE has constitutional rights and she does not represent the school nor is she acting in any official capacity. Further, you are making the POSITIVE charge that it is against the constitution, not simply not her right. That is a BIG difference.

 

[YWN666]

Actually, the Constitution says exactly the opposite

Once again, we've already discussed that there are certain reasonable limitations on free speech but that isn't even the issue here. This case involves a school promoting religion and schools do not have constitutional rights. Individuals do (unless they are deemed to be acting on behalf of the school.)

But SHE has constitutional rights and she does not represent the school nor is she acting in any official capacity. Further, you are making the POSITIVE charge that it is against the constitution, not simply not her right. That is a BIG difference.

In that scenario, the courts have decided that a student IS acting on behalf of the school (who is this SHE you're referring to? - the student in the story is a male).

 

[Againsheila]

Excuse me but where, SPECIFICALLY, does the constitution declare that you, as a private citizen, are barred from publically speaking about your religion or displaying a religious practice?

I am just riveted to see the justification for removing religious freedom here.

Actually, the Constitution says exactly the opposite

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Once again, we've already discussed that there are certain reasonable limitations on free speech but that isn't even the issue here. This case involves a school promoting religion and schools do not have constitutional rights. Individuals do (unless they are deemed to be acting on behalf of the school.)

So you can start congress with a prayer, as we have since we became a nation, but starting a graduation ceremony with a prayer is against the constitution?

 

[legaleagle_45]

In that scenario, the courts have decided that a student IS acting on behalf of the school (who is this SHE you're referring to? - the student in the story is a male).[/FONT][/B]

In the present scenario the courts would find no such connection to the school. There must be some reasonable belief that the school was endorsing the speech being given. That is the sine qua non of the constitutional violation. In the present circumstances it is clear that the student deviated from the approved text in contravention of the school dictates, thus no constituional violation. You seem to wish to impose "strict liability" upon the school. Sorry does not work that way. So long as a reasonable person would not believe that the student was speaking on behalf of and with the approval of the school, then there will be no violation. Simple as that and none of your cases says anything different.

 

[legaleagle_45]

So you can start congress with a prayer, as we have since we became a nation, but starting a graduation ceremony with a prayer is against the constitution?

Announcement given before every oral argument presented to the US Supreme Court:

All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually, the Constitution says exactly the opposite

Once again, we've already discussed that there are certain reasonable limitations on free speech but that isn't even the issue here. This case involves a school promoting religion and schools do not have constitutional rights. Individuals do (unless they are deemed to be acting on behalf of the school.)

So you can start congress with a prayer, as we have since we became a nation, but starting a graduation ceremony with a prayer is against the constitution?

You’re comparing two completely different Constitutional principles with regard to Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

The chaplaincy practice is Constitutional because it’s predicate on historical custom. See: Marsh v. Chambers (1983).

With regard to prayer before school sponsored ceremonies and events, however, such a practice is clearly un-Constitutional because of its coercive nature, because of its excessive entanglement with government and religion, and because it constitutes proselytizing regardless how ‘non-sectarian’ the religious expression might be. See: Lee v. Weisman (1992), Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000).

 

[martybegan]

Fuck. The. Court. Tell me how YOU or anyone else would be compelled to join in the prayer if the person giving the comcencement speech said it.

Well, there you have it. The Court makes a decision you don't like so you dismiss the Court. As I told you, the decision explains how someone in a school setting can be considered to be coerced into joining in the prayer.

The courts are currently legislating from the bench, not interpreting law, so yes, Fuck the courts at this point.

 

[legaleagle_45]

The chaplaincy practice is Constitutional because it’s predicate on historical custom. See: Marsh v. Chambers (1983).

You misread Marsh. Historical custom is insufficient to justify a violation of the Constitution:

Standing alone, historical patterns cannot justify contemporary violations of constitutional guarantees... Id, at 789.

Similarly, the Court held in another establishment case:

It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use, even when that span of time covers our entire national existence and indeed predates it

Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York 397 U.S. 664 (1970)

Nevertheless, such a long historical custom is evidence of the meaning and intent of the 1st Amend that such a practice is not barred by the constitutional prohibition.