Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    07 Jul '15 01:111 edit
    http://mediatrackers.org/wisconsin/2015/07/02/sen-baldwin-1st-amendment-doesnt-apply-individuals

    Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) says the 1st Amendment’s religious liberty protections don’t apply to individuals. On MSNBC last week, Wisconsin’s junior Senator claimed that the Constitution’s protection of the free exercise of religion extends only to religious institutions, and that individual’s do not have a right to the free exercise of their own religion.

    During the MSNBC appearance, which was covered by Breitbart and NewsBusters, Baldwin appeared clueless to the fact that the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment has already been found to apply to individuals – not just churches, synagogues, mosques or other institutions of faith and worship.

    The full text of the 1st Amendment reads:


    “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.”

    The relevant portion of Baldwin’s MSNBC appearance transcript reads:


    “Certainly the First Amendment says that in institutions of faith that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs. But I don’t think it extends far beyond that. . . . [I]n this context, they’re talking about expanding this far beyond our churches and synagogues to businesses and individuals across this country. I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America.”

    The 1st Amendment’s free exercise clause says nothing about protecting religious institutions but not individuals. “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise of [religion].”

    University of St. Thomas Law School professor James Oberstar writes in The Heritage Foundation’s Guide to the Constitution that Supreme Court jurisprudence has long concluded that the clause protects religiously motivated conduct as well as belief.


    “Because it is now accepted that the Free Exercise of Religion Clause protects religiously motivated conduct as well as belief, the most important modern issue has been whether the protection only runs against laws that target religion itself for restriction, or, more broadly, whether the clause sometimes requires an exemption from a generally applicable law.”

    Oberstar goes on to explore instances of individuals – not just institutions – receiving protection for their free exercise of religion thanks to the 1st Amendment.

    Fascinatingly, Baldwin is on the record claiming that another portion of the 1st Amendment shouldn’t apply to institutions and should exclusively apply to individuals; a contradiction with her present arguments.

    In the landmark case Citizens United v. FEC (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court held that corporations, unions and other organizations could spend money advocating for or against political candidates and issues. The Court said such spending was free speech protected by the 1st Amendment.

    Baldwin made opposition to Citizens United a consistent theme of her campaign for U.S. Senate and her time as a senator. “I think it is so important that we overturn Citizens United,” Baldwin declared in a 2012 video for the leftwing publication The Nation. Baldwin claimed that corporations – essentially institutions – should not be entitled to the same freedoms afforded individuals.

    “It is far too often the case in Washington that powerful corporate interests, the wealthy, and the well-connected get to write the rules, and now the Supreme Court has given them more power to rule the ballot box by creating an uneven playing field,” Baldwin complained after another free speech-related decision by the Supreme Court. Already she has voted in favor of a Constitutional amendment that would specifically curtail the 1st Amendment’s free speech protections by denying them to institutions and organizations.

    As free speech and the free exercise of religion remain contentious topics, there is no sign Baldwin intends to reach a consistent position on whether or not the Constitution applies to individuals, institutions, or both.
  2. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    07 Jul '15 01:13
    What is it with Dims and their hatred of free speech?
  3. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    07 Jul '15 06:41
    Originally posted by whodey
    What is it with Dims and their hatred of free speech?
    An interesting question from someone who called for the abolition of the First Amendment on these forums.
  4. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    07 Jul '15 11:01
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    An interesting question from someone who called for the abolition of the First Amendment on these forums.
    Wut are you babbling about again?
  5. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    07 Jul '15 12:33
    Originally posted by whodey
    Wut are you babbling about again?
    Didn't you call for special legislation specifically aimed against Muslims?
  6. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    07 Jul '15 12:41
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Didn't you call for special legislation specifically aimed against Muslims?
    I was calling for consistancy.

    Why go after Southern Confederate flag wavers on the premise the flag represents slavery when you ignore books like the Koran that advocate slavery and are currently imposing slavery today?

    It's a little thing called hypocrisy.
  7. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    07 Jul '15 12:59
    Originally posted by whodey
    I was calling for consistancy.
    No, you weren't. You were calling for the US government to treat certain people differently because of their creed.
  8. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    07 Jul '15 14:331 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://mediatrackers.org/wisconsin/2015/07/02/sen-baldwin-1st-amendment-doesnt-apply-individuals

    Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) says the 1st Amendment’s religious liberty protections don’t apply to individuals. On MSNBC last week, Wisconsin’s junior Senator claimed that the Constitution’s protection of the free exercise of religion extends only to religious i ...[text shortened]... stent position on whether or not the Constitution applies to individuals, institutions, or both.
    She gives no compelling reason why she thinks it excludes individuals. Are we expected simply to believe her that it doesn't apply to individuals because she says it doesn't apply to individuals? If it really was the case then no individual could litigate a case against any other individual because the first amendment simply doesn't apply in individual cases. She sounds like a first class slaphead. Get rid of her.
  9. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    07 Jul '15 14:42
    Originally posted by whodey
    I was calling for consistancy.

    Why go after Southern Confederate flag wavers on the premise the flag represents slavery when you ignore books like the Koran that advocate slavery and are currently imposing slavery today?

    It's a little thing called hypocrisy.
    One is a religion, the other is a government. Your Christian religion can advocate slavery all it wants, the government can't; hence, why the flags need to come down from state buildings.
  10. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    07 Jul '15 14:431 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    One is a religion, the other is a government. Your Christian religion can advocate slavery all it wants, the government can't; hence, why the flags need to come down from state buildings.
    Where does Christianity advocate slavery.
  11. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    07 Jul '15 15:503 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Where does Christianity advocate slavery.
    Leviticus 25:46New International Version (NIV)

    46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life


    The Christian God is also cool with his priests (the 'moral' authorities) actually buying slaves:

    Leviticus 22:11New International Version (NIV)

    11 But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if slaves are born in his household, they may eat his food.


    So the Christian god is cool with buying slaves, or growing new slaves in your home like puppies.
  12. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    07 Jul '15 16:25
    Originally posted by vivify
    One is a religion, the other is a government. Your Christian religion can advocate slavery all it wants, the government can't; hence, why the flags need to come down from state buildings.
    A lot of mixing of issues here. Absolutely, a State government, or city government can if they desire take down the Confederate flag, or any other they want to.

    The Federal government can't do either. Christianity has not advocated slavery for a long time. Disapproval of slavery is a fairly recent thing. But it started in Christian western Europe.
  13. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    07 Jul '15 18:27
    Originally posted by vivify
    Leviticus 25:46New International Version (NIV)

    46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property [b]and can make them slaves for life


    The Christian God is also cool with his priests (the 'moral' authorities) actually buying slaves:

    [i]Leviticus 22:11New International Version (NIV)

    11 But if a priest buys a slave with m ...[text shortened]... o the Christian god is cool with buying slaves, or growing new slaves in your home like puppies.
    You don't need to go back to the Old Testament to find the quotes. Try looking in the New Testament. There are quotes there too.

    Of course there is nothing inherently evil when it comes to slavery. We have slavery today in the form of the super rich and the very poor. It's all the same.
  14. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    07 Jul '15 18:38
    Originally posted by vivify
    Leviticus 25:46New International Version (NIV)

    46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property [b]and can make them slaves for life


    The Christian God is also cool with his priests (the 'moral' authorities) actually buying slaves:

    [i]Leviticus 22:11New International Version (NIV)

    11 But if a priest buys a slave with m ...[text shortened]... o the Christian god is cool with buying slaves, or growing new slaves in your home like puppies.
    umm those Laws were given to Jews, Christians are not Jews. You may like to try again because I don't think anyone in the history of epically failing has failed so epically as you.
  15. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    07 Jul '15 20:032 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    umm those Laws were given to Jews, Christians are not Jews. You may like to try again because I don't think anyone in the history of epically failing has failed so epically as you.
    Christians follow the OT, which was given to Jews. Why else would they push creationism?

    You're a Jehova's Witness, who believes only 144,000 people are going to heaven, despite there being millions of JWs. Think long and hard about that when another door gets slammed in your face.
Back to Top