The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[MachZer0]

Not sure why people who don't care seem so intent on jumping into the conversation, but to each his own.

 

[nvxplorer]

Not sure why people who don't care seem so intent on jumping into the conversation, but to each his own.

And I'm not sure why you cannot "strictly interpret" the responses. I have not jumped into the conversation on the ACLU with regard to strict constructionism. I can speak on the ACLU and strict constructionism separately, which is what I have done.

 

[MachZer0]

Oh dear.

The First Amendment addresses religion and law. Funds are appropriated by law. Therefore, the First Amendment does indeed address the expenditure of funds.

If one stretches the imagination to its limits, I suppose you could be right

 

[Nathan Poe]

If one stretches the imagination to its limits, I suppose you could be right

So you know the law better than SCOTUS now? Why aren't you in charge, then?

 

[Nathan Poe]

What was the point of this thread, anyway? Some people don't deserve a First Amendment?

 

[nvxplorer]

If one stretches the imagination to its limits, I suppose you could be right

Imagination? Do you consider government budgets to be imaginary? Nearly everything the government acts upon involves funding.

More importantly, everything the government does is bound by law. This is the essence of the establishment clause. As such, any and all government actions must be examined in the light of law. It matters not that Congress may have passed specific legislation addressing an establishment of religion. It's that any and all government actions must be lawful. Ironically, this is the strict interpretation. Government is strictly prohibited from acting in a manner that shows preference to one religion over another. Government does not enjoy the freedom to choose one religion over another; that right is reserved for the People. If we allow Ten Commandments displays in courtroom foyers, for example, to the exclusion of other religions, we are acknowledging that such an act is lawful. We are accepting, de jure, that such displays are allowed. The Constitution - strictly interpreting the meaning of law - prohibits such actions.

 

[xMinionX]

What was the point of this thread, anyway? Some people don't deserve a First Amendment?

Seemed more like that defending someones right to free speech means you support what they say. At least that's the vibe I got. There were definitley some negative connotations in "the left" helping Phelps, but it wasn't outwardly said so I can only guess.

 

[MachZer0]

So you know the law better than SCOTUS now? Why aren't you in charge, then?

Can you link to to a SCOTUS decision that determined that the 1st Amendment involves some type of public funding?

 

[MachZer0]

Imagination? Do you consider government budgets to be imaginary? Nearly everything the government acts upon involves funding.

More importantly, everything the government does is bound by law. This is the essence of the establishment clause. As such, any and all government actions must be examined in the light of law. It matters not that Congress may have passed specific legislation addressing an establishment of religion. It's that any and all government actions must be lawful. Ironically, this is the strict interpretation. Government is strictly prohibited from acting in a manner that shows preference to one religion over another. Government does not enjoy the freedom to choose one religion over another; that right is reserved for the People. If we allow Ten Commandments displays in courtroom foyers, for example, to the exclusion of other religions, we are acknowledging that such an act is lawful. We are accepting, de jure, that such displays are allowed. The Constitution - strictly interpreting the meaning of law - prohibits such actions.

Having said all that, it remains that the 1st Amendment does not address public funding

 

[TeddyKGB]

Having said all that, it remains that the 1st Amendment does not address public funding

You cannot possibly be this desperate to make a cheap point.

 

[nvxplorer]

Having said all that, it remains that the 1st Amendment does not address public funding

My, oh my, oh my.

You are dangerous to those of us who wish to abide by forum rules.

THE FIRST AMENDMENT, ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE CONSTITUTION, DEFINES WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE DONE BY GOVERNMENT. AS SUCH, THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT FUND ACTIVITY THAT IS PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION. CLEAR?

The First Amendment does not need to specifically address funding. Funding is inherent to nearly all government function. It is implied by the establishment clause that the government cannot appropriate funds that would constitute a preference of one religion over others. Furthermore, appropriations bills become LAW. The establishment clause strictly mentions law. Therefore, the First Amendment does indeed address funding. It addresses statutes. It addresses school board policy. It addresses regulation. It addresses law - ALL law.

 

[MachZer0]

You cannot possibly be this desperate to make a cheap point.

What did you find cheap about the point?

 

[MachZer0]

My, oh my, oh my.

You are dangerous to those of us who wish to abide by forum rules.

THE FIRST AMENDMENT, ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE CONSTITUTION, DEFINES WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE DONE BY GOVERNMENT. AS SUCH, THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT FUND ACTIVITY THAT IS PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION. CLEAR?

The First Amendment does not need to specifically address funding. Funding is inherent to nearly all government function. It is implied by the establishment clause that the government cannot appropriate funds that would constitute a preference of one religion over others. Furthermore, appropriations bills become LAW. The establishment clause strictly mentions law. Therefore, the First Amendment does indeed address funding. It addresses statutes. It addresses school board policy. It addresses regulation. It addresses law - ALL law.

Regardless. the 1st amendment still does not address public funding. That is just a misconception

 

[TeddyKGB]

What did you find cheap about the point?

You're playing this whole "the first amendment doesn't use the word X, therefore the X interpretation is invalid" game.

I can't imagine what you think you can gain by doing it.

 

[MachZer0]

You're playing this whole "the first amendment doesn't use the word X, therefore the X interpretation is invalid" game.

I can't imagine what you think you can gain by doing it.

It was stated earlier that the ACLU holds to a "strict interpretation" of the Constitution. If words are read into the Constitution, between the lines so to speak, then it is not a strict interpretation, is it?

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

Noone has said they can't say what they want just that they can't say it near funerals. It's no different than not saying fire in a theater when there is no fire.

 

[nvxplorer]

Regardless. the 1st amendment still does not address public funding. That is just a misconception

I thought you were a strict constructionist?

The First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law...

It does not state: Congress shall make no law, with the exception of appropriations acts...

When did you abandon the strict constructionist ship? Are you now a proponent of judicial activism?

 

[Brimshack]

Noone has said they can't say what they want just that they can't say it near funerals. It's no different than not saying fire in a theater when there is no fire.

If the law singles out a message, even to use it as an example, then the law still restrcts speech, even if it does so only in specified areas. And no, banning a kind of speech near funerals is NOT equivalent to restricting peech such as shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theatre. In the latter example, the point is that the speech causes immediate danger. In other words, it puts people lives at risk right then and there. Offensive speech does not in and of itself pose a clear and present danger and laws banning offensive speech are not actually protecting people from clear and present danger.

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

They are not banning speech just the proximity in which it can be said. Why are funerals not considered important to the family and friends there. You can't go into a store and protest or block streets. The fact is people want this because it makes Christians look bad. Plain and simple. That or they don't care about vet's funerals.

 

[MachZer0]

They are not banning speech just the proximity in which it can be said. Why are funerals not considered important to the family and friends there. You can't go into a store and protest or block streets. The fact is people want this because it makes Christians look bad. Plain and simple. That or they don't care about vet's funerals.

That's why the Left, the ACLU, has come out in support of Phelps.