|
Grex > Agora56 > #105: State: Wal-Mart must carry emergency contraception | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 526 responses total. |
kingjon
|
|
response 299 of 526:
| 
Mar 2 20:59 UTC 2006 |
Bad example -- that's something that's against the law, not just religious. I
can see no guideline for Constitutional interpretation that forbids the plan
for Ave Maria, FL, that does not also forbid churches, period.
|
tod
|
|
response 300 of 526:
|
Mar 2 21:13 UTC 2006 |
re #298
, suppose there was a religion that had as one of its basic tenets
that it is okay to molest children.
We call that Roman Catholicism.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 301 of 526:
|
Mar 2 21:17 UTC 2006 |
Richard, the bill of rights applies to the government. It is a law
saying what the government is not allowed to do. It is not a law that
says what individual people are not allowed to do.
|
richard
|
|
response 302 of 526:
|
Mar 2 21:18 UTC 2006 |
you don't make exceptions to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You
don't get to build your own town in the United States and get to eliminate
the separation of church and state there. That is against the law of our
land, just as child molesting is.
|
richard
|
|
response 303 of 526:
|
Mar 2 21:19 UTC 2006 |
nharmon the Bill of Rights spells out INDIVIDUAL rights. It says YOU have
the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion .etc In order for you
to have those rights, the government of any state, town or community CANNOT
infringe upon those rights or place any restrictions on those rights.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 304 of 526:
|
Mar 2 21:29 UTC 2006 |
Yes there are exceptions to the Bill of Rights, Richard. Lets name them
shall we? Compelling state interest, and actions of individuals.
I think what this guy is talking about as a town is really a supersized
private property community.
|
richard
|
|
response 305 of 526:
|
Mar 2 21:35 UTC 2006 |
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights states in part:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States"
This means that noone, not Monaghan or anyone else, can form their own
state or community and use the powers of that state, town or community to
abridge or deny the privileges and immunities GUARANTEED to all citizens
of the United States under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
He can't use religion as an excuse to create a community where these
guaranteed rights are not in effect.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 306 of 526:
|
Mar 2 21:37 UTC 2006 |
Natey, your frivolous lawsuits claim is a false meme. Lawsuits are in the
single digits when compared to overal medical costs. Finding one story about
a suit you don't like doesn't prove your point. Find some real cites if you
want to be taken seriously.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 307 of 526:
|
Mar 2 21:45 UTC 2006 |
It's a natural result of the fact that you don't generally see a news
story about a case where a doctor does commit malpractice, resulting in
the serious injury or death of a patient, but no lawsuit follows for
whatever reason (nobody alive left to file it, family full of cowards
who are scared to talk to lawyers, etc.)
|
tod
|
|
response 308 of 526:
|
Mar 2 21:48 UTC 2006 |
re #305
You're using the amendment to give slaves freedom as an argument against a
HOA? Chill out, d00d.
|
richard
|
|
response 309 of 526:
|
Mar 2 21:51 UTC 2006 |
re #308 uh no, I was referring to the 14th amendment. The amendment that
repealed slavery was the 13th amendment.
|
tod
|
|
response 310 of 526:
|
Mar 2 22:03 UTC 2006 |
re #309
re #308 uh no, I was referring to the 14th amendment. The amendment that
repealed slavery was the 13th amendment.
The 14th enforced the Civil Rights Act. It was the cause of a formation of
the KKK and for the impeachment of Prez Johnson.
|
richard
|
|
response 311 of 526:
|
Mar 2 22:10 UTC 2006 |
yes but you said "the amendment to give slaves freedom" That amendment was
the 13th, not the 14th. Besides which, the point of the amendment was to
prevent states, or whackos like Monaghan, from trying to subvert the
Constitution by modifying or taking away any of the priviledges guaranteed.
|
richard
|
|
response 312 of 526:
|
Mar 2 22:12 UTC 2006 |
That very same part of the 14th amendment btw is why Roe v Wade was passed.
States with anti-abortion laws were deemed to have passed laws which violated
the federal constitutional rights/privileges of female citizens.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 313 of 526:
|
Mar 2 22:31 UTC 2006 |
It's only applicable if the city calls itself public and wants to be a
government. If it calls itself a private community, and sets itself up
as such, then that's different.
There would still be significant legal barriers; for example, the fair
housing act would seem to apply, which (as I understand it) means they
could not turn people away on the basis of race, religion, sex, national
origin, family status, or disability. Given this I'm not sure how well
they could effectively preserve their community as a Catholic enclave.
|
richard
|
|
response 314 of 526:
|
Mar 2 22:33 UTC 2006 |
they can't call themselves a "private community" for the purposes of
circumventing the Constitution. That private community is on UNITED STATES
land. It is in this country. In no part of this country does the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights not apply.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 315 of 526:
|
Mar 2 22:41 UTC 2006 |
And the Bill of Rights (except where it says otherwise) applies only to the
federal government, but by Supreme Court ruling that also applies to all other
*governments*. Anything that is not a *government* is not affected.
|
richard
|
|
response 316 of 526:
|
Mar 2 22:48 UTC 2006 |
re #315 no kingjohn, the fourteenth amendment says 'no state', it does not
say 'no government' The distinction is in how broadly you define 'state'
If Monaghan is creating his own community with his own rules, he is creating
his own 'state', with the intent of defining laws or rules that restrict
rights or privileges guaranteed to citizens under the federal constitution.
This he cannot do.
|
tod
|
|
response 317 of 526:
|
Mar 2 22:55 UTC 2006 |
re #314
In no part of this country does the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights not apply.
Actually, the constitution doesn't always apply. One case is when
person/persons are under military or martial law. The military laws are
supposed to be "consistent" with constitutional law but sometimes are not.
|
richard
|
|
response 318 of 526:
|
Mar 2 22:56 UTC 2006 |
well except for military or martial law. under other circumstances, the
Constitution is the law of the entire land, including every town and 'private
community' in Florida.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 319 of 526:
|
Mar 3 00:02 UTC 2006 |
Richard writes: "the 14th amendment btw is why Roe v Wade was passed."
Ummm, you do understand what's wrong with that sentence, right?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 320 of 526:
|
Mar 3 01:40 UTC 2006 |
Cyklone, did you even read the story I posted? I posted it for humor
sake because I thought it was pretty funny what the doctor was doing. If
I'm wrong about there being a lot of frivolous malpractice lawsuits,
then ok, I concede. But malpractice lawsuits are still a problem.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03836.pdf
"Actions taken by health care providers in response to rising malpractice
premiums have contributed to localized health care access problems in the
five states reviewed with reported problems."
|
nharmon
|
|
response 321 of 526:
|
Mar 3 01:41 UTC 2006 |
Oh, I also wanted to add that nothing Richard has said yet shows that a
private citizen, on his/her own property, is required to grant every
other citizen all of their rights on said private citizen's property.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 322 of 526:
|
Mar 3 01:57 UTC 2006 |
Re #316: The 14th amendment isn't "Bill of Rights." It's where the Supreme
Court got the idea to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, admittedly, but
that has nothing to do with what private citizens do with the land they own, or
put in contracts they sign.
|
bru
|
|
response 323 of 526:
|
Mar 3 01:59 UTC 2006 |
More importantly, you have not said what rights Monoghan would be denying
anybody.
|