US EEOC and DOJ Sues to Protect Pilgrimage to Mecca.

[GreyICE]

Coito, go read my post. If it wasn't deliberate, you weren't reading my posts in the first place, so in both cases my desire to talk to you has suddenly dropped to a very severe zero.

You're wrong, you have terrible quoting habits, and you really do not know your history.

Which post? If I changed something - I'd like to know, because I know I did not.

Don't fucking lie. You completely distorted the meaning. This post, right here.

If you can't figure it out, I do not give a fucking shit. Learn to read what people write, and don't misquote them.

[GreyICE]

As for the intent of the framers, I repeat - do you really think the framers wanted to allow double jeopardy, torture, self-incrimination, indefinite imprisonment, and anonymous witnesses at the State level? The goal of the framers was not to replace the tyranny of the British with the tyranny of a state.

We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.

- Jefferson

"practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."

- Madison

The essential problem with applying this to the states was whether or not states were sovereign. The issue that caused Madison to withdraw his original language was not that he or any of the other framers intended the states to be able to set policies that went against the bill of rights, but whether or not states were sovereign. The prevailing political opinions of the time were not favorable to replacing the British government with a Federal one. The result was that the debate was not over whether or not it was fair for the states to restrict those rights laid out in the Bill of rights, but whether or not the Federal government had the right to dictate to the states what powers they had. A lot of this was fear of the slaveholding states that their "right" to own slaves would be eliminated. Others just feared another tyranny.

This debate was settled with the fourteenth amendment. The federal government had the right to dictate that the citizens receive equal protection. Protections that are not specifically against the federal government are granted to the states. Moreover, the point stands that however you want to get there, the states are equally restricted from restricting religion as the federal government (if you want to argue its under a combination of the 1st and 14th amendment, cool, go ahead, constitution is constitution). And this act was unconstitutional. Period.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, go read my post. If it wasn't deliberate, you weren't reading my posts in the first place, so in both cases my desire to talk to you has suddenly dropped to a very severe zero.

You're wrong, you have terrible quoting habits, and you really do not know your history.

Which post? If I changed something - I'd like to know, because I know I did not.

Don't fucking lie. You completely distorted the meaning. This post, right here.
If you can't figure it out, I do not give a fucking shit. Learn to read what people write, and don't misquote them.

Don't accuse me of lying when I haven't. Here is my response: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 40#p702814 I didn't distort anything and I plainly didn't "change" anything you wrote. I did not misquote you at all. I quoted EXACTLY what you wrote, and responded accordingly. Anyone can look at my response to your post and see that I didn't misquote anything.

[Coito ergo sum]

As for the intent of the framers, I repeat - do you really think the framers wanted to allow double jeopardy, torture, self-incrimination, indefinite imprisonment, and anonymous witnesses at the State level? The goal of the framers was not to replace the tyranny of the British with the tyranny of a state.

I've already explained this. I don't think Madison and Jefferson wanted torture. But, they most certainly did not "intend" that the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments would apply to the States. As the Supreme Court RULED in 1833 (citation in my previous post above) - the bill of rights ONLY APPLIED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Got it? That's what the Supreme Court ruled in 1833, and I am a fair bit sure they knew more about the "intent of the framers" than you did, since some of those guys KNEW some of the founding fathers personally.

It wasn't until the 20th century, and well into the 20th century at that, that the bill of rights started getting "incorporated" under the "incorporation doctrine" into the 14th Amendment's due process and liberty clause. Is this something you are really disputing? Really? I've cited the case law.

We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.

- Jefferson

That doesn't mean that the First Amendment applies to the States. Can you get the distinction???? Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, which was applicable to Virginia. He wholly intended that the First Amendment would limit FEDERAL actions only. Can't you get that? Did you never hear that that the Bill of Rights is really a "bill of limitations" making clear that the Federal government couldn't do certain things?

Are you REALLY arguing that the Supreme Court needed to invent the "incorporation doctrine" in the 1920s-1940s, and start incorporating rights into the 14th Amendment so that they would be applicable to the States, if the bill of rights were already directly applicable to the states without reference to the 14th Amendment????? Come on man....

Look - if the First Amendment applied to the States, then find me ONE court case ANYWHERE - from the Supreme Court on down, that was decided before the 14th Amendment was ratified that said that the First Amendment was directly applicable to the states. Let's see it.

"practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."

- Madison

Why did Madison issue a proposal to make the First Amendment applicable to the states? If the First Amendment was ALREADY directly applicable to the States, then why did Madison feel he needed to propose that the First Amendment be made applicable to the States? The "framers" rejected Madison's proposal. I mentioned that in my last post, and you just ignored it, of course.

Where have I argued that Madison and Jefferson weren't pro-religious freedom? Of course they were. But, can't you see the distinction between having a federal limitation on state power and Virginia having its own guarantee of religious freedom? Surely, you see that distinction? Just because everyone knew that the bill of rights, in 1787, applied only to limit federal power doesn't mean that they were pro torture or pro-establishment of religion. Can't you see that?

The essential problem with applying this to the states was whether or not states were sovereign. The issue that caused Madison to withdraw his original language was not that he or any of the other framers intended the states to be able to set policies that went against the bill of rights, but whether or not states were sovereign. The prevailing political opinions of the time were not favorable to replacing the British government with a Federal one. The result was that the debate was not over whether or not it was fair for the states to restrict those rights laid out in the Bill of rights, but whether or not the Federal government had the right to dictate to the states what powers they had. A lot of this was fear of the slaveholding states that their "right" to own slaves would be eliminated. Others just feared another tyranny.

That's why the Bill of Rights was not applicable to the States when originally written.

The fact remains that until the 14th Amendment was passed and the "incorporation doctrine" created, the Bill of Rights did not apply to limit State power, only Federal power.

This debate was settled with the fourteenth amendment. The federal government had the right to dictate that the citizens receive equal protection. Protections that are not specifically against the federal government are granted to the states. Moreover, the point stands that however you want to get there, the states are equally restricted from restricting religion as the federal government (if you want to argue its under a combination of the 1st and 14th amendment, cool, go ahead, constitution is constitution). And this act was unconstitutional. Period.

I never denied that the States ARE equally restricted from restricting religion as the federal government. I clearly argued that the "framers" did not intend to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. They didn't intend it because they didn't do it. The Bill of Rights, as you just acknowledged, and I have explained ad nauseum with citations to the relevant case law, did not start to become applicable to the States until the 14th Amendment. That's why I have pointed out to you that every single First Amendment case against a State or local government must allege a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because when we're talking about States we are talking about the 14th Amendment "incorporating" rights into the 14th Amendment. They don't apply DIRECTLY.

The 14th Amendment didn't "settle" any debate. Just take a look at the Slaughterhouse Cases in the 1870s, decided AFTER the 14th Amendment, and you'll see the Supreme Court drastically limiting what "rights" are protected by the 14th Amendment. Those cases were later overturned when the Supreme Court started incorporating the rights in the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment under the "incorporation doctrine" in the 1920s and through the 1960's. Do you disagree with that?

[Santa_Claus]

At the risk of intruding.........

........gotta remember that just because the founding fathers (or Supreme Court) say that a holiday in Mecca is her entitlement - doesn't automatically make it so.

[GreyICE]

*sigh*

Why don't we start another thread on this, Coito? You can go complain over there. Lets sumtmarize this simply: the 1st amendment today restricts states as much as federal, so the school board is equally bound by it. They violated it, and they're going to get reamed for it. Most of the founders (especially the ones we remember) did always want the rights in the Bill to apply to all Americans, it was always a question of sovereignty. With that question settled, there is no question in my mind that they would have had the Bill of Rights largely apply to the states as well, and you can see that the state constitutions that many of them also had a hand in drafting reflect strongly the Bill of Rights protections. And there is no power, anywhere, for the government to designate anyone with the power to violate the Bill of Rights.

But frankly, that's all irrelevant here. Back on track, the Justice department cares about the first amendment, the 1st amendment applies to the states, the 1st amendment was violated here, and the school board is responsible for that violation. They are an agent of the government, bound by the 1st amendment, and have violated it, and thus must face the consequences. Story over, the end.

@Santa - seriously, shall we argue whether or not the 1st amendment is a good thing? I believe it is. Present a coherent argument otherwise or bugger off like the little troll you are.

[Santa_Claus]

@Santa - seriously, shall we argue whether or not the 1st amendment is a good thing? I believe it is. Present a coherent argument otherwise or bugger off like the little troll you are.

No. I don't give a shit whether you think your bible is true or not.

was just pointing out that arguing over what long dead people may have wanted ceturies ago is a bit of a daft way to decide what makes sense in the 21st century. whether or not interpreted by your current high preists.

but I guess thinking for self is not accepted behaviour everywhere.

[GreyICE]

@Santa - seriously, shall we argue whether or not the 1st amendment is a good thing? I believe it is. Present a coherent argument otherwise or bugger off like the little troll you are.

No. I don't give a shit whether you think your bible is true or not.

was just pointing out that arguing over what long dead people may have wanted ceturies ago is a bit of a daft way to decide what makes sense in the 21st century. whether or not interpreted by your current high preists.

but I guess thinking for self is not accepted behaviour everywhere.

The First amendment isn't in the bible. What the fuck are you on about? This may literally be the stupidest thing I've read on a forum this year, and it's been a fucking long year.

[Coito ergo sum]

*sigh*

Why don't we start another thread on this, Coito? You can go complain over there. Lets summarize this simply: the 1st amendment today restricts states as much as federal, so the school board is equally bound by it.

The 14th Amendment incorporates the 1st amendment rights. It's an important distinction. Remember, your claim was that "the framers" intended the First Amendment to apply to State and local government action. They didn't. I've proved it.

Establishment of Religion: Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) - I quote from Everson "Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment did not apply as a restraint against the states." http://supreme.justia.com/us/330/1/case.html The 14th Amendment incorporated the establishment clause and made it applicable to the states.
Free exercise of religion: Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
Freedom of Speech: Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)
Freedom of the Press: Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)
Freedom of Assembly: DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937)

And, yes, of course, today the rights of freedom of speech, press, establishment clause, free exercise, etc., apply to limit state and local government action. That is true - but, it does so because of the 14th Amendment. They don't apply directly.

They violated it, and they're going to get reamed for it. Most of the founders (especially the ones we remember) did always want the rights in the Bill to apply to all Americans, it was always a question of sovereignty.

That's a big question -t he question of sovereignty. They did not intend the Bill of Rights itself to apply to the states. States were separate sovereign entities, and Virginia, for example, protected freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, etc., in its own constitution. Jefferson never once thought that the federal bill of rights limited what Virginia could do.

With that question settled, there is no question in my mind that they would have had the Bill of Rights largely apply to the states as well, and you can see that the state constitutions that many of them also had a hand in drafting reflect strongly the Bill of Rights protections. And there is no power, anywhere, for the government to designate anyone with the power to violate the Bill of Rights.

Of course there is! Criminy, dude - I've already illustrated how not all of the rights embodied in the bill of rights have been incorporated as applicable to the states.

Example - Amendment V, Right to Indictment by Grand Jury - has been held NOT to be incorporated by the 14th Amendment as applicable against state or local government action. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884). Therefore, States do not need to respect that right, and you have no right to an indictment by a grand jury even though the V amendment protects that right.

Do you see that? That is one of the rights in the bill of rights. States are free to ignore it.

But frankly, that's all irrelevant here. Back on track, the Justice department cares about the first amendment, the 1st amendment applies to the states, the 1st amendment was violated here, and the school board is responsible for that violation. They are an agent of the government, bound by the 1st amendment, and have violated it, and thus must face the consequences. Story over, the end.

The 1st amendment applies to the states only through the 14th Amendment. The story doesn't end right there because, because what you're doing is just trying to skate out of where you were dead wrong: the intent of the framers. The framers did not intend that the First Amendment would limit state and local government power. If they did, they would have said so, and they didn't. They didn't say so in the Constitution, and they didn't say so in their own writings. Some of them even tried to make certain rights applicable to the States (like Madison, in the example I previously gave) and those efforts were rejected by the majority of the "framers."

Yes, the Justice Department cares about the 1st Amendment - but, not because of some "original intent" of the "founders." It's because the Supreme Court incorporated the rights protected in the First Amendment into the due process/iiberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment , which is applicable to the states.

[GreyICE]

No, Coito, I am not skating around anything. You've been trying to debate this shit for pages because you are so fucking wrong it hurts about the case, and are trying to get away from that.

Not playing your game. Stop chopping my posts up like salad, and stop pretending I have the attention span of a gnat.

[Coito ergo sum]

No, Coito, I am not skating around anything. You've been trying to debate this shit for pages because you are so fucking wrong it hurts about the case, and are trying to get away from that.

Not playing your game. Stop chopping my posts up like salad, and stop pretending I have the attention span of a gnat.

I'm "wrong?" I cited the flippin' SCOTUS opinions. I QUOTED where, for example, Everson stated that the First Amendment did not apply directly to the States, and that it required "incorporation" through the 14th Amendment.

You're trying to avoid admitting that I am correct, and that the Bill of Rights originally did not apply to the States at all. It plainly didn't. The Supreme Court said so in 1833, and it said so again in Everson in the 20th century. It has said so many times. That's why SCOTUS created the incorporation doctrine - so that the rights set forth in the Bill of Rights would apply to the States by means of the 14th Amendment.

Please, though, by all means - tell me what I've said that's "wrong." Don't just make broad, unsubstantiated allegations that in general I'm so wrong it hurts. Show me.

I have clearly demonstrated where YOU are so wrong it's pathetic. You, who claim to make some argument about the "original intent" of the writers of the Bill of Rights - I've shown several times that they did not intend the Bill of Rights to apply directly to the States. This was, once again, expressly stated by the Supreme Court in 1833, and many other times as well.

By all means, though, provide one single shred of evidence that the founding fathers intended the Bill of Rights to apply to limit State power. I'll wait.

[Coito ergo sum]

Incorporation Docrine:

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments, by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporat ... _of_Rights

There: do you see that? Prior to the 1890's, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Repeat that, and it might sink in.

Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, in 1833 the Supreme Court held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state, government. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1890s, 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporat ... _of_Rights

See that? There it is again! The Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the States. Do you really deny that?

It wasn't until the SCOTUS started "incorporating" rights into the 14th Amendment that it found that portions were enforceable against State governments.

Got it, yet?

[Coito ergo sum]

In Barron v Baltimore, in 1833 - the SCOTUS held:

From the Syllabus:

The provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States.

The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation, and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally and necessarily applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes.

Chief Justice John Marshall - who was 32 years old in 1787, when the Constitution was written and ratified - he was Thomas Jefferson's second cousin - Marshall was a Federalist, like Adams, Madison and other founding fathers. He established that the federal courts are entitled to exercise judicial review, the power to strike down laws that violate the Constitution. Marshall served in the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War and was friends with George Washington. He served first as a Lieutenant in the Culpeper Minute Men from 1775 to 1776, then as a Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginia Continental Regiment from 1776 to 1780. He became Chief Justice in 1801 and was nominated by John Adams. I think he was in a decent position to know what the "original intent" was.

Are you still going to claim that the founding fathers intended that the Bill of Rights apply to the States? Here is Marshall's opinion in Barron v Baltimore: http://supreme.justia.com/us/32/243/case.html By all means, argue again that the "framers" intended that the Bill of Rights apply to the States and local governments, when Chief Justice John Marshall state's exactly the opposite.....

[GreyICE]

No, Coito, I am not skating around anything. You've been trying to debate this shit for pages because you are so fucking wrong it hurts about the case, and are trying to get away from that.

Not playing your game. Stop chopping my posts up like salad, and stop pretending I have the attention span of a gnat.

{everything on topic in the entire post}

Go check what thread we're in, genius. You've been trying to derail this since about page 2, when you started losing terribly on the main point.

As I said before, I am fucking done with your stupid ass derail. I'll debate it with you in another thread, but I am done here. You have, as far as I can tell, completely conceded that the school district violated this woman's rights, and you have just tried to distract from this fact. You've been on the wrong side here for two pages, and growing increasingly less sensible and more hostile about it. You derail, you alter my words, you yell at me and complain and act obtuse. I am fucking done nicely asking it to stop, I have no interest in playing your game here. Start. A. New. Thread.

Because the subject of this one? Your complaint about it? It's been addressed, you were wrong, the DOJ is right.

[Coito ergo sum]

No, Coito, I am not skating around anything. You've been trying to debate this shit for pages because you are so fucking wrong it hurts about the case, and are trying to get away from that.

Not playing your game. Stop chopping my posts up like salad, and stop pretending I have the attention span of a gnat.

{everything on topic in the entire post}

Go check what thread we're in, genius. You've been trying to derail this since about page 2, when you started losing terribly on the main point.

As I said before, I am fucking done with your stupid ass derail. I'll debate it with you in another thread, but I am done here. You have, as far as I can tell, completely conceded that the school district violated this woman's rights, and you have just tried to distract from this fact. You've been on the wrong side here for two pages, and growing increasingly less sensible and more hostile about it. You derail, you alter my words, you yell at me and complain and act obtuse. I am fucking done nicely asking it to stop, I have no interest in playing your game here. Start. A. New. Thread.

Because the subject of this one? Your complaint about it? It's been addressed, you were wrong, the DOJ is right.

You brought it up:

Now read that clause, and think, "what did the framers intend?"

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 20#p702400 I responded to your post wherein you discussed the intent of the framers. http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 20#p702431

You then said:

Really? You want the interpretation of the Bill of Rights that the framers only intended it to effect the Federal Government, and that states were free to do as they wish?

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 20#p702654 I merely responded, and proved, that yes indeed the framers only intended it to effect the federal government.

In that same post, you said: "You realize this insane position is not held by a single Supreme Court Judge, that you have to go digging deep into the theocracy wing of the lunatic right to find a single person calling themselves a Constitutional Scholar who adheres to this?" The reality is, and why I have vigorously responded to you on this point, is that EVERY SCOTUS Judge holds the view that originally the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states/local governments, but indeed only applied to the federal government. That's why C.J. John Marshall in Barron in 1833 said EXACTLY that - and that's why it took the 14th Amendment and the incorporation doctrine to make most, but not all, of the rights in the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. See Everson and the other cases I listed above for the incorporation of various rights. The insane position is yours, because it is not held by ANY Supreme Court Justice or constitutional scholar. That's what I've been trying to make clear to you.

As for "completely conceding that the school board has violated this woman's rights," I have conceded no such thing. My opinion is that they are not violating her rights by not letting her take a three week vacation unpaid during the Hajj.

Then you chime in with this nonsense:

You've been on the wrong side here for two pages, and growing increasingly less sensible and more hostile about it. You derail, you alter my words, you yell at me and complain and act obtuse.

First of all, I've more than demonstrated that I am in the right, and you've been taking cracks at me this whole time, so please don't refer to anyone being "hostile." I've merely been arguing against your claims.

I've never altered your words, and others have posted here saying that they didn't see where I altered your words either. Put up or shut up: if I altered your words, then quote the words I altered. Please do. I'll wait.

As for a new thread: I have no objection to the moderators breaking off the topic of the framer's intention that the Bill of Rights apply to the federal government as opposed to the states. If they choose to do that, I don't mind. But, please don't suggest that I derailed the thread - the framers' intent was something you brought up, not me. I won't have you accuse me of doing something wrong because I respond to an allegation you make.