However, if this prediction turns out to be true in a future thread, don’t say I didn’t warn ya.

Who are the creationists in this argument?

Another creationist tactic. Though to be fair, most of them don’t do that one on purpose.

Let my try and explain my overnight conversion. It came from the part of your post I didn’t address before my last post.

The First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

What I think you have said, and I now see, is that this statement, by removing the right of Congress promote or limit religious freedom acknowledges (does not grant) the right to religious freedom US citizens have.

Then the Fourteenth Amendment says no state can abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens and the First Amendment acknowledged that very privilege. So therefore the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from infringing upon those rights previously acknowledged. With that in mind, I don’t think the Fourteenth Amendment then directly extends the First Amendment, but it does logically. I don’t think it’s necessary to try and tie the two together, but that’s irrelevant now.

To me then, it would seem that any promoting of religion in a state or federally funded institution of any kind should be entirely prohibited. Laws allowing “equal opportunity,” as it were, for religious promotion shouldn’t exist because of the vagueness involved.

For anyone just reading this, please keep in mind that I never advocated the teaching of religion in any school. This was merely a debate on the constitutionality of it.

I think you went unnecessarily far in your last post addressed to me, and said things which aren’t true, but no big deal.

I still disagree that the words of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are unclear.

TheBlackCat: “You have provided lots of reasons why we should only base it on the words of the constitution itself, but my interpretation fits that criteria at least as well as yours does (in my opinion).”

Tip for arguing on the Internet: It’s okay to concede defeat, but you should never compromise.

I’m going to mark this on my calendar. I believe this is the first time anyone has ever won an argument on the Internet and actually had the loser admit it.

It’s called “tact” or “diplomacy”. Brad Henry is a Democrat, elected governor of a rural, conservative state. He is centrist and plays to the middle. Also note that the wording of the bill was slightly different than your previous blog post version:

“students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Homework and classroom assignments shall be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school district. Students shall not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of their work.”

Note the bolded part. One could reasonably interpret this legislation to protect, for instance, a child drawing a picture of Noah’s Ark as part of an art class, or a high school English student exploring the “Christ-like symbollism of The Old Man and the Sea.” * While I do think the intent behind the law was to protect creationism, the particular wording was ambiguous enough to be argued that factual statements could be graded wrong without violating it. This ambiguity would have created lots of ground for lawsuits. It could also allow well-meaning citizens to support the law if they were unaware of the writers’ intent and fell for the ambiguity. It’s the current Creationist ploy, protecting “free expression”.

*I actually had an essay test question in high school about this very topic. Fortunately, all I had to do was regurgitate the teacher’s discussion on the topic, because I thought the examples given were pretty thin.

I believe you are confused over the meaning of “notwithstanding”. To rephrase Article VI:
\2\This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made [to detail and enact said Constitution]; and all Treaties [currently] made, or which shall be made [in the future], under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in
every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary [included].

“Notwithstanding” means “not left out”. Judges in every State are bound by the “Supreme Law of the Land” regardless of any other comments in either the Constitution or in State Law. Ergo, the 14th does not remove the “notwithstanding” line, it reinforces it.

Since Article VI defines the Constitution as the supreme law of the United States, and all States formed under the authority of the Constitution, Amendment XIV merely clarifies the point- “bringing it to the front burner” as it were. As the supreme law, the Constitution applies to the states- Amendment XIV effectively removes the “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding” clause.

That doesn’t actually help in the case of the first amendment, since the law in the case of the first amendment only applies to congress. That is where the 14th amendment comes in. Article 6 makes it so the states cannot write laws that violate the rules of the constitution, amendment 14 expands that so states cannot write laws that violate the rights listed in the constitution. This is particularly important for the 1st amendment since the rights are universal but the rules are specific to congress.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide
for the common defence, 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.

Nowhere in there does it mention a creator, nor does it mention inalienable rights. You seem to be conflating the Constitution of the United States with the Declaration of Independence as penned by Thomas Jefferson.

Now, as to your interpretation of the application of Amendment XIV to the US Constitution as it pertains to Amendment I:

It is irrelevant.

Article VI, section II: (from same link)
\2\This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in
every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.

Since Article VI defines the Constitution as the supreme law of the United States, and all States formed under the authority of the Constitution, Amendment XIV merely clarifies the point- “bringing it to the front burner” as it were. As the supreme law, the Constitution applies to the states- Amendment XIV effectively removes the “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding” clause.

There is no “State legislating Congress” as you seem to be reading into this- just clarification. XIV says that the states cannot enact any law that Congress cannot.

quote: (again, from GPO website link above)
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As I read this, (IANAL, btw) the immunity to having a religion established (from Amendment I) is pushed down to the state level by XIV. My privileges to speak freely (less sedition, &c), peaceably assemble, seek redress from government, &c are protected as well.

And I was giving plenty of reason for that interpretation every time I stated that we read the words and determine their meaning from the words and their definitions as they were written at the time.

That does not support your interpretation over everyone else’s. The interpretation I accept follows just as well from a literal reading of only the words, better in my opinion. You have provided lots of reasons why we should only base it on the words of the constitution itself, but my interpretation fits that criteria at least as well as yours does (in my opinion). My interpretation also has the benefit of matching the interpretation of those who wrote it, but that is only useful for differentiating between two interpretations that fit the text equally well. If you are just going by what the written text says it works just as well as yours (if not better).

You have not provided any reason whatsoever why your literal interpretation of those words based only on the text of the constitution is better than every other literal interpretation of those words based only on the text of the constitution. You cannot simply state that we should base our decision only on what is said in the constitution. I am doing that as well, yet I come to a different conclusion. Therefore that cannot be the sole criteria used to judge one interpretation as better than the other, since it allows for multiple, mutually-exclusive conclusion. You must show that your interpretation is superior to all other interpretations that are based on only reading the text. You have not done that. You have simply taken it as a given. You have simply assumed that your reading of the text, devoid of any context, is the correct one.

That is not what you are saying at all. In the previous paragraph you are only considering the part that you feel applies or is necessary, where I am considering the entire statement as it is written. In this paragraph you try and attribute to me what you plainly admitting to doing yourself in the previous paragraph.

I don’t understand what you are saying here. Of course certain parts of certain amendments apply to certain issues. Of course only parts of a given amendment will be applicable to certain issues. I fail to see how including irrelevant parts of an amendment is important. Of course if you can show that they are relevant that is another issue, but you have not done that.

What I accuse you of is not using the part that you feel is important or necessary, what I accuse you of is assuming the interpretation you choose is the only valid interpretation. There are several equally valid ways to interpret the text alone, and no real way to figure out from the text alone which of those interpretations is the valid one. As far as I can tell you have arbitrarily selected one and stated that it is the only valid way to interpret the text without getting into intent. I say that my way is also an equally valid interpretation of the text without getting into intent. Because they are equally valid it is impossible, based on the text alone, to draw a conclusion about which is the correct one. Therefore, we must either guess (and I do not like guessing about fundamental rights) or we must start looking at other lines of evidence. When we are faced with two conclusions that equally fit one set of evidence, we must turn to other lines of evidence. That is where intent comes in.

Exactly. And I was giving plenty of reason for that interpretation every time I stated that we read the words and determine their meaning from the words and their definitions as they were written at the time. (It is our fortune that these words possess the same meanings today as the day they were written.) Only if those words are unclear do you look at intent. The reason for this is because the words are absolute as they were written, while intent can be fudged this way or that by whomever is doing the interpreting.

I highly recommend reading http://www.tsowell.com/judicial.htm as it is very thorough and informative and persuasive. It is very long and tough to get through, but cites many examples from history.

TheBlackCat: “These are two different interpretations of the meaning of those three words. You have taken a specific interpretation of their meaning. You have not provided any justification for using that interpretation. Pretty much everyone, including the people who wrote the amendment, courts, and experts on the issue, use a different interpretation. You are taking as a given that your interpretation of “privilege and immunity” is correct, but you have provided no reason to accept your interpretation over my interpretation and the interpretation of pretty much everyone else who has looked at the issue.”

That is not what you are saying at all. In the previous paragraph you are only considering the part that you feel applies or is necessary, where I am considering the entire statement as it is written. In this paragraph you try and attribute to me what you plainly admitting to doing yourself in the previous paragraph.

I have enjoyed the debate, and will check this post again tomorrow. Good night.

How can a state possibly abridge the privilege and immunity a person has from the Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion?

That is the main point of disagreement here. We disagree on whether the “privilege or immunity” is talking about the limits on congress or the issues those limits are in regards to. To give an example, I am saying the immunity is from “an establishment of religion.” The 1st amendment prevents congress from breaching that privilege. The 14th amendment extends that prevention to the states. You are saying that the immunity is from “congress passing a law respecting an establishment of religion”, and thus it cannot apply to states. Similarly, I am saying that the privilege is “freedom of the press”. You are saying the privilege is “congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press”.

These are two different interpretations of the meaning of those three words. You have taken a specific interpretation of their meaning. You have not provided any justification for using that interpretation. Pretty much everyone, including the people who wrote the amendment, courts, and experts on the issue, use a different interpretation. You are taking as a given that your interpretation of “privilege and immunity” is correct, but you have provided no reason to accept your interpretation over my interpretation and the interpretation of pretty much everyone else who has looked at the issue.

This is exactly why I am saying that we need to look at context and intent. I have one definition for the words, you have a different definition. Which definition is correct? That is where the difficulty in interpreting the constitution comes in. You assume your definition is correct but have not actually provided any evidence that is, either from the text itself or from any other source.

As far as the rest of your post, I agree with it for the most part, and have no idea why you wrote it. I stated something similar before that about the government certainly having the power to infringe upon rights, but not the authority.

My point was to show that we are disagreeing on the definition of “right”, and by extension “privilege and immunity”, and that your definition ultimately ends up being self-contradictory while my definition does not, therefore my definition is the better one. To put it simply, if, in the 1st amendment, the right is “congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press”, then it is not inalienable because governments can and do make such laws. However if the right is only “freedom of the press”, then it is still inalienable because even if governments make laws preventing it the right still exists. To put it another way, In your definition a right is a rule that can and is broken and thus is not inalienable. In my definition a right is an idea and thus can never be touched by a government,. It is not possible for a government to eliminate an idea, but it is possible and in fact common for the government to eliminate a rule. By putting the right in the form of a rule it is no longer inalienable, and if you define rights as being inalienable than you get a contradiction. If, however, the right is merely and idea (or an ideal) than it is inalienable and thus there is no contradiction.

This is the fundamental point and the main point of disagreement between us. And I still contend that you’re reading it in an illogical way.

Again, Congress cannot infringe upon the rights of the people listed in the First Amendment. The people are immune to infringement upon their religion by the Congress. The Fourteenth Amendment then says that the states cannot infringe upon immunities and privileges of the citizens or deny anyone equal protection under its laws. How can this possibly apply to the Congress?

Here we have a law restricting the federal government, then later we have a law restricting the states. The states are not the federal government. The laws do not cross paths. How can a state possibly abridge the privilege and immunity a person has from the Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion?

That’s where my apples and oranges came from. A state is not Congress nor does it have any power over it, nor is Congress under its jurisdiction in any way.

TheBlackCat: “But a lot of things are far from clear.”

I disagree with every example you listed, but I can’t get into THAT conversation tonight as it is late. Furthermore, a liberal (not politically liberal, no need to go there) interpretation of the Constitution has given us all sorts of the problems we have today. Doing so more cannot reverse this course. Only a stricter interpretation can do that.

There can be no doubt, based solely on the language and wording used in the Constitution that it was written in this way. With that in mind, how can one be an expert on the Constitution? Anyone that reads it and tries to comprehend it in its simplicity is thus an expert and your argument is illogical.

But a lot of things are far from clear. What constitutes “an establishment of religion”? What are “privileges and immunities”? What is “excessive bail”? What is a “cruel and unusual punishment”? What are “high crimes and misdemeanors”? None of the terms in the constitution are defined (except treason, and even then what constitutes “giving them Aid and Comfort”?) The phrasing may be clear in some cases, but the meanings of the words often are very ambiguous if you actually try to apply them to real-world legal situations. Therefore interpretation is almost invariably needed in order to determine exactly what specific words and phrases mean.

I canâ??t think of more clear-cut cases of privileges and immunities in any law ever written, but it is also clearly restricting the federal government (Congress) from infringing upon those rights. It is NOT granting people those rights, which is what you go on to state in the following paragraph, essentially.

If you want to down that road, what I am saying is the 1st amendment prevents congress from infringing on those rights. The 14th amendment expands that, preventing the states from infringing on those rights either.

So we have in the 1st amendment:

“Congress shall make no law” about certain things

and the 14th amendment states:

“No State shall make or enforce any law” about certain things, things that include the things listed in the 1st amendment.

So we start with congress not able to make those sorts of laws, and the 14th amendment makes it so the states can’t either. This is not a difficult concept.

And you seem to be making some sort of distinction between “granting rights” and “not allowing infringement of rights”. If the government is not allowed to infringe on a right, then by extension the people have that right. The federal government recognizes that people have certain rights, so it shows the recognition by settings rules that it cannot break those rights. It then expands that, saying the states cannot break those rights either.

Sure, the privileges and immunities must be respected by the state. The state cannot be Congress and infringe upon those rights. Of course thatâ??s a ridiculous statement, but thatâ??s what you get when you apply the Fourteenth Amendment to the First. In reading the amendment in that way you take an orange (a state), make it into an apple (Congress), then compare the two. But in fact, if you compare the apple and orange as they are originally constituted, you will find no similarity. To quote you, â??That is the basic logic based on a literal reading of the text in the two amendments.â??

I’m sorry, but now you are just being intentionally obtuse. The first amendment sets limits on congress, preventing congress from abridging rights (or violating certain privileges and immunities). The right is not the protection from congressional action, as you keep saying the rights are “inalienable”. Rights are inherent properties the people should have, they are not protections from government intervention. What the first amendment does is it prevents congress from passing laws that interfere with those rights. In fact the amendment specifically lists one of them as rights (“the right of the people peaceably to assemble”), therefor the right cannot be the protection from congressional interference or else the amendment would make no sense. The second amendment expands those limits to the states.

To put it another way, rights are things the government should not interfere in. But governments in principle can and do interfere in the rights of people very often. The first amendment is a rule that prevents the federal government from interfering will those things. The 14th amendment is a rule that prevents the states from interfering with those things. As you keep saying rights are inalienable, they can neither be given nor taken away. But what can be and often is taken away is government recognition and respect for those rights.

No sane person would say “a government is incapable of interfering in freedom of speech”. Governments can and do interfere often in freedom of speech. So the right to not have the government abridge free speech is far from inalienable. Therefore, what is inalienable must be something else. What is really inalienable is that people deserve to have free speech. That what the government cannot take away. What the government does do cannot change would the government should do. That is a “right” in any self-consistent meaning of the word, if you include the text of the declaration of independence (which you seem determined to do, although since it is not a document that actually pertains in any legal manner to our current government I would not be so inclined to do so).

The same applies to “privileges and immunities”. The privileges and immunities are not the rule that congress cannot interfere as seen in the 1st amendment, the 1st amendment simply forbids congress from interfering in those privileges and immunities. The privileges and immunities are there even without the rule, as stated in the 9th amendment:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

But since those rules are specifically protected from congressional encroachment, the citizens very much do have them.

So what you get when you apply the 14th amendment to the first is, essentially, adding “and the states” after congress, so you get:

“Congress and the states 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.”

Hahahahhaha!

I never get tired of this argument. Congratulations.

Your argument is a logical fallacy on its face, though some people on here disagree with that statement because the Supreme Court are the experts on the Constitution.

Then let’s look at how it’s a fallacy in another way. As I have stated in this thread, the Constitution was written in plain English so anyone with a dictionary and an average intelligence can understand it. I am no Albert Einstein or Isaac Newton or Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson, but I can read the Constitution and understand the meanings of its words and statements.

There can be no doubt, based solely on the language and wording used in the Constitution that it was written in this way. With that in mind, how can one be an expert on the Constitution? Anyone that reads it and tries to comprehend it in its simplicity is thus an expert and your argument is illogical.

Fine, then I injected something I thought possibly might be an intent. I did so in error. But, and I think this follows from what I said in that post, I only considered intent after reading the amendments and seeing how the language of the Fourteenth applied to the Thirteenth. The meaning, if you will.

TheBlackCat: “And you still have not made any attempt to justify limiting it to the 13th amendment.”

Because I have more recently said that the Fourteenth Amendment can be applied where it is applicable and don’t disagree with that being done so at all.

TheBlackCat: ““People that it lists”? What people are those.”

I hate that you wrote so much about a trivial misreading of my statement.

Original statement: “Let me say it once more, the First Amendment restricts Congress from infringing upon the rights of the people that it lists.”

Meaning: “Let me say it once more, the First Amendment restricts Congress from infringing upon the rights that it lists.”

Those rights inherently belonging to the people.

TheBlackCat: “The first amendment lists several things that are very clearly either privileges or immunities. For instance it provides immunity from the congress imposing a state religion on you, it protects the privilege to freely exercise your religion, it protects the privilege to freedom of speech, it provides immunity from the government restricting your right to peaceably protest, it provides immunity from the government restricting the press, and it protects the privilege to petition the Government. If there were more clear-cut cases of privileges and immunities present in the U.S. constitution I cannot think of any.”

I can’t think of more clear-cut cases of privileges and immunities in any law ever written, but it is also clearly restricting the federal government (Congress) from infringing upon those rights. It is NOT granting people those rights, which is what you go on to state in the following paragraph, essentially.

TheBlackCat: “Therefore, since the 1st amendment lists certain privileges and immunities, and the 14th amendment says all privileges and immunities must be respected by the states, then it follows logically that the privileges and immunities in the 1st amendment must be respected by the states. That is basic logic based on a literal reading of the text in the two amendments.”

Sure, the privileges and immunities must be respected by the state. The state cannot be Congress and infringe upon those rights. Of course that’s a ridiculous statement, but that’s what you get when you apply the Fourteenth Amendment to the First. In reading the amendment in that way you take an orange (a state), make it into an apple (Congress), then compare the two. But in fact, if you compare the apple and orange as they are originally constituted, you will find no similarity. To quote you, “That is the basic logic based on a literal reading of the text in the two amendments.”

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

(emphasis added)

So, as I said, the Bill of Rights was meant to limit what sorts of laws the government could pass because a lot of people did not trust that the constitution would be able to protect the people from government abuse and insisted on it being added. I guess you can have whatever idea you want regarding the intent, but the intent that I stated was the same as the intent that was explicitly stated on the document itself.

TheBlackCat: “If it wasn’t talking about the rights guaranteed us under the U.S. constitution, particularly the bill of rights, then what rights do you think it was talking about?”

You asked me a direct and pointed question of opinion, which I answered. You asked my interpretation of the intent. Additionally, read my response. I mentioned intent and language. I determined what the intent was only after considering the language and meaning of the two amendments.

I never said anything about intent, I asked about meaning. I asked what you thought the meaning was. You then added intent where it was never mentioned nor implied in my question, and you injected this interpretation of the intent without any justification in the language whatsoever. And you still have not made any attempt to justify limiting it to the 13th amendment.

Let me say it once more, the First Amendment restricts Congress from infringing upon the rights of the people that it lists. The Fourteenth Amendment then restricts the states from infringing upon the rights of the people. This cannot apply to the First Amendment logically and based on the words the amendment uses and their meaning. Unless you start considering ethereal things like intent.

“People that it lists”? What people are those. The first amendment states:

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.

Where does it list any people? I see no list. It does not restrict things to certain people. The first amendment prevents the government from infringing on certain rights for all people. It does this by preventing congress from passing certain sorts of laws. The relevant portion of the 14th amendment then states:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

The first amendment lists several things that are very clearly either privileges or immunities. For instance it provides immunity from the congress imposing a state religion on you, it protects the privilege to freely exercise your religion, it protects the privilege to freedom of speech, it provides immunity from the government restricting your right to peaceably protest, it provides immunity from the government restricting the press, and it protects the privilege to petition the Government. If there were more clear-cut cases of privileges and immunities present in the U.S. constitution I cannot think of any.

Therefore, since the 1st amendment lists certain privileges and immunities, and the 14th amendment says all privileges and immunities must be respected by the states, then it follows logically that the privileges and immunities in the 1st amendment must be respected by the states. That is basic logic based on a literal reading of the text in the two amendments.

If you want to show that the 14th amendment does not apply to the first, it is up to you to somehow show that the rights listed in the first amendment are somehow not “privileges and immunities”. It seems very clear to me at least that these are privileges and immunities.

The First Amendment denies the federal government (Congress) the right to infringe upon a person’s religious beliefs, or promote his religion or anyone else’s, or deny his free speech, right to assemble or petition the Government for a redress of grievances, or to abridge the freedom of the press.

It is a slippery slope to word the amendment in this way: “US citizens have a right to their own religious beliefs, speech, peaceable assembly, and petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances without fear of prosecution or infringement. The people are also granted the right of the freedom of the press.”

The reasoning for this distinction logically goes back to intent, which I believe can be found in the Declaration, and the intent is what I stated earlier. That the rights of citizens are self-evident and inalienable.

The Fourteenth Amendment then goes on to say that the states may not infringe upon the privileges or immunities of the citizens. Well, what are the privileges and immunities mentioned in the First Amendment? They are immunities and privileges from prosecution by the federal government. The states have nothing whatever to do with this matter at all.

How can the Fourteenth Amendment possibly extend these rights to the states? One thing restricts the Congress, the other the states.

You are correct. If I seemed to dispute this, I apologize. But my point is that where the language of the amendment indicates that it supersedes a previous amendment, then it does. Again, this is not the case with the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

I’m not going to let you get away with that.

TheBlackCat: “If it wasn’t talking about the rights guaranteed us under the U.S. constitution, particularly the bill of rights, then what rights do you think it was talking about?”

You asked me a direct and pointed question of opinion, which I answered. You asked my interpretation of the intent. Additionally, read my response. I mentioned intent and language. I determined what the intent was only after considering the language and meaning of the two amendments.

About the point you and others have made about the Fourteenth Amendment applying rights to the states: I agree with that where it makes logical sense based on the words in each provision and amendment to the Constitution. I do not believe this applies to the First Amendment, and, furthermore, that people who read the amendments in that way are at best being illogical, and at worst pushing their political agenda.

Let me say it once more, the First Amendment restricts Congress from infringing upon the rights of the people that it lists. The Fourteenth Amendment then restricts the states from infringing upon the rights of the people. This cannot apply to the First Amendment logically and based on the words the amendment uses and their meaning. Unless you start considering ethereal things like intent.

TheBlackCat: “And I thought you said the original intent didn’t matter? The text of the bill of rights lays out limits on what sorts of laws the government can pass. Why are you suddenly bringing intent into this when you said that intent was irrelevant?”

It was correct for me to bring up the intent of the Bill of Rights because that’s what the subject was in that part of our discussion. You mis-characterized, in my opinion, the intent of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution in general, and I was correcting you.

Here’s the paragraph in question: “The restrictions on congress are the rights of the citizens. It is called “The Bill of Rights” because it outlines some, but not all, of the rights that citizens hold. It sets limits that congress is not able to step over. That is what rights are, they are restrictions on the sorts of laws and rules the the government is able to set. They (ideally) protect people from undue, unfair, and arbitrary actions by the government by setting certain areas of life off-limits to government intervention.”