Another blatant Constitutional violation

[YWN666]

Now you are really getting butthurt if you are throwing out the SC's number.

I'm just giving you an opportunity to dazzle the Supreme Court with your legal brilliance.

Again, more butthurt.

Also according to the article he did not "lead" the prayer, he mearly starting saying it.

In that instance, it was the same thing.

The last kicker is the person complaining is from the "freedom from religion" foundation, a cover name for asshole atheists if I ever heard one.

You might be surprised to find out that atheists have constitutional rights, too.

I personally dont consider my freedoms and other freedoms (not the freedom to not be offended) under the juristiction of 9 unelected lawyers.

That's not really up to you, is it?

Again, Plessey V Fergueson was a decsion that stood for decades. I guess since you always think the court is right, segregation was right.

What a bullshit argument. That case was decided in 1896.

 

[legaleagle_45]

I did apply the same distinction. The point you're missing is that in the school graduation scenario, the valedictorian speech is considered to be sanctioned by the state.

Not if it is clearly not sanctioned by the state and even the atheist group cited in your news article admits that there is no constituional violation... from your article:

Patrick Elliott with the Freedom From Religion Foundation ... Elliott says he doesn't feel what Costner did was illegal, just in poor taste.

It would clearly be another issue if the Principal had given the speech, or if the School had hired a Preacher to give that speech or even if the school had approved the speech given. However in the situation where the student tears up the prepared speech and defies the school authority, there is no such Constituional violation and no case you cited will say anything different.

This is no different than when a kid receives a diploma and his contigent of friends and relatives rise up in unison and yell "PRAISE THE LORD" (probably in disbelief that the dummy actually graduated).

It is clearly the private act of a private individual acting in their private capacity. There is no confusion that the state directed this message if the student specifically tears up the prepared speech and says he is defying the directive of the school administration. You would have another issue entirely if the school planned this deviation clandestinly with the student so as to get around the 1st Amend, but I do not believe that to be the case here.

 

[YWN666]

Why not arrest him and throw him in jail?

Why? He's not violating the law.

Need I remind you that the title of this topic is:

Another blatant Constitutional violation

A constitutional violation is not a criminal offense that is arrestable.

 

[YWN666]

Once he went off script, government sanction ceased and his private citizen rights took precedence.

The school was still responsible for the speech he did read.

How???????
Are you responsible for what I say? Are Joe Biden's speech writers responsible for his ad lib blunders? Is the US House of Representatives responsible for Hank Johnson being worried Guam may tip over?

I'm not going to keep repeating the same answer. Look at the quotes from the court decision I posted. It explains the concept pretty clearly.

 

[martybegan]

I'm just giving you an opportunity to dazzle the Supreme Court with your legal brilliance.

Again, more butthurt.

Also according to the article he did not "lead" the prayer, he mearly starting saying it.

In that instance, it was the same thing.



You might be surprised to find out that atheists have constitutional rights, too.

I personally dont consider my freedoms and other freedoms (not the freedom to not be offended) under the juristiction of 9 unelected lawyers.

That's not really up to you, is it?

Again, Plessey V Fergueson was a decsion that stood for decades. I guess since you always think the court is right, segregation was right.

What a bullshit argument. That case was decided in 1896.

First, stop using bold font, it makes you look like more of an idiot that you actually are.

2nd: No one has the right to not be offended. And going with the "its not up to you" line on a debate board ignores the actual topic. A sure sign that you are out of arguments.

And i have shown that the court can be wrong. you based your position on the court, and assume your position is the "right" one.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Why? He's not violating the law.

Need I remind you that the title of this topic is:

Another blatant Constitutional violation

A constitutional violation is not a criminal offense that is arrestable.

It most certainly can be, but that is not the assertion now. The assertion now was that the law was not "violated". Certainly if there is a constitutional violation, the law has most certainly been violated. Would you not agree?

 

[YWN666]

I'm just giving you an opportunity to dazzle the Supreme Court with your legal brilliance.

You fascists have not done well with SCOTUS over the last decade. Cases where the 9th circuit has stripped civil liberties, have routinely been overturned by the higher court.

Look at the court decision I posted. It was appealed to the Supreme Court and they refused to hear it, letting the lower court decision stand.

Granted, if one of the constitutionalists on the court dies or retires, Obama will appoint a Kagan type who is hostile to civil liberties - but at the moment, the court is not your ally.

I'm a fascist now? Do you even know what that word means?? You are starting to sound like Archie Bunker

 

[YWN666]

I did apply the same distinction. The point you're missing is that in the school graduation scenario, the valedictorian speech is considered to be sanctioned by the state.

Not if it is clearly not sanctioned by the state and even the atheist group cited in your news article admits that there is no constituional violation... from your article:

Patrick Elliott with the Freedom From Religion Foundation ... Elliott says he doesn't feel what Costner did was illegal, just in poor taste.

He said it was not illegal. He didn't say it was not unconstitutional.

It would clearly be another issue if the Principal had given the speech, or if the School had hired a Preacher to give that speech or even if the school had approved the speech given. However in the situation where the student tears up the prepared speech and defies the school authority, there is no such Constituional violation and no case you cited will say anything different.

This is no different than when a kid receives a diploma and his contigent of friends and relatives rise up in unison and yell "PRAISE THE LORD" (probably in disbelief that the dummy actually graduated).

It is clearly the private act of a private individual acting in their private capacity. There is no confusion that the state directed this message if the student specifically tears up the prepared speech and says he is defying the directive of the school administration. You would have another issue entirely if the school planned this deviation clandestinly with the student so as to get around the 1st Amend, but I do not believe that to be the case here.

So the Courts are all wrong then?

 

[YWN666]

Exactly which civil liberty are you defending? Be specific.

The right to be free of government endorsed religion.

It's been pointed out several times that he did not read the government endorsed speech.
Try again.

He did. It was not the speech authorized by the school but any speech he makes in that position is considered to be sanctioned by the school. Read the decision I posted.

 

[YWN666]

Again, more butthurt.

Also according to the article he did not "lead" the prayer, he mearly starting saying it.

In that instance, it was the same thing.



You might be surprised to find out that atheists have constitutional rights, too.





That's not really up to you, is it?

Again, Plessey V Fergueson was a decsion that stood for decades. I guess since you always think the court is right, segregation was right.

What a bullshit argument. That case was decided in 1896.

First, stop using bold font, it makes you look like more of an idiot that you actually are.

I like using it because it differentiates the response from the original comment and you don't get to tell me how I should or should not post.

2nd: No one has the right to not be offended.

How many times do I have to say this? It is not about being offended. It is about constitutional rights. In case that doesn't sink in, I'll have another repeat standing by.

And going with the "its not up to you" line on a debate board ignores the actual topic. A sure sign that you are out of arguments.

I was just pointing pout the silliness of your claims that you are not subject to the decisions of a US court. Are you also exempt from criminals laws? How does that work exactly?

And i have shown that the court can be wrong.

Have you? Where?

you based your position on the court, and assume your position is the "right" one.

 

[legaleagle_45]

He said it was not illegal. He didn't say it was not unconstitutional.

Did you find anywhere that he was claiming it to be unconstitutional? Certainly when one violates the Constituion, one violates the law... since the Constituion is the THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. so when one does violate the Constituion one does violate the law... or did you forget that part of the Constituion?

So the Courts are all wrong then?

All of the cases you are relying upon are inopposite so your relaince upon them is in error. You might try looking at Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001)

 

[legaleagle_45]

He did. It was not the speech authorized by the school but any speech he makes in that position is considered to be sanctioned by the school. Read the decision I posted.

None of your cases say that. What your cases say is that the school district has the rigfht to censor... in dicta it says they may have the obligation to censor. Nowhere in any of your cases is there any indication that a constituional violation arises because there efforts to censor proved unsuccesful. Please provide us with such a case and you might have something... until then, you have nothing.

PS you realize that denial of cert is not deemed an approval by SCOTUS of the underlying decision, right?

 

[Ernie S.]

Why? He's not violating the law.

Need I remind you that the title of this topic is:

Another blatant Constitutional violation

A constitutional violation is not a criminal offense that is arrestable.

Large, bold font where not necessary or warranted is far more offensive than a valedictorian reciting the Lord's Prayer.

 

[Ernie S.]

The school was still responsible for the speech he did read.

How???????
Are you responsible for what I say? Are Joe Biden's speech writers responsible for his ad lib blunders? Is the US House of Representatives responsible for Hank Johnson being worried Guam may tip over?

I'm not going to keep repeating the same answer. Look at the quotes from the court decision I posted. It explains the concept pretty clearly.

What you posted pertains to school sponsored speech. Once he went off script, your case is irrelevant, Jake.
Please address that.

 

[Ernie S.]

I'm just giving you an opportunity to dazzle the Supreme Court with your legal brilliance.

You fascists have not done well with SCOTUS over the last decade. Cases where the 9th circuit has stripped civil liberties, have routinely been overturned by the higher court.

Look at the court decision I posted. It was appealed to the Supreme Court and they refused to hear it, letting the lower court decision stand.

Granted, if one of the constitutionalists on the court dies or retires, Obama will appoint a Kagan type who is hostile to civil liberties - but at the moment, the court is not your ally.

I'm a fascist now? Do you even know what that word means?? You are starting to sound like Archie Bunker

And you are looking like Garrett Morris on Saturday Night Live repeating the news for the hearing impaired.

 

[Wry Catcher]

SC valedictorian recites Lord's Prayer at graduation - Atlanta News, Weather, Traffic, and Sports | FOX 5


SC valedictorian recites Lord's Prayer at graduation


Posted: Jun 06, 2013 11:22 PM EST Updated: Jun 13, 2013 11:22 PM EST
By MYFOXATLANTA STAFF


A valedictorian at a South Carolina high school ripped up a faculty-approved speech and opted instead to read the Lord's Prayer.

Liberty High School valedictorian Roy Costner hadn't been at the podium for more than 30 seconds when he tore up the speech he had gotten approved by the faculty and began reciting the Lord's Prayer to thunderous applause.

Patrick Elliott with the Freedom From Religion Foundation says they have received complaints about the district in South Carolina in the past for having student-led prayers at school board meetings, so they wrote to them and asked them to stop.

"Sometimes people think, 'majority rules' but that's not really the case with a constitutional right. So students do have the right to attend school without the school promoting or endorsing religion even if you know a large amount of people in the community would hope that the school would do so," Elliott said.

Jonathan Saenz with Texas Values is proud of Costner.

"It's very clear. If the student is allowed to speak, the government cannot pick and choose what words they like...specifically target them because they're religious," Saenz said.

Elliott says he doesn't feel what Costner did was illegal, just in poor taste.

"I think it's a symptom of the entitlement that has gone on in that district. They've been instituting prayers and religious practices for a very long time and so when the school is now coming into compliance with the law, I think there's bound to be some reaction to that. I also think if it were a non-Christian student, a Muslim or somebody who's non-religious, I think you would have heard "boos" there instead of you know, loud applause," Elliott said.

Saenz doesn't agree, saying those who complain usually target Christians expressing their faith.

"That's what we've seen in Texas, that's what we're seeing in South Carolina, and so all denominations have religious freedom rights but it seems like every time it becomes an issue and someone threatens with a lawsuit or some type of challenge, it's always a Christian student. And so that's unfortunate that you see this type of targeted discrimination. And we hope that's something that will end," Saenz said.

Link to video: LHS Valedictorian Address 2013 - YouTube

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

And yet, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" determined schools can prohibit free speech. See:

Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007)

 

[Uncensored2008]

Look at the court decision I posted. It was appealed to the Supreme Court and they refused to hear it, letting the lower court decision stand.

Irrelevant to my point.

That you fascists have some historic wins against constitutional rights does not alter the fact that the high court of late has been favorable to civil rights and unfavorable to your efforts to discard the Bill of Rights

While you fascist seek to silence any views save your own, the SCOTUS rules against your fairly consistently.

Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District - Religious Freedom Page
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia - Religious Freedom Page

So the score at this moment is'

Fascists 1
Liberty 2

I'm a fascist now?

I'm fairly certain you've been a fascist for a long time.

Do you even know what that word means?? You are starting to sound like Archie Bunker

I'm using the common vernacular of one who seeks an authoritarian state and denies basic liberty to others.

Technically fascism is the merger of corporate and state power structures.

Say, do you support Obamacare by any chance?

 

[Ernie S.]

I like using it because it differentiates the response from the original comment and you don't get to tell me how I should or should not post.

snip

OK I won't tell you how to post. I will simply neg your idiot ass every 2 days as long as you use it. Is that OK with you?

 

[Sallow]

Why not arrest him and throw him in jail?

Why? He's not violating the law.

Need I remind you that the title of this topic is:

Another blatant Constitutional violation

Have a good read of the Constitution.

It's really not about citizens.

It's about the government and what they can and can't do.

Emphasis..on the can't.

 

[Ernie S.]

I think the comic sans font suits you well. You should adopt it if you want to set your ridiculous crap apart from the responses you may receive.