San Diego tries to ban Christianity

sorry kid, but the grammar gods are going to have to disagree with you on this one

Sorry, ma'am, you're wrong.

http://www.geocities.com/gene_moutoux/diagramamend1.htm

Meanwhile, San Diego County has dropped the hot potato.

... and the evil, librul ACLU has come out in favor of pastor Jones.

As I said Thomas I would not wish to be living in that neighborhood when war break out.

I can just see somone who will need to park his car three blocks away from his home in a rain storm or who can not leave his or her home because of all the park cars due to the good Pastor meetings lossing it.

I can only hope it is only property that will end up being harm and not people.

bu, bu, but... isn't the aclu an enclave of commietude??

Thank u, Thomas.





David

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

I dispute that there exist any such things
as "proper permits" in these circumstances.
A homeowner has the right to invite many guests
to his house, and thay have an unlimited right
to discuss whatever thay wish when thay arrive.
Government was never given permission
to interfere with that.


DontTreadOnMe wrote:

If I had the training and skill,
and if the job were sufficiently remunerative,
I 'd take up his practice to continue it for him in his absence.





David

Without doubt, someone posting at geocities cannot possibly be other than an unimpeachable expert. (For those slow on the uptake, that was sarcasm.)

The decision in Cruikshank agrees with what i have said, and the subsequent decision in Hague simply expands the definition of the activites for which the people may assemble. The decison in De Jonge as you have described it (or rather, your copy and paste source) does not separate those rights, it simply accords them a weight equivalent to free speech and a free press. Nothing which you have presented so far has the effect of separating the right of assembly from a public activity, and the joker to whom i objected states, explicitly, "The right to peaceably assemble on private property is a fundamental Constitutional right." While this may be implied in or inferred from other grants of or acknowledgements of rights, it is completely false to say that the constitution anywhere explicitly grants a right to assemble on private property--it does not deny it either, it is simply mute. Certainly, the misconstrues the langauge of the first amendment--whether you like it or not. Given that you have only cited cases in which the Supremes have expanded a definition of the public purposes for which people may assemble, you neither make your case, nor that advanced by TexazEric.

I strongly suspect that you saw that i had posted, so you just wanted to argue, and now you are furiously backpeddling to attempt to support your argument. Machs nichts zu mir. Neither you nor your new best buddy TexazEric have made a case that either such an activity as this were contemplated in the First Congress when it offered amendments to the constitution, nor that the guarantee of a right of assembly, for whatever purpose, referred to a right of assembly on private property. Indeed, it is hardly conceivable from the tenor of the constitution, and the spirit of the times, that anyone would have questioned the rights of people met on private property. Zoning laws date from a much later era.

As you see, the issue isw already resolving itself and the constitutional claims that Thoms and I were speaking of were not secondary.
My example of the AMish was merely for demo purposes. Since over all the countre thwre are a multitude of different lqnd use practices the constitutional issues that are common throughout are interpreted from what our Constitution says and by judicial review. In this case, San Diego did blink . THose who claimed that the religious issue was a red herring are saying "shut up and deal". And the fact that ACLU took it on leaves us with the conclusion that there WAS a significant defect in the citation issued by San Diego.

ALL land use ordinances have reasons for their promulgation, usually written to govern uniformly across several municipalities but with local conditions highlighted in "stand alone" ordinances that show up in the ordinance books or the SALDO of the muni. When these things are codified for a book of regs , the codification outfit usually compares them to suurounding ordinances , state and county regs, and the Constitutions of the State and Fed Govt. I BETCHA that this ordinance gets a healthy "pimping up" now that one of its tests has failed (mostly by stupid citations from unsensitive zoning officers and cops).

I looked at a WestLaw citation and , not being a lawyer , I hadda call my cousin. Basically the constitution (as affirmed in several cases) does not mess with your right to assemble FOR WHATEVER CASE. The phrase that follows after the comma, is just like the phrase in the second amendment "A WELL ORDERED MILITIA".

SORRY set but this entire "hailstorm in an ice tea glass" has been pumped up, dissected a bit, and now is going away in a fashion that several of us predicted.Selah.

farmerman wrote:

In US v. CRUIKSHANK 92 US 542 (1875)
the USSC held that the rights of the First and Second Amendments
(including freedom of assembly)
are natural rights which are OLDER than the Constitution,
such that when it was created, the US Government found those rights in being.





David

pprecisley what my cousin said. He kinda chuckled at the inference that we can only "peacebly assemble" when we want to petition the govt.
"What about a horshoe pitchin contest or a mud bog"? (very popular way of dirtying up SUVs in the uS)

To take that a step further,
even BEFORE either the First or Second Amendments were enacted,
when the Founders were arguing in support of ratifying
the Constitution in the Federalist Papers,
thay argued that the people had the right to assemble
to overthrow the government and woud undoubtedly succeed,
overwhelming it by weight of numbers. In that vein,
among the first acts of the first Congress,
a statutory cap (which has since been removed)
was imposed upon the US Army of a maximum of 840 men,
whereas the people, in their militia, were unlimited.

Indeed, several states, including New York,
in their instruments of ratification of the US Constitution,
explicitly asserted their rights to withdraw from the union, if so thay chose.

Kinda like the right to leave NATO or the UN or the Book of the Month Club.




`

As far as the right of assembly, at no time did i state or imply that people may only assemble in order to petition the government--i simply noted that that is the only case explicitly referred to.

I suspected that San Diego County would cave on this. It's a shame really, because this clown is a typical Christian bully. One of the boys--Cyclo i think, or maybe Parados--once quoted someone's blog in which she said that whenever someone tells you Christians are being persecuted in this country, right there, you are talking to a moron.

It's a discussion board, Set. Nobody's holding a gun to your head.

I disagree with this statement of yours, made in reference to the First Amendment:



That statement is simply incorrect. Feel free to research it yourself, and show me where the Supreme Court restricts assembly to that one purpose. As I said before, the Supreme Court consistently upholds the right of assembly separate from petitioning the government.

Speaking of backpedaling furiously....

Wow. Not only do you try to conflate my input on the First Amendment with TexazEric's discussion, you also seem to think that presenting evidence to support my position constitutes "[furious] backpeddling [sic]".

As i've pointed out, i did not say that the constitution restricts assembly to a single purpose, only that it only explicitly addresses the one purpose. Ditto for the Supremes . . .

Jeeze, DD, this seems to be terribly important to you. I certainly wouldn't want to wound you in your self-love.

You are right. You are always right. I have never known you to be wrong. What could i have been thinking ? ! ? ! ? I hope that you can find it in your heart to forgive me . . .









. . . or not . . . i really don't care.