1st Amendment

I did one for the second, so here we go. Have one for the 10th as well.

I use this one a lot in classes too. It is fun to hear responses from non 2nd and 3rd year Law Students.

Does the Freedom of Religion clause allow the majority to enforce their beliefs, government-ally, on public property? Examples. Nativity Scene, but no Hanukkah. Giant crosses on public property. 10 Commandments in court rooms.

Does Freedom of Religion mean you can demand society not contain things you dont want your kids to know about (the old why is it the FCC's job to enforce "morality" that seems to trace back "Christian Values")?

Does Freedom of Speech mean you can say anything you want with no consequences at all? Examples. Does it violate the 1st for your employer to fire you for offensive bumper stickers, decals on your lunch pail, public statements made that go back to employers. Does it violate this freedom when others call you out for your speech?

Can Assembly be restricted by a city or state official(s) to "specified areas" only? Including but not limited to those areas being MILES away from where the people you are protesting are? (Real case in NYC when the R Convention was there. Protests were limited to the OTHER SIDE of Manhattan and Brooklyn, all miles from the Convention)

 

The 1st Amendment:

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

(Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment)

-------

The 1st Commandment:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

--------

 

There are religions who believe in more than one god.

 

I believe the word 'enforce' is wrong in this case. If the local government or a group displays a cross, a menorah, or crescent on public property, they are not enforcing their belief, they are just showing and practicing it. A minority should not have the right to demand that such displays be removed.

This is more of the "Separation of Church and State" issue in the Federalist Papers not the Constitution. Most Liberals misinterpret the meaning of "Separation of Church and State", they take it to mean that the Government should be nonsecular, which I believe is wrong. I think it means that the government should not try to control a religion and a religion should not control the government. If you want to put a cross up its just fine, because you are actually trying to control the church or government. If anyone is offended just by the mere sight or mention of a religion, they should just bury their heads in the ground and stay there.

The FCC has no power to enforce morality on any broadcast station, what they do is commit blackmail or extortion, depending on how you look at it. What they do is threaten to refuse to renew the license if the offending station refuses to abide by the FCC's rules, they have on powers to force a station to do anything. The FCC does take bribes, which they call fines, to look the other way.

The only restriction should be that your freedom of speech cannot impact your employers business. If your speech has no impact on the business or is done outside of the business and it has no association to said business then your employer has no right to restrict you or punish you in any way. Also if a business practices and display anything that others object to, as long as they are not impacted in any way, those offended should just go somewhere else. And being offended does not constitute a detrimental impact.

"Being offended, is in the mind of the offended, not in the mouth of the speaker."

Assembly can be restricted to certain areas, to prevent one group from interfering with the right to assemble of another group. The authorities can under these conditions say where protesters can't assembly, not where they can. As long as one assembly does not interfere with the other, they can be as close or far away as they like.

I see you made no mention of hate speech and restriction of speakers on school campuses.

 

Never do. There is no such thing as Hate Speech without an underlying crime. That simple (that is also established in the actual Con Law class, not this seminar). Saying "N" is not hate speech. Saying while beating up a black person makes it appear a Hate Crime, which makes the Speech "Hate Speech".

As to Campuses. State Schools can legally limit if they feel that it will cause too much of a disruption to the normal function of the University. They can also limit who can come on campus. Example. A student speaking in the quad? They pay to be there so as long as they are not causing such a distraction that it interferes with actual classes or Admin functions? Have at it. You can not, as a non student come onto the property and do as you please. The speakers who feel they are wronged can sue the school.

Private Universities (Hofstra, Harvard, Yale, Penn State, etc) can limit who comes on campus much more. NYU is tricky as they have buildings but campus is technically a lot of NYC streets. Private is like your business. You do not have to let anyone who is disruptive or does not have business there in.

Sorry, in the end, unless enough students want it? There is no obligation to give equal time. Or let non students on any campus because they "want to".

Also, this is an assignment I let them debate in a 6 session seminar. So a lot of the basis is general not specific.

On the religion one. I have a favorite case. Town in the Midwest would not give a zoning variance to a Wicca Temple because it was a "residential neighborhood". That said, there was a church at the end of that block and one three blocks away in the middle of the houses. They appealed to the board. The Board told them, directly, "We are a CHRISTIAN TOWN. So Churches are OK!".

 

I will pose something else. Should the RCC be allowed to hide behind "Confession" to avoid Obstruction charges when they are aware of a crime. Be it a parishioner or fellow clergy? If a laymen knew of a crime and it is found out they knew and hid it. Charged a lot of the time. Priest? "Well. The Confession is sacred and sealed".

 

I would agree that private colleges and universities can limit who can speak on their campuses, but I'm not sure how Title 9 would apply on private campuses. On state sponsored schools, they would have to follow the First Amendment and allow any speaker that the students request to speak and allow them on campus. It doesn't matter that some students object, even if its the majority of students. If any group of students want it, it should be allowed. A majority cannot be allowed to dictate its agenda on the minority. These talks usually take place at night, after normal class hours, so disruption is a false excuse. It seems on college campuses, its the Left saying, we have rights and anyone who doesn't agree with them, has no rights. Any professors or administration member who tries to stop free speech should be fired immediately and never be allowed back.

 

I don't believe there are any laws in the U.S. that allows the Sanctity of Confession. I thinks its just law enforcement, giving churches, professional curtesy.

 

The usual metric used (mind you I teach at a private University) at State Schools is "Is the person saying things unpopular? Or things that can cause a danger in the end, via reaction by the other side.". That said, people talk about that all the time. I spent time teaching at a state school. Graduated from 2 others over the years. I never saw any restrictions. Anyone that the "whatever club" wanted on campus, and paid for, could come. The only people I have ever seen kept off are "Non student strangers who want to "pass out pamphlets".".

 

Agreed. on the last one. NYC fixed that one 10 years ago, to a point. And Central Park is a wonder in summer now. Shortest possible. Laws still said men could go without shirts, women had to wear something that covered the boobs. Suit happened. First judge basically ruled "It is not discriminatory. The CHILDREN. Morality. Tradition.". Appeals court said "Um. No. If women have to be covered so do men.". And now there are topless sunbathers in CP as soon as it breaks 70.

On schools, there is court at the USSC level that says students do not have full rights while in school. That said. Under those? NO religious clothing/articles is valid under rulings. Certain ones only? Not. The only thing I would say for safety purposes? Full Burkas or any almost total face coverage is a safety issue.

 

That is not entirely accurate. The Quakers left for Freedom. The Puritans left because they were chased out of England and Holland for trying to overthrow the state religion.Then when here chased out the Quakers for not practicing Puritanism.

As to "they wanted Christianity". Treaty of Tripoli. Signed by a founder. Passed by a mostly founder era Congress. Literally says "the United States was not Founded on the Christian Religion". Article 11.

 

Actually "Separation of State and Church" is not in the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits this. Also, one has to consider, does the Government has the Right's to 'Free Speech' and 'Freedom of Religion'.

 

They do not, technically, per court decisions. The case I cited? The "Wiccan Church who were told they could not build a temple on a residential property and a Church could because "We are a CHRISTIAN TOWN"!" was struck pretty fast by the courts. Government can not favor one religion over another. That is why my example is always "One religion," I change the one allowed every once in a while, "and refuse the other". Things like "Crosses" and "10 Commandments" are grey areas. Especially since the latter covers 2 different religions.