|
11 May 05 - 08:22 PM (#1482874) Subject: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff Dear Mudcat. Does anyone in Mudcatland know ver batim The First Amendment? I have been involved recently in a first step confrontation with management and a co-worker over newspaper articles I have pasted on the walls of the place I work. These articles are fact and opinion about anti and pro gay rights and photos of President Bush holding hands and kissing Prince Abdul. I was witness today to a head management figure being coerced by a member of my union...who did not have the balls to confront me, but rather make a big federal stink, rip down all my messageboard. I have since been informed by my union brothers who have enjoyed my messageboard that this is not possible in a workplace anymore because of the Neo-con Fascist Regime in power now. SAD! Does anyone in Mudcatland know ver batim the First Amendment! Peter |
|
11 May 05 - 08:24 PM (#1482877) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: Peace 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. |
|
11 May 05 - 08:25 PM (#1482880) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: Peace That wasn't from memory. As me the preamble, however. |
|
11 May 05 - 08:27 PM (#1482883) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: GUEST,Peter Thanks brucie!\ Peter |
|
11 May 05 - 09:07 PM (#1482892) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: JohnInKansas You can get the whole thing at USConstitutionAmended John |
|
11 May 05 - 09:09 PM (#1482894) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: Peace http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html And another site that likely contains more than ya need to know. (Short aside, and I hope you aren't insulted, Peter. The first ten amendments to the Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. I didn't know that until I was about forty.) |
|
11 May 05 - 09:37 PM (#1482910) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: Rapparee Interesting that a Canadian provided the answer. I knew it, but most Americans only think they know the Constitution -- like the guy who ask me where it said "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I had to give him the entire Constitution AND the Declaration of Independence, and even after he read them I don't think that he was convinced. Without looking it up, do you know the Fourth Amendment? The Fifth (hint: the Fifth provides constitutional justification for capital punishment)? |
|
11 May 05 - 11:28 PM (#1482995) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: Bee-dubya-ell First off, the First Amendment only applies to government and the Commons, not to the private sector. Congress can't abridge your right of free speech, but your employer damned well can. Secondly, it's interesting that you say the offending action was taken by a member of management at the insistence of someone from your own union. Only goes to show why a lot of people, myself included, have little use for unions. Just amounts to working for two sets of bastards instead of only one. Fuck 'em all. Be self-employed. Play music. Mow lawns. Paint houses. It doesn't matter. Just don't work for the sonsabitches. |
|
12 May 05 - 12:23 AM (#1483016) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: Peace As an incidental question, does anyone know what the fate of House Joint Resolution 28 was? |
|
12 May 05 - 12:31 AM (#1483020) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: Peace Sorry about that. I just went to look and HJR 28 has like 1,397,475 802,391,804,753 sites--well, lots anyway. This is the one I mean: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Zt_ljHEJXTYJ:www.votecobb.org/justice/amendment/faq/+house+joint+resolution+28,+federal&hl=en |
|
12 May 05 - 12:58 AM (#1483029) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: DougR Geeze, Peter, can't you find the information on the Internet? You got to depend upon brucie (a ..hack cough..Canadian) to supply you with the answer to your query? DougR |
|
12 May 05 - 02:33 AM (#1483053) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: Pauline L I love the First Amendment. It says so, so much with so few words. However, the First Amendment isn't all you need to know to deal with your employer. There is case law and laws enacted in conformance with the First Amendment. Off the top of my head, I remember this: The Fourth Amendment says that laws can not be so vague that one couldn't tell when one violates of them. The Fifth Amendment protects people from self incrimination. |
|
12 May 05 - 08:28 AM (#1483222) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: Rapparee Wrong, and only partially right, Pauline. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Care to have a go at the Seventh? |
|
12 May 05 - 09:25 AM (#1483266) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: artbrooks Peter, I worked in Human Resources for many years, and was also an EEO investigator. The fact is, the walls of your workplace are your employer's walls and he has the right to say what may or may not be posted on them. It has nothing to do with the current administration in Washington. Since it seems that your union has come down on the employer's side, I wouldn't be at all surprised if a statement to that effect is someplace in your union contract (possibly with an exception allowing the union itself to post anything it wants that isn't overtly libelous). |
|
12 May 05 - 01:50 PM (#1483458) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: M.Ted If you're going to provoke a fight between your union and management, do it over something that is important--- |
|
12 May 05 - 04:33 PM (#1483587) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: Peace I think that the American Constitution is one of the great documents we have had in history. I also think that the American government is using it to wipe their collective arse. I cannot understand WHY Americans are not outraged. Why the complacency? Why the resignation? Why? Have these Neocon bastards beaten you already? Or do people just think they are too big, too powerful to fight? |
|
12 May 05 - 04:55 PM (#1483605) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: Rapparee People here think that they know the Constitution, Brucie. And they think that the President would never, ever, violate it. Even though -- Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, and it can be argued, deprived citizens of property (slaves) without either due process or recompense. FDR interned Italian- and Japanese- Americans, of course, depriving them of liberty without due process. It also seems that you can get away with almost anything if you claim it's necessary for "National Security." |
|
12 May 05 - 05:29 PM (#1483636) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: John Hardly brucie, This isn't a constitutional issue (as correctly pointed out by BWL). What's to fight about? Who's complacent? Who's resigned? |
|
12 May 05 - 06:10 PM (#1483664) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff Thank you everyone for your insite and help on this matter. I was surprised to read that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..." Isn't that what the extreme Christian right is trying to do with The Ten Commandments and Creationism? Thanks, Peter Woodruff |
|
13 May 05 - 08:39 AM (#1484071) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: GUEST,Mrr Bingo, Peter Woodruff. |
|
13 May 05 - 09:00 AM (#1484087) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: Rapparee Ah, but they claim that they only want the "free exercise thereof." And that's were the problem lies -- is my "free exercise" an attempt to "establish" or not? And what about the church of Santeria? They believe in animal sacrifice. This is considered cruelty to animals by many, yet it is integral to the church's beliefs. Or the use of peyote in certain religions of the American Southwest? -- peyote use is considered drug abuse by the Feds. If putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is "establishment," then is putting Hammurabi's Code in the Supreme Court not also "establishment" or at least advocacy of a religion? Could jailing an Islamic teacher be considered religious persecution -- denying "free exercise" to someone who advocates the destruction of the people who, over eight hundred years or more, have continuously advocated the destruction his religion in the name of theirs? |
|
13 May 05 - 11:34 AM (#1484182) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: Tannywheeler Didn't know til you were 40?!!! Oh, but you're an outland furriner. You're forgiven. What I don't know about Canadian jurisprudence could keep us here for years. I'm the child of a '50s blacklisted performer, and related to activists/historians. I knew, generally, what the Constitution and The Bill of Rights were by the time I was 6. Tw |
|
13 May 05 - 12:13 PM (#1484230) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: M.Ted A subtle point, perhaps, is that the Founding Fathers regarded the all that stuff that they left us with as objectives, rather than facts of life--as Rapaire points out, there are always issues that need to be worked out, and they left us the guidlines, knowing full well that it was going to be difficult, if not impossible, to follow them-- |
|
13 May 05 - 12:30 PM (#1484237) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: GUEST objectives to limit government. |
|
13 May 05 - 12:47 PM (#1484249) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: Uncle_DaveO Rapaire said, in part: Could jailing an Islamic teacher be considered religious persecution -- denying "free exercise" to someone who advocates the destruction of the people who, over eight hundred years or more, have continuously advocated the destruction his religion in the name of theirs? Now we're dealing with the question of mixing religion and political action, and where the dividing line falls. The Amendment would protect his belief and practice and preaching of his theological position, that "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is His prophet," and what are proper ritual duties, including the requirement of the mutiple prayers per day, and the prohibition on alcohol, and on and on. That's the "free exercise" that's protected. In Europe up to and including the time of the founding of the United States (and in many countries, to this day) the idea of church and state being separate was strange, and it was considered proper for the State to prescribe the permissible religious beliefs, teachings, and practices--even to the extent of criminal sanctions. That is what is dealt with by the Amendment we're referring to. If a cleric--be he Christian or Muslim or whatever else--gets into advocating violent actions against others in the society, it matters not whether that's his own politics or whether it's his sect's extension of its basic scriptural teachings or even if it's trying to carry out some literal, explicit instructions of his scriptural teachings to kill all unbelievers; that's political action which is criminal, and may be dealt with as with other criminal acts or incitements thereto. Dave Oesterreich |
|
13 May 05 - 12:50 PM (#1484254) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: Dave (the ancient mariner) I think this was covered in another thread, but it bears repeating here. Read what the people who wrote and signed the Constitution said about the subject, then decide for yourselves. James Madison " We've staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart." "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We've staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia] • I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare the unsatisfactoriness [of temportal enjoyments] by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way. Letter by Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773) • In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible. " An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia" Approved February 2, 1813 by Congress "It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other." • A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven. [Letter by Madison to William Bradford [urging him to make sure of his own salvation] November 9, 1772] At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22; "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." [Baron Charles Montesquieu, wrote in 1748; "Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separated from legislative power and from executive power. If it [the power of judging] were joined to legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislature if it were joined to the executive power, the judge could have the force of an oppressor. All would be lost if the same … body of principal men … exercised these three powers." Madison claimed Isaiah 33:22 as the source of division of power in government |
|
13 May 05 - 01:43 PM (#1484289) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: GUEST,Clint Keller Madison's personal opinions are not necessarily part of the Constitution, any more than mine or yours are. clint |
|
13 May 05 - 03:55 PM (#1484385) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Interesting comment Clint, since his opinions were the foundation of the Bill of Rights aka what this thread is about... |
|
13 May 05 - 06:42 PM (#1484506) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: GUEST,Clint Keller But Madison's opinions ARE NOT THE SAME THING as the Bill of Rights, Dave. More people than Madison contributed to them and voted on them. Madison did not establish the Bill of Rights by fiat. For instance, what amendment says "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king?" We have a number of other Judges, Congress is our lawgiver, and it is part of the foundation of the United States that we have no king. clint |
|
14 May 05 - 12:02 AM (#1484695) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: Peace Tw, I knew about the Constitution and the Amendments by the time I was an older teenager. Just never went DING that the Bill of Rights everyone talked about WAS the first ten amendments. |
|
11 Jun 07 - 08:35 PM (#2074238) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment ver batim. From: katlaughing Looks as though there may be hope for habeas corpus, yet: click here. |
|
11 Jun 07 - 11:29 PM (#2074353) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment verbatim. From: Rapparee Article I, Section 8: No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state. W only thinks he's a king.... |
|
12 Jun 07 - 01:10 AM (#2074399) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment verbatim. From: Don Firth There is often a bit of confusion about the relationship between the Law and the Constitution. A private citizen is free to do anything he or she wishes, unless it is prohited by Law. The government is not allowed to do anything, unless it is permitted by the Constitution. And especially not allowed if the Constitution specifically prohibits it, such as abridgement of freedom of speech or search and seizure without a warrant. So the Constitution is a restriction on the government, not on private citizens. Whether we like it or not, an employer can restrict freedom of speech in the workplace. By the same token, constitutional protection of freedom of speech does not require that you allow someone to say things in your own home that you find offensive. I'm afraid our president is not really up on this principle either. He seems to be under the impression that all he has to do is get Congress to pass a law (such as the Patriot Act) and that allows him to break all sorts of constitutional prohibitions "because it's legal. It's the law." But if that law contradicts elements in the Constitution, then, no, it is not legal, even if there is a law on the books. Any law is subject to challenge on this basis, in which case the law can be brought up before the Supreme Court, who are then supposed to determine whether or not it is constitutional. Checks and balances. But again: Law restricts the actions of persons. The Constitution restricts that actions of the government. Don Firth |
|
12 Jun 07 - 02:25 AM (#2074420) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment verbatim. From: Richard Bridge Surely some discrimination issues here... |
|
12 Jun 07 - 09:30 AM (#2074697) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment verbatim. From: Mrrzy The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion. The first commandment forbids it. |
|
12 Jun 07 - 09:43 AM (#2074706) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment verbatim. From: Rapparee Yes, you can be restricted in what you say in the workplace. But your employer cannot restrict what you say outside the workplace about the workplace if you are willing to bear the consequences. Your employer can also review your email, go through your desk, tap your phone, and even put cameras in the bathroom. However, a smart employer will check with his lawyer before doing ANY of these things. An employer who goes through a desk without a witness present risks having the employee say, "So that's where that envelope with the $25,000 I had in my desk drawer went!" There are different rules for those working in the public sector. |
|
12 Jun 07 - 01:51 PM (#2074948) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment verbatim. From: kendall Henry Ford demanded that all of his employees refrain from drinking, smoking, and he insisted that they go to church. Anyone caught breaking his rules got fired. Thank God for labor unions. The 13th amendment freed the blacks and labor unions freed the working man, and created the middle class. |
|
12 Jun 07 - 04:19 PM (#2075062) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment verbatim. From: Rapparee While Henry Ford grew his own marijuana.... |
|
12 Jun 07 - 04:31 PM (#2075078) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment verbatim. From: pattyClink Another subtle point is that the 10 in the Bill of Rights are only our 'enumerated' rights, the ones specifically spelled out to make a clear bright line for future would-be tyrants. They are not the only 10 we 'get'. The idea of the republic was that the people would hold all rights to self-determination, and the government was to do only those tasks specifically directed by the citizenry. Thus there are 'intrinsic' rights such as privacy, that are not enumerated, yet this government was intended to have no power to usurp. The constitution writers had a tussle over bothering to include a bill of rights, because to some it was unnecessary to spell out a few rules if we were to have general rights to our own lives, liberty, etc. Now we are fairly glad they did, yet also we have given people the idea that ONLY those 10 are 'allowed' us by government which rules over us. We have a lot of people who just don't get it. |
|
12 Jun 07 - 04:53 PM (#2075111) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment verbatim. From: McGrath of Harlow Isn't "President" a "title of nobility? Maybe not in the case of the serving President - but they still carry the label once they have left office. It's "President Clinton", not "former President Clinton". How is that not a "title of nobility"? |
|
12 Jun 07 - 07:24 PM (#2075275) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment verbatim. From: JohnInKansas For one thing, McG, it can't be passed on to one's heirs. (Although some seem inclined to debate even this.) John |
|
12 Jun 07 - 10:05 PM (#2075375) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment verbatim. From: Rapparee Honorary. He should be addressed as "Former President Clinton," just as I hope soon to say "Former President Bush" to a second one. There is only one President. Leaving the "Former" off just makes it faster to say. Grover Cleveland was elected twice, with a guy in between. So he could have been addressed as President Former President Cleveland. Personally, I think they should all be addressed as "Mister" and the correct term to address the President is "Mister President." When we finally elect a woman I don't think that she'll be addressed as "Mistress President," though -- probably as "Madam President." |
|
12 Jun 07 - 10:43 PM (#2075398) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment verbatim. From: jeffp Certain titles do continue after the person is out of the job -- such as Governor, Ambassador, Senator... |
|
12 Jun 07 - 10:58 PM (#2075406) Subject: RE: BS: The First Amendment verbatim. From: Rapparee It's MISTER Clinton, MISTER Bush, MISTER Carter to me. You can call 'em whatever you want. |