Hugo Black's "interpretation" of the 14th amendment is clearly wrong. Precedent or not: it's wrong.
I feel your pain. But it is one thing to say that something is wrong, and another thing to say that something is against what the law is. The fact is that, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the law is what they say it is, and until the day where the incorporation doctrine is overturned (it is not very controversial, so it may be a while), then the First Amendment still applies to the states.
Quote:
I wonder why "precedent" is so cherished, anyway. It was "precedent" of "separate but equal" which allowed Jim Crow to flourish.
The reason is pragmatic. If there were no such thing as precedent, then the law would constantly be in flux. If the Supreme Court ruled on a thing, and precedent were not binding, then the sixth circuit could rule in an opposite way tomorrow on a case that is virtually the same. Thus, no one would really be sure what the law is. (You would never quite be sure if you are breaking the law with something because you could not simply check to see what the courts have most recently said.)
Brian37 Master of Logic
Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 9384
Posted:
Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:46 pm
Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:
Knight wrote:
Hugo Black's "interpretation" of the 14th amendment is clearly wrong. Precedent or not: it's wrong.
I feel your pain. But it is one thing to say that something is wrong, and another thing to say that something is against what the law is. The fact is that, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the law is what they say it is, and until the day where the incorporation doctrine is overturned (it is not very controversial, so it may be a while), then the First Amendment still applies to the states.
Quote:
I wonder why "precedent" is so cherished, anyway. It was "precedent" of "separate but equal" which allowed Jim Crow to flourish.
The reason is pragmatic. If there were no such thing as precedent, then the law would constantly be in flux. If the Supreme Court ruled on a thing, and precedent were not binding, then the sixth circuit could rule in an opposite way tomorrow on a case that is virtually the same. Thus, no one would really be sure what the law is. (You would never quite be sure if you are breaking the law with something because you could not simply check to see what the courts have most recently said.)
I don't need a civics lesson. I know what "precedent" means. It is a law procedure lawyers use to point out to judges past cases that have ruled in their favor to make the appeal to the judge to side with them. THAT DOESNT MAKE THE DECISION RIGHT OR MORAL, it simply is a way to convince a judge to side with you.
Presedent is also used to over turn prior Court rulings. I am sure you could find Supreme Court cases regarding slave pricing and bargining that sided with slave owners.
The Supreme Court also went against popular opinion of the time to give women the right to vote.
No one is suggesting that we shouldnt have laws, laws nor am I saying that precedent shouldnt be used. I am talking about working to change the mentality of society that has allowed our government to play favorites to Christianity. We are a Christian majority nation. BUT our Constitution is a neutral law not based on Christianity or the bible. I am trying to explain the truth to the public so that we can avoid the same types of dogmatic division that happened in Europe during the dark ages and the dogmatic division that goes on between Muslims in the Middle east.
I am talking about changing from the grass roots level, the mentality that society has that has allowed the loophole for Christians to sit in high seats of power and secretely wink and nod at the people that put them there. Favortism to Christianity DOES happen in our political system. And it IS divisive, even between Christians.
I am simply trying to open the minds of society so that they will see the benifit of demanding government neutrality, even for them.
Jason_Harvestdancer Graduate Thinker
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 666
Posted:
Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:42 am
Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:
Knight wrote:
Hugo Black's "interpretation" of the 14th amendment is clearly wrong. Precedent or not: it's wrong.
I feel your pain. But it is one thing to say that something is wrong, and another thing to say that something is against what the law is. The fact is that, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the law is what they say it is, and until the day where the incorporation doctrine is overturned (it is not very controversial, so it may be a while), then the First Amendment still applies to the states.
It's still irrelevant to the question of using the physical location of a church is a violation of the 1st amendment.
Suppose the 1st amendment does apply fully to the states. (Knight, I included the word 'suppose' so there's no need to object.) How is using the physical location of a church an endorsement of the religion of that church? It simply isn't.
Churches have two things that are useful to a polling place - a large room for all the voting booths and available parking outside.
I suppose one could make a case that someone would say "My religion forbids me to go into the physical location of the worship place of other religions", a bit of an extreme stand but fundies take extreme stands all the time. In that case that fundie can still vote by the perfectly legal process of absentee ballot.
By using their big meeting hall and big parking lot, the government is actually showing that they are actually thinking about practical matters for a change.
Except for the exceptionally extreme fundy, this is a non-issue.
Ivan_Ivanov Grand Poster
Joined: Jun 16, 2004
Posts: 1250
Location: Poland
Posted:
Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:40 am
Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:
That is simply not true. The first amendment, as well as all other amendments 1-9, were expanded via Hugo Black's "incorporation doctrine" and the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment.
One thing about it doesn't seem to make much sense.
If the first ammendment says "
Congress
shall make no law", how can it be extended unto state governments in any way that makes sense?
Any of the other first 9 amendments can be reasonably extended, but the first one?
The question of right and wrong aside, "how?" is the question I'd like to have answered.
Last edited by Ivan_Ivanov on Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:18 am; edited 1 time in total
Brian37 Master of Logic
Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 9384
Posted:
Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:09 am
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:
Knight wrote:
Hugo Black's "interpretation" of the 14th amendment is clearly wrong. Precedent or not: it's wrong.
I feel your pain. But it is one thing to say that something is wrong, and another thing to say that something is against what the law is. The fact is that, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the law is what they say it is, and until the day where the incorporation doctrine is overturned (it is not very controversial, so it may be a while), then the First Amendment still applies to the states.
It's still irrelevant to the question of using the physical location of a church is a violation of the 1st amendment.
Suppose the 1st amendment does apply fully to the states. (Knight, I included the word 'suppose' so there's no need to object.) How is using the physical location of a church an endorsement of the religion of that church? It simply isn't.
Churches have two things that are useful to a polling place - a large room for all the voting booths and available parking outside.
I suppose one could make a case that someone would say "My religion forbids me to go into the physical location of the worship place of other religions", a bit of an extreme stand but fundies take extreme stands all the time. In that case that fundie can still vote by the perfectly legal process of absentee ballot.
By using their big meeting hall and big parking lot, the government is actually showing that they are actually thinking about practical matters for a change.
Except for the exceptionally extreme fundy, this is a non-issue.
The absentee ballot in the given cenerio is no different than telling a black person, "Sure, you can ride on the bus, but you just have to sit in the back".
The tactic of putting polling places is to send the message to our public that the goverment is Jesus run and Jesus owned. If they cared about government neutrality like secular theists and atheists do, they would not do it.
If a right wing baptist lived in a liberal catholic area and the only polling place was in a Catholic church they would be well within their rights to complain about it and any Catholic telling them they have the "absentee ballot" is doing no differently to that Baptist than whites did with blacks in segregation. "Yea, you can come into this establishment, but you have to use seperate bathrooms"
Not putting voting places in any church avoids this conflict and no one has to be put in the position of making any accusation.
Again, government neutrality, which the Constitution DEMANDS allows people the freedom of religion and concious without the fear of coirsion or marginalization.
That is simply not true. The first amendment, as well as all other amendments 1-9, were expanded via Hugo Black's "incorporation doctrine" and the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment.
One thing about it doesn't seem to make much sense.
If the first ammendment says "
Congress
shall make no law", how can it be extended unto state governments in any way that makes sense?
Any of the other first 9 amendments can be reasonably extended, but the first one?
The question of right and wrong aside, "how?" is the question I'd like to have answered.
The two clauses, both in the Fourteenth Amendment, that are used as means of extending restrictions to the states are the Due Process and Priveleges and Immunities Clauses. This has included the First Amendment. Both of these clauses, and the Equal Protection Clause as well, invoked much debate in this regard historically, but are not likely to be reversed any time soon.
My guess would be that virtually every state constitution also restricts its own state government in the five types of expression recognized by the First Amendment.
A quick 5 minute search yielded these. You can probably find better sources.
Last edited by PJS on Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:23 am; edited 1 time in total
Jason_Harvestdancer Graduate Thinker
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 666
Posted:
Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:22 am
Brian37 wrote:
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:
Knight wrote:
Hugo Black's "interpretation" of the 14th amendment is clearly wrong. Precedent or not: it's wrong.
I feel your pain. But it is one thing to say that something is wrong, and another thing to say that something is against what the law is. The fact is that, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the law is what they say it is, and until the day where the incorporation doctrine is overturned (it is not very controversial, so it may be a while), then the First Amendment still applies to the states.
It's still irrelevant to the question of using the physical location of a church is a violation of the 1st amendment.
Suppose the 1st amendment does apply fully to the states. (Knight, I included the word 'suppose' so there's no need to object.) How is using the physical location of a church an endorsement of the religion of that church? It simply isn't.
Churches have two things that are useful to a polling place - a large room for all the voting booths and available parking outside.
I suppose one could make a case that someone would say "My religion forbids me to go into the physical location of the worship place of other religions", a bit of an extreme stand but fundies take extreme stands all the time. In that case that fundie can still vote by the perfectly legal process of absentee ballot.
By using their big meeting hall and big parking lot, the government is actually showing that they are actually thinking about practical matters for a change.
Except for the exceptionally extreme fundy, this is a non-issue.
The absentee ballot in the given cenerio is no different than telling a black person, "Sure, you can ride on the bus, but you just have to sit in the back".
It does not compare, because there is no endorsement of the faith group in whose real estate the voting takes place.
Brian37 wrote:
The tactic of putting polling places is to send the message to our public that the goverment is Jesus run and Jesus owned. If they cared about government neutrality like secular theists and atheists do, they would not do it.
Those that LOOK for the message will find it, but that's more a matter of perception bias than intent.
If you are looking for a polling place, and you find real estate with a large parking lot and a large room in which voting booths can be placed, and it is the only such room in the precinct, and it happens to be in a church, what message are you sending?
Brian37 wrote:
If a right wing baptist lived in a liberal catholic area and the only polling place was in a Catholic church they would be well within their rights to complain about it and any Catholic telling them they have the "absentee ballot" is doing no differently to that Baptist than whites did with blacks in segregation. "Yea, you can come into this establishment, but you have to use seperate bathrooms"
And the Catholic Church is not running the voting. Think about that for a second. Even though the voting is taking place in the walls of the physical location of a church, the poll workers are not picked by the church they are picked by the government. The posters on the walls have to be cleared of political material.
Brian37 wrote:
Not putting voting places in any church avoids this conflict and no one has to be put in the position of making any accusation.
Putting voting places in churches doesn't create this conflict, and only one who wants to make the accusation is put in the position by his own desires.
Brian37 wrote:
Again, government neutrality, which the Constitution DEMANDS allows people the freedom of religion and concious without the fear of coirsion or marginalization.
And putting a polling place in a church does not violate neutrality because it is not in any way, shape, or form an endorsement of the faith on whose real estate the voting is taking place on.
If you insist that the extreme fundy who is religiously forbidden from going on the grounds of other religions even for secular purposes is being descriminated against, then our laws against murder discriminate against those whose religious beliefs mandate human sacrifice.
Hugo Black's "interpretation" of the 14th amendment is clearly wrong. Precedent or not: it's wrong.
I feel your pain. But it is one thing to say that something is wrong, and another thing to say that something is against what the law is. The fact is that, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the law is what they say it is, and until the day where the incorporation doctrine is overturned (it is not very controversial, so it may be a while), then the First Amendment still applies to the states.
It's still irrelevant to the question of using the physical location of a church is a violation of the 1st amendment.
Suppose the 1st amendment does apply fully to the states. (Knight, I included the word 'suppose' so there's no need to object.) How is using the physical location of a church an endorsement of the religion of that church? It simply isn't.
Churches have two things that are useful to a polling place - a large room for all the voting booths and available parking outside.
I suppose one could make a case that someone would say "My religion forbids me to go into the physical location of the worship place of other religions", a bit of an extreme stand but fundies take extreme stands all the time. In that case that fundie can still vote by the perfectly legal process of absentee ballot.
By using their big meeting hall and big parking lot, the government is actually showing that they are actually thinking about practical matters for a change.
Except for the exceptionally extreme fundy, this is a non-issue.
The absentee ballot in the given cenerio is no different than telling a black person, "Sure, you can ride on the bus, but you just have to sit in the back".
It does not compare, because there is no endorsement of the faith group in whose real estate the voting takes place.
Brian37 wrote:
The tactic of putting polling places is to send the message to our public that the goverment is Jesus run and Jesus owned. If they cared about government neutrality like secular theists and atheists do, they would not do it.
Those that LOOK for the message will find it, but that's more a matter of perception bias than intent.
If you are looking for a polling place, and you find real estate with a large parking lot and a large room in which voting booths can be placed, and it is the only such room in the precinct, and it happens to be in a church, what message are you sending?
Brian37 wrote:
If a right wing baptist lived in a liberal catholic area and the only polling place was in a Catholic church they would be well within their rights to complain about it and any Catholic telling them they have the "absentee ballot" is doing no differently to that Baptist than whites did with blacks in segregation. "Yea, you can come into this establishment, but you have to use seperate bathrooms"
And the Catholic Church is not running the voting. Think about that for a second. Even though the voting is taking place in the walls of the physical location of a church, the poll workers are not picked by the church they are picked by the government. The posters on the walls have to be cleared of political material.
Brian37 wrote:
Not putting voting places in any church avoids this conflict and no one has to be put in the position of making any accusation.
Putting voting places in churches doesn't create this conflict, and only one who wants to make the accusation is put in the position by his own desires.
Brian37 wrote:
Again, government neutrality, which the Constitution DEMANDS allows people the freedom of religion and concious without the fear of coirsion or marginalization.
And putting a polling place in a church does not violate neutrality because it is not in any way, shape, or form an endorsement of the faith on whose real estate the voting is taking place on.
If you insist that the extreme fundy who is religiously forbidden from going on the grounds of other religions even for secular purposes is being descriminated against, then our laws against murder discriminate against those whose religious beliefs mandate human sacrifice.
WTF?
The cross on top of a church is not and advertisement?
BULLSHIT!
I used to live in Lynchburg Va. If the UU church had a polling place in it you would damned well bet that the Falwell followers would object to that placement.
My point to you is that it is an indorcement. Any idiot with a brain seeing a logo, wheither it is Ronald McDonnald or Burger King, doesnt need a slide rule to figure out what is going on.
I would not, as an atheist if 'ATHEIST STATION" had a polling place, expect a Christian to say, "Sure, I will cast my vote in that building"
Christians bitched when a Mosque was used as a polling place a couple years ago, AND I AGREE!
I am an NFL FAN, Specifically I am a Redskin fan. I hate the Cowboys, but I do see the professionalism(even if not perfect)in the officials in the zebra stripes who are trained to be netural.
IF reffs were allowed to wear the jersey of their favorite team while officiating the game, how much confidence should the oposing team have in the play calling?
LET ME STRESS THIS IMPLICITLY, I dont care if you are putting a voting booth in a Mosque or Synogogue or Atheist Station, when you start doing that, you are giving credaince to the argument of favortism and impropriety . Whereas, just as in the NFL, if the reffs are wearing neutral colors(black and white), neither side can complain about bias.
Brian37 Master of Logic
Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 9384
Posted:
Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:26 am
Do you seriously think, if we are going by your statement that the "government" picks the place and the people policing it, DONT HAVE BIAS,
Do you seriously think that the officials of a prodominatly Catholic district are going to go out of their way to put a polling place in a Baptist church, or vice versa?
Do you think that the Muslims majority of the district who put a polling place in a Mosque would go out of thier way to put a polling place in a Baptist church in that same district?
Good intent bad intent aside, why even get to the point where one side is accusing the other of bias? If you never put a polling place under a symbol that is bias, no matter how unbias the people under that symbol might be, you dont have to worry about the implication in the first place.
Again, as an atheist, I will vote for a Christian, or Muslim who overlaps the common law and common intrest I agree with. But how the fuck can I expect a Christian or Muslim cast a vote in Atheist Station? Even if I knew I wasnt playing favorites myself, how could I expect them to ignore that obvious advertisment as they walk into the building to vote?
No one is suggesting that we shouldnt have laws, laws nor am I saying that precedent shouldnt be used. I am talking about working to change the mentality of society that has allowed our government to play favorites to Christianity. We are a Christian majority nation. BUT our Constitution is a neutral law not based on Christianity or the bible. I am trying to explain the truth to the public so that we can avoid the same types of dogmatic division that happened in Europe during the dark ages and the dogmatic division that goes on between Muslims in the Middle east.
I can see how someone would be irrate at using a church as a polling place. And you have a very good point about the fact that for every precedent that there is, there has been one or more that have been overturned!
I happen to take
Harvestdancer
's stance here. I am not sure how - even under a broad interpretation - that the first amendment establishment clause (let alone, the free exercise clause) could be interpreted such that a church could not be used as a polling place.
The free exercise, at most, suggests that government may not make a law with a religious purpose or show favoritism towards religion. To my eyes, the policy of having a church serve as a polling place would not violate either of these things any more than having a church function as an evacuation center in the case of a hurricane. In both cases, the government is merely using available space to perform a service (in one case, as a shelter; in the other case, as a voting precinct).
One thing about it doesn't seem to make much sense.
If the first ammendment says " Congress shall make no law", how can it be extended unto state governments in any way that makes sense?
Any of the other first 9 amendments can be reasonably extended, but the first one?
There is a funny joke about that. Hugo Black - my judicial hero - was what is called a textualist. The way he would rule on the laws was simply to look at the plain text of the constitution. If it was in there - no inferences, no 'penumbras,' only concrete words - then he would rule as the letter of the law demands.
But Felix Frankfurter, his judicial sparring partner, ruled on the spirit of the law. To pick on Black, Frankfurter would often point out that Black had ruled a first amendment case without holding hard and fast to the word "congress." According to the text, the first amendment only applies to CONGRESS's laws.
I suspect that the reason it has been extended is that there was, at some point, a law put in place giving executive branch comittees, and even the president, the power to make policy. It was simply assumed that the first amendment be interpreted through that law - Congress [or any other body that congress has legislated to speak on its behalf] shall make no law..."
Brian37 Master of Logic
Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 9384
Posted:
Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:14 am
Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
No one is suggesting that we shouldnt have laws, laws nor am I saying that precedent shouldnt be used. I am talking about working to change the mentality of society that has allowed our government to play favorites to Christianity. We are a Christian majority nation. BUT our Constitution is a neutral law not based on Christianity or the bible. I am trying to explain the truth to the public so that we can avoid the same types of dogmatic division that happened in Europe during the dark ages and the dogmatic division that goes on between Muslims in the Middle east.
I can see how someone would be irrate at using a church as a polling place. And you have a very good point about the fact that for every precedent that there is, there has been one or more that have been overturned!
I happen to take
Harvestdancer
's stance here. I am not sure how - even under a broad interpretation - that the first amendment establishment clause (let alone, the free exercise clause) could be interpreted such that a church could not be used as a polling place.
The free exercise, at most, suggests that government may not make a law with a religious purpose or show favoritism towards religion. To my eyes, the policy of having a church serve as a polling place would not violate either of these things any more than having a church function as an evacuation center in the case of a hurricane. In both cases, the government is merely using available space to perform a service (in one case, as a shelter; in the other case, as a voting precinct).
Kevin, it is about competition. In the private sector everything is fair game. BUT, if your are to protect the rights of all citizens, while maintaining the free market of ideas in politics, one must take the personal responsibility to maintain black and white stripes. YOU CANNOT DO THAT WHEN YOU HAVE POLLING PLACES IN RELIGIOUS BUILDINGS.
You cannot seriously expect a Evangelical to walk into Atheist Station and cast a vote without thinking, "there is an agenda going on here". It doesnt matter if in reality there is or is not. My point is to not allow politics to get to that point in the first place.
I am quite sure that both the Evangelical and atheist can agree that they dont want gang bangers on their street corner. I am quite sure that they both worry about how they will pay their bills.
Dont get me wrong, I find any claim of bearded man in the sky absurd. But I do have the human empathy that IF we are going to get along, creating needless situations of division dont help.
It is not a demand of political correctness. I dont expect any average Evangelicall to stop condeming me to hell, I expect that. BUT I also know that when I precieve that gang tag mentality is going on, I get pissed off. I am quite sure they feel the same way. The importance is that if one supports or deny a deity, that that issue is NOT taken up by government.
CET Master of Logic
Joined: Apr 03, 2003
Posts: 5636
Location: SoCal, USA
Posted:
Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:34 am
Brian37 wrote:
I saw on MSNBC this morning a polling place in a church in LA. It is not the first time I have seen this. In the last city I lived in, they had the same thing. How is this consitutional?
Would these same Christians mind a polling place in a Synogogue or Mosque or in "Atheist Station" in PA?
I've always wondered about that too. Most polling places I've had to go are/were churches.
I think you'll like this one Brian, my current polling place is a Unitarian/Universalist church.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:27 am
Knight wrote:
Hugo Black's "interpretation" of the 14th amendment is clearly wrong. Precedent or not: it's wrong.
Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:
I feel your pain. But it is one thing to say that something is wrong, and another thing to say that something is against what the law is.
That's why a monpolist creating, enforcing, and interpreting the law is a load of crap.
Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:
The fact is that, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the law is what they say it is, and until the day where the incorporation doctrine is overturned (it is not very controversial, so it may be a while), then the First Amendment still applies to the states.
Not according to the Constitution, despite what the USSC might think. Further, there's really nothing in the Constitution for the USSC to make such rulings in the first place!
Quote:
I wonder why "precedent" is so cherished, anyway. It was "precedent" of "separate but equal" which allowed Jim Crow to flourish.
Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:
The reason is pragmatic. If there were no such thing as precedent, then the law would constantly be in flux.
Non sequitur. Simply because one would not have to rely on precedent in no way implies that the law would constantly be in flux.
Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:
If the Supreme Court ruled on a thing, and precedent were not binding, then the sixth circuit could rule in an opposite way tomorrow on a case that is virtually the same. Thus, no one would really be sure what the law is. (You would never quite be sure if you are breaking the law with something because you could not simply check to see what the courts have most recently said.)
You just consult the law.
This is why having a monpolist do all the above sucks.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file