Should states outlaw Scientology?

[Soupnazi630]

Yes. But in this thread, I am using other people's arguments to demonstrate why they fail.

Your atrgument fails their arguments do not.

As others pointed out you would have to repeal the first amendment.

 

[BackAgain]

The 14th amendment requires equal protection of citizens. The states cannot outlaw black people from engaging in Scientology, while allowing white people to do so. Cruishank made this pretty clear.

The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone....For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and it has never been surrendered to the United States.

A state cannot abridge any of my rights or privileges on any basis. Read the text of the Amendment itself, chicklet. One of my rights and privileges as a U.S. citizen is free speech and another is freedom of the press and another is freedom of religion. Thus, since the US government is explicitly denied the authority to abridge those things under the 1st Amendment, the 14th Amendment denies the various states from denying their citizens of those rights.

As usual, your thinking is both too shallow and too rigid. But regardless; you remain quite totally wrong.

 

[Missourian]

Let's say 25 states outlaw Scientology. That's fine, right? Anyone who wants to be a Scientologist can just move to another state, right?

There is no deeply held tradition in this country to engage in Scientology, so it's actually fine to outlaw it.

I love the smell of desperation in the morning.

Freedom of Religion is specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

You show me abortion specifically enumerated and your hypothetical analogy would make some sense...but I'm afraid you have way too much anal and not nearly enough gee.

 

[dudmuck]

The IRS should remove Scientology's tax-exempt status, for sure. They are not a religion.

the removal of their tax exempt status has nothing to do with whether or not they are a relgion, it has to do with the stuff listed here, which is 11 items that make it undeserving of tax exemption.

 

[Missourian]

The protections of the Bill of Rights were only incorporated to the states after passage of the 14th amendment. But the 14th amendment only applies to ex-slaves, so that's nobody alive today.

You lost me here.

Haven't you undermined your own argument?

The 14th amendment was the fragile, flimsy, filamentary underpinning of Roe.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The 14th amendment requires equal protection of citizens. The states cannot outlaw black people from engaging in Scientology, while allowing white people to do so. Cruishank made this pretty clear.

The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone....For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and it has never been surrendered to the United States.

That is wrong article 6 section 2, it states the US Constitution and even just federal laws overrule State laws AND State constitutions......I posted it....... and you just ignore it. It's literally in the Constitution.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

That is wrong article 6 section 2, it states the US Constitution and even just federal laws overrule State laws AND State constitutions......I posted it....... and you just ignore it. It's literally in the Constitution.

No, that's not what it says. Why don't you ask BackAgain. You two are making entirely opposite, inconsistent arguments desperately trying to somehow get to the same place. Both pathetically unable to avoid stepping in it.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Freedom of Religion is specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

But the limitations of the first amendment only apply to the federal government, not the states.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Thus, since the US government is explicitly denied the authority to abridge those things under the 1st Amendment, the 14th Amendment denies the various states from denying their citizens of those rights.

The Supreme Court explicitly said this is false in Cruishank. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that?

 

[buckeye45_73]

But the limitations of the first amendment only apply to the federal government, not the states.

No they don't what planet are you from?

Show me a first amendment violation that the states allow.....

 

[Stormy Daniels]

No they don't what planet are you from?

Look, if it's not true then why did the Supreme Court say it's true?

 

[Missourian]

Look, if it's not true then why did the Supreme Court say it's true?

Link?

Authoritative, not opinion.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Link?

I've already posted links. Guess you weren't paying attention.

Go look up Cruishank.

 

[Missourian]

I've already posted links. Guess you weren't paying attention.

Go look up Cruishank.

Ok... This is what I found...

"Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state, governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments."

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So much for that notion.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Look, if it's not true then why did the Supreme Court say it's true?

When did they say that, give me a link or something

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Ok... This is what I found...

"Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state, governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments."

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So much for that notion.

Which brings us to the fact that the Supreme Court changed and continues to change the meaning of the constitution. Little by little, piece by piece, it has been inserting things into the constitution that aren't actually there, all because the court wanted to.

Any court decision that incorporates the Bill of Rights onto the states is wrongly decided, and needs to be overturned.

 

[Missourian]

Which brings us to the fact that the Supreme Court changed and continues to change the meaning of the constitution. Little by little, piece by piece, it has been inserting things into the constitution that aren't actually there, all because the court wanted to.

Any court decision that incorporates the Bill of Rights onto the states is wrongly decided, and needs to be overturned.

Well... That's definitely an opinion...

Tell me...how would you bring that case before the Court?

In what way are you harmed by incorporation?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Well... That's definitely an opinion...

Tell me...how would you bring that case before the Court?

In what way are you harmed by incorporation?

There seems to be a pretty good example that recently went before the court. Mississippi passed a law that largely outlawed abortion, exactly for the purpose of provoking a legal battle that would make its way to the Supreme Court. A state like California could turn around and do the same thing to outlaw Scientology, or pass an extremely restrictive gun control law when the court's composition becomes more favorable, asking the court to overturn the 2010 case McDonald, which is the precedent that now asserts that the 2nd amendment applies to the states.

If successful, the court would be returning the matter back to the states, which is exactly where it belongs according to the constitution.

 

[Missourian]

There seems to be a pretty good example that recently went before the court. Mississippi passed a law that largely outlawed abortion, exactly for the purpose of provoking a legal battle that would make its way to the Supreme Court. A state like California could turn around and do the same thing to outlaw Scientology, or pass an extremely restrictive gun control law when the court's composition becomes more favorable, asking the court to overturn the 2010 case McDonald, which is the precedent that now asserts that the 2nd amendment applies to the states.

If successful, the court would be returning the matter back to the states, which is exactly where it belongs according to the constitution.

I'm sure that will happen.

The gun control was likely the plan if they had seated Garland on the bench.

 

[Soupnazi630]

No, that's not what it says. Why don't you ask BackAgain. You two are making entirely opposite, inconsistent arguments desperately trying to somehow get to the same place. Both pathetically unable to avoid stepping in it.

yes it is precisely what it says.

Yoiur entire theead is a failed false equivelance

Try again sunshine