Another blatant Constitutional violation

[Ernie S.]

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.

What they can't do to the people, in nearly every case. But yes, you're right.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Such as they can't INFRINGE the right of people to express beliefs - even if others find them offensive. And they cannot INFRINGE the right of people to worship deities of their choice - even on sacred government ground.

And this is why people like me defend the Constitution from people like you and ywn666 who seek to crush it.

 

[legaleagle_45]

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

Emphasis..on the can't.

So we are in agreement that a student reciting the Lord's Prayer at a Graduation Ceremony is not a violation of the Constituion...

 

[legaleagle_45]

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

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

Yep... has noting to do with freedom of religion however as it was a pure free speech case and the Court found an important underlying justification to prevent the display of a large banner endorsing illegal drug use at a function coordinated through the school, distinguishing it from prior case law which protected the wearing of armbands to protest the Vietnam War, holding that pure political speech which does not substantively disrupt the school is protected...

 

[YWN666]

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?

Ahhh, the cowards way out. I should have seen that coming. Will you also get your Mommy to yell at me?? Geez...........

 

[YWN666]

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.

Such as they can't INFRINGE the right of people to express beliefs - even if others find them offensive. And they cannot INFRINGE the right of people to worship deities of their choice - even on sacred government ground.

If someone belongs to a religion that compels its followers to steal from others, are you going to say that kind of behavior should be allowed just because it is the basis of someone's religious beliefs? You can exercise your freedom of religion UNLESS doing so infringes on someone else's rights. Your religion doesn't give you free reign to do anything you want.

 

[hortysir]

You freedom of religion ends when it begins to violate the rights of others.

Which constitutional right, of yours, is being violated by hearing someone pray?

Contrary to popular belief, you do NOT have the right to not be offended.

Once again, it is NOT about being offended. As I said a few times before, I have no problem with a student saying a prayer out in the hallway outside of the official school ceremony. The right that is being violated is my right to have a government that does not favor, promote or endorse religion.

Can you quote the article of our beloved Constitution that assures you of that right?

Still not grasping that whole "NO LAW" thing, hunh?

 

[hortysir]

In this particular situation they should have cut the mike..and had security walk him off stage.

They didn't.

So it's done in this instance.

The best thing they can do moving forward is issue a warning that if that happens again..that's what they will do.

So some student mentioning God or praying during his valerdictorian speech merits thugs escorting him off stage?

If you are so offended by prayer that you cant hear it for 2 minutes, i suggest you get a spine.

Meanwhile if he wanted to spout about things progressives actually like, he/she can drone on for hours.

Thugs?

No.

Security?

Yeah.

If he started chanting a Muslim prayer..I am pretty sure you would have wanted him shot.

Not at all.
ALL religions have rights.

But I can go one better......

To the OP:
If the student was orating on the wonders of homosexuality and abortion would you be so adamantly against his speech?
Those things go against my religion, yet I would not fault the kid for speaking of these issues

 

[gallantwarrior]

He was supposed to read a speech approved by the school but instead he disregarded their direction and lead the audience in a prayer and that constitutes government endorsement. He can stand in the hallway and recite prayers until he is blue in the face but when he stands at a school podium at a school graduation over a school PA system, he can't. He could have even gotten by if he spoke about how religion helped him be a successful student but the prayer was over the line (and was he really showing true christian behavior by lying to the school about his intentions in reading that prayer? - what he did was a real "fuck you" to the school and others in the crowd). People have the right to come to school functions and not be subjected to any religious indoctrination.

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.

He was not an agent of the government. He was exercising his rights as a private citizen. A private citizen reciting the Lord's Prayer, in no way indicates the establishment of a State religion regardless of where he was.

The first amendment is numero uno for a reason.

There are reasonable limits to our constitutional freedoms and this is one of them.

What are some others?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Baloney. I am defending civil liberties.



That's the logical fallacy known as "appeal to popularity". It means nothing.

Exactly which civil liberty are you defending? Be specific.

The right to be free of government endorsed religion.

Please explain exactly how government endorsed religion in the case you cited?

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

And yet you continue to repeat the same answer, ad nausea.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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

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?

Again, how has the Constitution been violated?

 

[legaleagle_45]

Again, how has the Constitution been violated?

Actually, I am not. They are claiming the Constituion has been violated in one breath and then asserting that no law has been broken in another breath. I am merely pointing out the inconsitantcies in their argument.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

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

Yep... has noting to do with freedom of religion however as it was a pure free speech case and the Court found an important underlying justification to prevent the display of a large banner endorsing illegal drug use at a function coordinated through the school, distinguishing it from prior case law which protected the wearing of armbands to protest the Vietnam War, holding that pure political speech which does not substantively disrupt the school is protected...

But speech not authorized by the school is disruptive and not subject to First Amendment protection. See: Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier (1988). Had school officials known that the student was going to recite the prayer, they would have been justified in preventing him from doing so, or subjecting him to sanctions subsequently – resulting in no Free Exercise Clause violation by school officials.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

Jonathan Saenz is a religious bigot.

 

[George Costanza]

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?

Again, how has the Constitution been violated?

It is a public school. Public schools are governmental institutions. Any time a governmental institution is involved, Constitutional limitations apply. Forcing people attending a public school to listen to religious chanting is violative of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

 

[Katzndogz]

Religious bigots have every right to speak too.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Religious bigots have every right to speak too.

No one ever said they didn’t.

But no right is absolute, and government may place reasonable restrictions on our rights.

In this case, with regard to student speech at an official school function, educators are at liberty to control the content of that speech. Such control does not constitute a ‘violation’ of a student’s right to free expression.

 

[legaleagle_45]

But speech not authorized by the school is disruptive and not subject to First Amendment protection. See: Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier (1988).

Speech not authorized by the school may or may not be disruptive and Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier says nothing different. What it does say is that an official school newspaper is subject to tighter control of 1st Amend rights allowing the school to censor such a newspaper without a showing of any disruption. To assert that ANY speech not authorized by the school is presumptively "disruptive and not subject to First Amendment protection" is absurd and specifically refuted by the very case you cite:

The standard for determining when a school may punish student expression that happens to occur on school premises is not the standard for determining when a school may refuse to lend its name and resources to the dissemination of student expression

Hazelwood did NOT overrule Tinker, it specifically distinguished it and placed a different burden on the content of officially sanctioned school activities

Had school officials known that the student was going to recite the prayer, they would have been justified in preventing him from doing so,

Agreed.

or subjecting him to sanctions subsequently – resulting in no Free Exercise Clause violation by school officials.

At least under 9th Circuit jurisprudence.

 

[legaleagle_45]

But no right is absolute, and government may place reasonable restrictions on our rights.

I ALWAYS cringe when someone says that because it is not accurate .. It would be accurate in Canada which allows Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be subjected to the “reasonable limits” clause, and which specifically allows the government to limit an individual’s Charter rights based upon a reasonableness standard.

A right protected by an express provision of the Constitution is not unlimited and may be restricted but ONLY under the following conditions:

1.) "Strict scrutiny" analysis if the infringement impacts the core right protected; or,

2.)" Heightened scrutiny" if the infringement impacts the exercise of the right only peripherally.

"Reasonable restrictions" do not cut it, nor should they.