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.
that the second amendment and other federal Bill of Rights provisions limited the United States but not the individual states was based on the United States Supreme Court's restrictive views in The Slaughterhouse Cases and similar precedents
United States V. Miller....
the Supreme Court in Miller held that the second and fourth amendments did not directly apply to the states, and refused to consider whether the fourteenth amendment made these rights applicable to the states, because the defendant did not assert these grounds in the trial court. Miller is analyzed in detail in supra notes 205-09
Presser v. Illinois
he Court repeated that the first and second amendments did not apply to the states and upheld a conviction for leading a march of four hundred armed workers in Chicago. This too was dictum, since the Court held that bans on armed parades in cities "do not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
1st Amendment establishment of religion applied to the states in Everson v. Board of Education.
1st Amendment free exercise of religion applied to the states in Cantwell v. Connecticut.
1st Amendment freedom of speech applied to the states in Gitlow v. New York.
1st Amendment freedom of the press applied to the states is Near v. Minnesota.
1st Amendment freedom of assembly applied to the states in DeJonge v. Oregon.
1st Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances applied to the states in Edwards v. South Carolina.
2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms applied to the states in McDonald v. Chicago.
4th Amendment search/seizure applied to the states in Wolf v. Colorado.
4th Amendment warrants applied to the states in Aguilar v. Texas.
5th Amendment double jeopardy applied to states in Benton v. Maryland.
5th Amendment right against self-incrimination applied to states in Malloy v. Hogan.
5th Amendment taking without compensation applied to states in Burlington v. Chicago.
6th Amendment public trail applied to states in In re Oliver.
6th Amendment speedy trail applied to states in Klopfer v. North Carolina.
6th Amendment right to a jury applied to states in Duncan v. Louisiana.
6th Amendment right to notice of accusations applied to states in In re Oliver.
6th Amendment right to confront witnesses applied to state in Pointer v. Texas.
6th Amendment right to subpoeana witnesses applied to states in Washington v. Texas.
6th Amendment right to counsel applied to states in Powell v. Alabama.
7th Amendment re-examination clause applied to states in Justices v. Murray.
8th Amendment right against excessive bail applied to states in Schilb v. Kuebel.
8th Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment applied to state s in Robinson v. California.
We never have a problem with the mosque not far from here. Many of the doctors are Muslim. No Muslims have been arrested, but plenty of "Christian" meth/ booze/dope/violence addicts get thrown in the clinker on a regular basis.
We never have a problem with the mosque not far from here. Many of the doctors are Muslim. No Muslims have been arrested, but plenty of "Christian" meth/ booze/dope/violence addicts get thrown in the clinker on a regular basis.
That has been my experience in my city as well ... and believe me we have a significant number of Muslims living here. So called "Christians" have a much higher incidence of committing crimes here.
Yes, the centuries-old UK tradition of private arbitration in civil matters - like the interpretation of a will - extends to using religious authorities to determine who gets what. The Jewish councils known as Beth Din has worked like this since the 19th century, sometimes settling quite serious disputes in both business and family matters.
Are you positing that an inherently sexist and discriminatory law is alright since it has roots in tradition?
Slavery was also rooted in tradition, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
And they, like the Muslim councils, still have to operate within UK law and only have authority if both parties have agreed previously.
How in the world a religious law which considers women half as worth as men can operate within U.K laws?
"The male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class.
... Non-Muslims may not inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognised." Sharia-law-enshrined-in-uk-legal-system
OMG Muslims Indeed!
Ever wondered why whether it's Canada, U.K, France, Sweden, Russia, China, India, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kenya, Somalia, the source of religion induced carnage is always Islam?
Do try to have a think, it's not illegal ... yet.
How in the world a religious law which considers women half as worth as men can
operate within U.K laws?
"The male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class. ... Non-Muslims may not inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognised."
Just out of curiousity...is it against the law for some Christians to leave half as much to a daughter as to a son in the US? I'm sure some people do it.
I wanted to get married in my church, and they refused. My marriage was not recognised. He wasn't a Christian.
Perhaps you should read your bible. There's plenty in it about leaving an inheritance to the sons, not the daughters. A daughter can only inherit if there are no sons.
Last edited by weltschmerz; 12-13-2014 at 08:18 PM..
Are you positing that an inherently sexist and discriminatory law is alright since it has roots in tradition?
How in the world a religious law which considers women half as worth as men can operate within U.K laws?
UK law has a lot of leeway when it comes to wills. You can allocate according to pretty much whatever idea you want - and you can designate an arbitrator pretty much at will. So if you make out a will saying "My estate shall be distributed according to my religious traditions and my local clergyman shall act as arbitrator", that is and has always been a perfectly valid will. Doesn't matter if you're Hindu, Jewish, Zoroastrian or Muslim. This may seem unfair, but that is how it's always been handled under UK law.
Quote:
Ever wondered why whether it's Canada, U.K, France, Sweden, Russia, China, India, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kenya, Somalia, the source of religion induced carnage is always Islam?
Do try to have a think, it's not illegal ... yet.
Don't change the subject. Now that we know that UK law hasn't changed, you promised other examples.
Ever wondered why whether it's Canada, U.K, France, Sweden, Russia, China,
India, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kenya, Somalia, the source of religion induced carnage is always Islam?
Do try to have a think, it's not
illegal ... yet.
To be more precise the shooting happened at a SIKH temple not a Hindu Temple. Sikhs and Hindus practice different religions.
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.
