Quincy churches rally against Tilted Kilt pub - Resurrected

[Jock Scot]

All very interesting and whilst I fully understand that most of the members of this website are indeed from the United States of America where the Constitution does hold sway, but could I ask the majority of members to remember that their Constitution holds no sway outside the USA.

I think the basic OFF switch is probably a far simpler and a wholly international option, if any of us does not like what is written.

[Tobus]

Please read the 14th Amendment.

I have read it, I know exactly what it says, and I know how the courts have interpreted it. But that still has absolutely nothing to do with the original intent (or the original wording) of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment wasn't ratified until 1868 - almost 80 years after the Constitution was written, and after the Civil War. Virtually every Constitutional scholar agrees that the 14th Amendment radically changed the nature of how the Constitution works. So what does it have to do with the intent of the original document? My comments in this thread were about the original concept of States' Rights.

I would submit that it has been the upholding of individuals' rights granted by the First Amendment and enforced by SCOTUS which have been a deciding factor in the limitation of States' rights to establish policies regarding religion. State policies cannot violate federal constitutional law.

I don't disagree with that, and I hope you guys don't think I'm arguing in favour of any government at any level having the authority to dictate religion. Individual liberty should be paramount, and in that respect I think the courts have done the right thing with respect to holding the States to the limitations of the BoR (despite the unfortunate side-effects of the loss of States' Rights in other areas). But I think you may still be missing the point. State policies cannot violate federal constitutional law, that is true, but under the original wording of the Constitution, and the subsequent SCOTUS ruling of Barron v. Baltimore, a State law that infringed on free speech or other rights specified therein would not have been a violation, since that Amendment was specific only to Congress, not the States. It wasn't until 1947 that it was established that States were bound by it as well.

Again, there is no disagreement that under current law and legal precedent, States are bound by the BoR. And I reiterate that my points in this discussion were pointed towards the original wording/intent of the Constitution. Historically and legally, all the evidence shows that the Bill of Rights was not written with the goal of constraining the States. Only the Central Government. The last part of the Bill of Rights, the 10th Amendment, affirms this.

[Father Bill]

To be honest, I get a little tired of assuming that American law applies in international discussions. Come on folks, we're more than one nation here - we're kilties.

[Tobus]

To be honest, I get a little tired of assuming that American law applies in international discussions. Come on folks, we're more than one nation here - we're kilties.

But... this topic is centered around legal issues in an American city. If we were discussing a similar issue in a town in Scotland, I would expect the subject to revolve around UK law, and wouldn't be complaining that people aren't talking about laws in other countries. I don't understand the objection here...

[Woodsheal]

To be honest, I get a little tired of assuming that American law applies in international discussions. Come on folks, we're more than one nation here - we're kilties.

International discussion? Quincy is in Massachusetts. Last I checked, Mass. is in the United States....

[ThistleDown]

It's possible that Jock and Father Bill are bringing to mind other occasions, Tobus, when the subjects really have been centred around laws in Scotland or Canada. Those threads are often hi-jacked or their subjects "adjusted" to fit similar or even quite dissimilar issues in the US. There should be no objection to two or more members carrying on a quite localised discussion, as long as no one thinks it's about kilts or is in any way related to international laws or the laws of other lands.

[mookien]

... Complaining about this thread is a bit like a vegetarian walking into a butcher shop and complaining that all they sell is MEAT. You already know what's in here. You already know what to expect, so what on earth would you gain by insisting on continually coming here to get cheezed off? ...

***! Then, why do I keep coming here?!

[Thomas H]

***! Then, why do I keep coming here?!

To defend what we have said and from others getting the upper hand on it . I would bow out but I am having fun -- And the door was locked lol