[BITList] US Constitution

[FS]

  Colin
Must admit I'm not up on the US Constitution, but cant see how congress 
can uphold the first amendment and run a modern day crusade at the same time
frank

On 7/27/2010 12:06 AM, s14engine wrote:
> Outburst - what outburst?
> Frank - you probably already know  the US 
> Constitution..........................
> as per the first amendment [1789]
> /Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 
> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of 
> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to 
> assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances./
> ////
> accordingly - the muslim parade in question cannot be approved or 
> disapproved. It's a fact - like it or not.
> colin
>
>
>     Establishment of religion
>
> Main article: Establishment Clause of the First Amendment 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment>
>
> The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the 
> establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference 
> of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion 
> over non-religion. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the 
> federal government. Subsequently, /McCollum v. Board of Education 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_v._Board_of_Education>/, 333 
> U.S. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports> 203 
> <http://supreme.justia.com/us/333/203/case.html> (1948) incorporated 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29> 
> certain select provisions. However, it was not until the middle to 
> late twentieth century that the Supreme Court 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States> 
> began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such 
> a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by state 
> governments. In the /Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School 
> District v. Grumet 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Education_of_Kiryas_Joel_Village_School_District_v._Grumet>,/ 
> 512 U.S. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports> 687 
> <http://supreme.justia.com/us/512/687/case.html> (1994), Justice David 
> Souter <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Souter>, writing for the 
> majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to 
> another, or religion to irreligion 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion>."^[2] 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-1> 
>
>
>
>     Free exercise of religion
>
> Main article: Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment>
>
> In /Sherbert v. Verner 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherbert_v._Verner>/, 374 U.S. 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports> 398 
> <http://supreme.justia.com/us/374/398/case.html> (1963), the Warren 
> Court <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Court> applied the strict 
> scrutiny <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny> standard of 
> review to this clause, holding that a state must demonstrate a 
> compelling interest in restricting religious activities. In 
> /Employment Division v. Smith 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith>/, 494 U.S. 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports> 872 
> <http://supreme.justia.com/us/494/872/case.html> (1990), the Supreme 
> Court 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States> 
> retreated from this standard, permitting governmental actions that 
> were neutral regarding religion. The Congress attempted to restore 
> this standard by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act>, but 
> in /City of Boerne v. Flores 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Boerne_v._Flores>/, 521 U.S. 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports> 507 
> <http://supreme.justia.com/us/521/507/case.html> (1997), the Supreme 
> Court held that such an attempt was unconstitutional 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality> regarding state and 
> local government actions (though permissible regarding federal actions).
>
>
> *From:* FS <mailto:franka at iinet.net.au>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 26, 2010 10:23 AM
> *To:* BitList <mailto:bitlist at lists.bcn.mythic-beasts.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [BITList] nuts
>
> Colin,
> Am I to take it from your outburst that you approve of the form of 
> annual Madison ave parade?
> frank
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To unsubscribe from this email List, send an email to:
> BITList-unsubscribe at lists.bcn.mythic-beasts.com
>
> BITList mailing list
> BITList at lists.bcn.mythic-beasts.com
> http://lists.bcn.mythic-beasts.com/mailman/listinfo/bitlist
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3029 - Release Date: 07/26/10 14:36:00
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bcn.mythic-beasts.com/pipermail/bitlist/attachments/20100727/8719f5af/attachment.shtml