House Passes Mandatory National Service Bill

TerryRC wrote:It does however violate her right to free speech and her free exercise of religion.

Let her stand on the street corner and do it, then.

Of course, she wouldn't be able to take advantage of the captive audience. Makes me wonder if that isn't what this was all about...

From your story...

McComb, who graduated with a 4.7 grade point average,

She EARNED the right to the podium and as her speech DID NOT violate the 1st Amendment, she was the victim here.

Nothing could be more simple.

TerryRC wrote:I agree with that 100% and that's EXACTLY what I've been saying. But the case you cited doesn't meet that criteria. The girls rights were violated and as such, those who violated them should have been punished.

Except all speeches must be vetted by school officials, making them tacit sponsors, also.

Nice try.

That's a fallacy I don't agree with and neither does the 1st Amendment, at least not that I can find.

If anything, it sounds like a red herring created SPECIFICALLY by anti-religionist to restrict the freedom of religion clause, unless of course you can explain WHY the school official has to vet the speech and what they are vetting it for.

So what happened to our constitutional rights?

Our founding fathers original argument was that no bill of rights were needed when the constitution was passed was because if a right was so ingrained and granted by our creator as was stated in the Declaration of Independence, there was no need to enumerate it.

It wasn’t until New York refused to ratify the constitution with the promise of a bill of rights that was reached to put what was ingrained into writing, and the first right was my right to freedom of exercise my religion and of speech.

And to be perfectly honest here, what I'm seeing from EVERY example you've posted here is nothing more then crystal clear attempts to deny both of those individual rights. Seems to me those two rights scare the crap out of you and Ziggy. Why is that?

TerryRC wrote:I agree with that 100% and that's EXACTLY what I've been saying. But the case you cited doesn't meet that criteria. The girls rights were violated and as such, those who violated them should have been punished.

Except all speeches must be vetted by school officials, making them tacit sponsors, also.

Nice try.

Quite the contrary, if all speeches must be vetted by school officials, then that reality itself is a violation of the 1st amendment.

It's chilling, frankly, to consider a valedictorian having to pass censors to give a message to fellow graduates.

TerryRC wrote:

Except all speeches must be vetted by school officials, making them tacit sponsors, also.

Nice try.

Try again.

Broadly, vetting is a process of examination and evaluation. Specifically, vetting often refers to performing a background check on someone before offering them employment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetted

Examination and evaluation does not mean to authorize, condone or mandate.

.

People, whether communists, atheists, leftists, conservatives, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, valedictorians, PhD's, and those with nothing but D's, should be able to say whatever they want to unless it causes an immediate danger to others.

That is the best definition of free speech I can think of. The idea that someone getting a 4.7 should somehow preclude her right to free speech is ridiculous. If you don't want a high school grad to speak freely, then don't give them a speech.

SheikBen wrote:People, whether communists, atheists, leftists, conservatives, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, valedictorians, PhD's, and those with nothing but D's, should be able to say whatever they want to unless it causes an immediate danger to others.

That is what Free speach is about, being able to speak your mind wihtout the government being used to silence you. As you said it is only when speach poses an immediate danger, such as yelling fire in a crowded theatre. However, Ziggy, TerryRC, and others want to silence anything that challenges their view. That isn't free speach its tyranny.

No doubt. Policing a graduation speech for content strikes me as the exact opposite of the what the founders intended.

SheikBen wrote:No doubt. Policing a graduation speech for content strikes me as the exact opposite of the what the founders intended.

It is exactly opposite of what the founders intended.

And here I thought we were going to have a conversation but Terry signed off shortly after the conversation started and Ziggy wouldn't touch it when he was online last night.

Go figure.

Hi Aaron,

The issue is just what exactly liberty means.

For you, Cato, and I, it appears to mean the ability to say what you want when you want to, and to do what you want with the property that you have.

For Terry and Ziggy it appears to mean something quite different.

SheikBen wrote:No doubt. Policing a graduation speech for content strikes me as the exact opposite of the what the founders intended.

Did the Founders even contemplate public schools for the education of minor children- paid for and managed by government agencies?

Did the Founders contemplate that such schools would be used for religious indoctrination of minors by those public agencies- as they were for the first two thirds of the 20th century- until constitutional challenges built a record of case law prohibiting the public schools from being used for religious indoctrination?

And perhaps most importantly, did the Founders contemplate the future existence of the 14th Amendment?

What the founders did contemplate was that EVERY citizen had a right to thank their God freely without being silenced by the government as the example Terry provided does.

I've yet to see any case law that prohibits the student from doing just that.

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:No doubt. Policing a graduation speech for content strikes me as the exact opposite of the what the founders intended.

Did the Founders even contemplate public schools for the education of minor children- paid for and managed by government agencies?

YES ..............

The importance given to the General Welfare clause by the Framers is demonstrated by the fact that it appears, not once, but twice, in the United States Constitution--first in the Preamble, as a statement of the purpose of the Constitution, and then again in Article I, Section 8, which sets forth the substantive powers of Congress.

The clause was taken over from the Articles of Confederation, the preliminary Constitution of the new United States, during the period of the Revolution, until the adoption and ratification of the Constitution of 1787. The Articles of Confederation declared in Article III (the equivalent of a Preamble) that:

``The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare....''

United States Constitution -- Preamble
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Framers of the United States Constitution repeated the General Welfare clause in Article I, Section 8, for the purpose of giving it some teeth, by ensuring that Congress could raise and expend funds for the general welfare. This corrected a near-fatal defect in the Articles of Confederation: the Articles incorporated the concept of the general welfare, but failed to provide for its implementation.

Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:No doubt. Policing a graduation speech for content strikes me as the exact opposite of the what the founders intended.

Did the Founders even contemplate public schools for the education of minor children- paid for and managed by government agencies?

Did the Founders contemplate that such schools would be used for religious indoctrination of minors by those public agencies- as they were for the first two thirds of the 20th century- until constitutional challenges built a record of case law prohibiting the public schools from being used for religious indoctrination?

And perhaps most importantly, did the Founders contemplate the future existence of the 14th Amendment?

"Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means for education shall ever be encouraged."—Northwest Ordinance (Congress)" This was part of the Northwest Ordinance, passed by Congress, in 1787.

What the founders did contemplate was that EVERY citizen had a right to thank their God freely without being silenced by the government as the example Terry provided does.

Not if the citizen is using a government institution as the platform for a religious sermon or prostylization.

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:No doubt. Policing a graduation speech for content strikes me as the exact opposite of the what the founders intended.

Did the Founders even contemplate public schools for the education of minor children- paid for and managed by government agencies?

YES ..............

The importance given to the General Welfare clause by the Framers is demonstrated by the fact that it appears, not once, but twice, in the United States Constitution--first in the Preamble, as a statement of the purpose of the Constitution, and then again in Article I, Section 8, which sets forth the substantive powers of Congress.

The clause was taken over from the Articles of Confederation, the preliminary Constitution of the new United States, during the period of the Revolution, until the adoption and ratification of the Constitution of 1787. The Articles of Confederation declared in Article III (the equivalent of a Preamble) that:

``The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare....''

United States Constitution -- Preamble
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Framers of the United States Constitution repeated the General Welfare clause in Article I, Section 8, for the purpose of giving it some teeth, by ensuring that Congress could raise and expend funds for the general welfare. This corrected a near-fatal defect in the Articles of Confederation: the Articles incorporated the concept of the general welfare, but failed to provide for its implementation.

Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

That's what some of us have been saying for years and years, Sam. The general welfare clause was not an exercise in meaningless verbosity.

As for the 14th amendment, Zig, "equal protection" does not mean "the right not to be offended," or at least it surely did not when the amendment was ratified in 1868.

SheikBen wrote:As for the 14th amendment, Zig, "equal protection" does not mean "the right not to be offended," or at least it surely did not when the amendment was ratified in 1868.

That is a red herring.

I don't know anyone who says that the 14th Amendment includes the right not to be offended.

Do you?

Then exactly how, Zig, does the 14th amendment silence, or give the government the right to censor, the content of a graduation speech given by a Valedictorian?

SheikBen wrote:Then exactly how, Zig, does the 14th amendment silence, or give the government the right to censor, the content of a graduation speech given by a Valedictorian?

If by "the government" you mean the officials who manage the public schools, there is long precedent for school officials to manage the public schools as they determine in the best interest of both good order and the protection of the constitutional rights of all students and of the duty of the school to not violate the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. It ruled that a policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

"As we have observed before, there are heightened concerns with protecting freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools. Our decisions in [Engel] and [Abington] recognize, among other things, that prayer exercises in public schools carry a particular risk of indirect coercion. The concern may not be limited to the context of schools, but it is most pronounced there. What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy." 505 U.S. 577, 592 (citations omitted).

In Lee v. Weisman, Justice Kennedy wrote:

"To say a teenage student has a real choice not to attend her high school graduation is formalistic in the extreme. True, Deborah could elect not to attend commencement without renouncing her diploma; but we shall not allow the case to turn on this point. Everyone knows that, in our society and in our culture, high school graduation is one of life's most significant occasions. A school rule which excuses attendance is beside the point. Attendance may not be required by official decree, yet it is apparent that a student is not free to absent herself from the graduation exercise in any real sense of the term "voluntary," for absence would require forfeiture of those intangible benefits which have motivated the student through youth and all her high school years." 505 U.S. 577, 595.

Schools have an affrimative legal responsibility to take care that both school employees and students do not put the school in a circumstance of violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

ziggy wrote: The Supreme Court, in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. It ruled that a policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

And just what is your problem with that Supreme Court decision, ..... Zigster?

Or was that just more of your silly 'weazelwording' rhetoric?




.

ziggy wrote:

What the founders did contemplate was that EVERY citizen had a right to thank their God freely without being silenced by the government as the example Terry provided does.

Not if the citizen is using a government institution as the platform for a religious sermon or prostylization.

Apparently you've never read the 1st Amendment. Either that or you can't comprehend what you read. Either way, you're wrong.

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:No doubt. Policing a graduation speech for content strikes me as the exact opposite of the what the founders intended.

Did the Founders even contemplate public schools for the education of minor children- paid for and managed by government agencies?

YES ..............

The importance given to the General Welfare clause by the Framers is demonstrated by the fact that it appears, not once, but twice, in the United States Constitution--first in the Preamble, as a statement of the purpose of the Constitution, and then again in Article I, Section 8, which sets forth the substantive powers of Congress.

The clause was taken over from the Articles of Confederation, the preliminary Constitution of the new United States, during the period of the Revolution, until the adoption and ratification of the Constitution of 1787. The Articles of Confederation declared in Article III (the equivalent of a Preamble) that:

``The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare....''

United States Constitution -- Preamble
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Framers of the United States Constitution repeated the General Welfare clause in Article I, Section 8, for the purpose of giving it some teeth, by ensuring that Congress could raise and expend funds for the general welfare. This corrected a near-fatal defect in the Articles of Confederation: the Articles incorporated the concept of the general welfare, but failed to provide for its implementation.

Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

That's what some of us have been saying for years and years, Sam. The general welfare clause was not an exercise in meaningless verbosity.

The general Welfare Clause was meant for the good of ALL citizens, not select groups which the manner in which you and yours attempt to use it for justification of the Marxist programs you support.

And in doing so, you completely ignore the words of James Madison and others on this topic yet you take them completely out of context on another.

I wonder if there is anything about our constitution and/or founding fathers you really understand.

Perhaps if you stopped trying to twist their beliefs into yours and read the constitution without pre-conceived ignorance you do, you might actually get somewhere.

As it is though, all you’re doing nothing but floating in a Marxist sewer of incorrectness.

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote: The Supreme Court, in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. It ruled that a policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

And just what is your problem with that Supreme Court decision, ..... Zigster?

Or was that just more of your silly 'weazelwording' rhetoric?

No weazelwording, Sam. I just quoted what a concurring SC Justice wrote. I am OK with it, even if you aren't.

I wonder if there is anything about our constitution and/or founding fathers you really understand.

Perhaps if you stopped trying to twist their beliefs into yours and read the constitution without pre-conceived ignorance you do, you might actually get somewhere.

Tale it up with the Courts, Aaron. Constitutionally they are the arbiters of what the Constitution means.