You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is this a clear violation of our constitutional rights?
- Thread starter theBusboy
- Start date
nellephant_1
New Member
clearly written by a crack pot with no concept of political terms and definitions..."They had better march on Washington and state power clicks in order to stop America from becoming a Communist outfit. We had thought our democracy would last forever. "
It will be challenged. Probably by Michael Farris. God bless him.
But the 1st Amendment is going away with Dinosaurs..
If you can and live in Colorado, I would sue the state for diminishing the rights of the people.
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people." - Hertado v. California, 110 US 516;"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946 "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." -Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60;"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24 "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
As you can see the US Supreme Court has already settled this issue.
I'd challenge this in a court or record.
But the 1st Amendment is going away with Dinosaurs..
If you can and live in Colorado, I would sue the state for diminishing the rights of the people.
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people." - Hertado v. California, 110 US 516;"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946 "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." -Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60;"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24 "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
As you can see the US Supreme Court has already settled this issue.
I'd challenge this in a court or record.
I would point out that the article does not mention any court decisions. The article quotes a statute, not a court decision. The statute bans speech to create discrimination, not speech generally. But it is still almost certainly unconstitutional.
Because of the First Amendment, I think it is extremely unlikely that any prosecutor will prosecute anyone for reading the Bible and even more unlikely that any court will construe the statute to make it a crime to read the Bible or advocating its truth. This is one of those situations in which the "activist judges" will be on your side. So don't get into a panic about it.
It is also worth mentioning that the so called banned book hasn't been banned by anybody. That is just the author's interpretation of the statute. No one is prosecuting her. No judge is putting her in jail. She is just trying to drum up sales with fear. The book is available on Amazon by the way and I am sure it is also available elsewhere.
If someone is stupid enough to arrest her, I have no doubt the ACLU would defend her if she would let them. Take a look at some of the ACLU cases cited in the link below where they have defended Christians advocating similar positions.
Here is one example out of many for those who will refuse to click on the link for fear of having their hatred of the ACLU challenged.
The ACLU of Florida (2007) argued in favor of the right of Christians to protest against a gay pride event held in the City of St. Petersburg. The City had proposed limiting opposition speech, including speech motivated by religious beliefs, to restricted "free speech zones." After receiving the ACLU's letter, the City revised its proposed ordinance.
http//www.aclufl.org/pdfs/StPeteLetter.pdf
Because of the First Amendment, I think it is extremely unlikely that any prosecutor will prosecute anyone for reading the Bible and even more unlikely that any court will construe the statute to make it a crime to read the Bible or advocating its truth. This is one of those situations in which the "activist judges" will be on your side. So don't get into a panic about it.
It is also worth mentioning that the so called banned book hasn't been banned by anybody. That is just the author's interpretation of the statute. No one is prosecuting her. No judge is putting her in jail. She is just trying to drum up sales with fear. The book is available on Amazon by the way and I am sure it is also available elsewhere.
If someone is stupid enough to arrest her, I have no doubt the ACLU would defend her if she would let them. Take a look at some of the ACLU cases cited in the link below where they have defended Christians advocating similar positions.
Here is one example out of many for those who will refuse to click on the link for fear of having their hatred of the ACLU challenged.
The ACLU of Florida (2007) argued in favor of the right of Christians to protest against a gay pride event held in the City of St. Petersburg. The City had proposed limiting opposition speech, including speech motivated by religious beliefs, to restricted "free speech zones." After receiving the ACLU's letter, the City revised its proposed ordinance.
http//www.aclufl.org/pdfs/StPeteLetter.pdf