Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Question: do you believe that State X's government can legitimately pass a law or an amendment to their state's constitution that states "The Republican/Democratic/Libertarian/Green Party is prohibited from engaging in political activities, organizing rallies, or supporting candidates for elected office?"
If so, why?
If not, why not?
Why should they? Did the individual states have official state parties at the time of the Constitution's writing? Does the Constitution forbid Congress from making a law respecting the establishment of political parties?
Quote:
Do we really need to take the ideas of slaveholders into account as the only metric of constitutional interpretation? While many of the Framers were geniuses, and many of their ideas timeless, there are other opinions and political and legal doctrines held by the Framers which should not be strictly applied today.
Like it or not, we live according to the document they created. This argument is irrelevant.
Quote:
The beliefs of the Framers are certainly important and should be used as one means of statutory and constitutional interpretation. But they should not be the only measure by which we interpret the Constitution.
Actually...yes--they should. The Constitution is the Law of the Land. At least until you follow its procedures to change it. But an activist court deciding to read it differently than written is not correct.
Suppose the SCOTUS decided to read it as only Oprah-watching gay men are allowed to vote? Does that mean we should listen to it? I know that's absurd...but then, so is the idea of following any old idea that was not actually intended.
Why should they? Did the individual states have official state parties at the time of the Constitution's writing? Does the Constitution forbid Congress from making a law respecting the establishment of political parties?
Like it or not, we live according to the document they created. This argument is irrelevant.
Actually...yes--they should. The Constitution is the Law of the Land. At least until you follow its procedures to change it. But an activist court deciding to read it differently than written is not correct.
Suppose the SCOTUS decided to read it as only Oprah-watching gay men are allowed to vote? Does that mean we should listen to it? I know that's absurd...but then, so is the idea of following any old idea that was not actually intended.
Do you consider Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Scalia to be "activist judges"?
Why should they? Did the individual states have official state parties at the time of the Constitution's writing? Does the Constitution forbid Congress from making a law respecting the establishment of political parties?
I'm not asking you whether or not it would be wise for a state government to do that - I'm asking you whether you believe a state government could do so legally.
Basically, do you think that a state can legally violate a person's right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly? Seems like you think the answer is yes, but I'll wait to hear from you.
But yes, the Constitution prohibits Congress from banning political parties under the Free Speech Clause.
Quote:
Actually...yes--they should. The Constitution is the Law of the Land. At least until you follow its procedures to change it. But an activist court deciding to read it differently than written is not correct.
Suppose the SCOTUS decided to read it as only Oprah-watching gay men are allowed to vote? Does that mean we should listen to it? I know that's absurd...but then, so is the idea of following any old idea that was not actually intended.
Strawmen arguments don't help here. I admire our Constitution, and it's one of the most remarkable political documents ever drafted.
I am absolutely not saying that the Constitution should be read differently than written. What I am saying is that words are often unclear. For example, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It raises several questions - at what point does a law respect an establishment of religion; what constitutes a law under this, a statute, regulation, any action; can an agency mandate religion by regulation?
We can answer those questions by going back to what the Framers stated. That's certainly doable and advisable in most circumstances. Another possibility is to apply the Establishment Clause in the modern context, and in conjunction with the 14th Amendment, which incorporates most of the requirements of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments. Those restrictions on the federal government that had been present since 1789 have also been restrictions on state and local governments for almost 100 years now.
For example, if we evaluate the constitutionality of say, the Civil Rights Act, based solely on what the Framers said and believed, then it would be plainly unconstitutional. Our Framers had ideas on race that would be considered abhorrent today, and they would have disapproved of the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and other civil rights legislation.
Not by Congress, but by the State. Christianity, probably some form of Protestant Christianity. It is fine for students to pray on their own but the public school organizing it and conducting it is not legal, Period.
Casper
And yet, organized by the school and therefore illegal.
Wrong.
The school does not represent congress.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
