6 ms·

I am not a lawyer, just an IT guy trying to use logic: the rights in the US Constitution and amendments don't exist. They are not worth the paper they are print

I am not a lawyer, just an IT guy trying to use logic: the rights in the US Constitution and amendments don't exist. They are not worth the paper they are printed on, because reasoning like this can kill each and every one with the death of a thousand cuts: "However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislation" (source: Wikipedia article Free_Exercise_Clause). That reasoning tells that a law (the "criminal law") beats the Constitution by putting restrictions on a Constitutional right. First, it means the law should be considered unconstitutional by any decent logic, but SCOTUS decisions tells it is not. Enough cuts, rights are dead - free speech is the one that mostly exists, second amendment is heavily stripped in most states, fourth and fifth are regularly voided, probably a good lawyer can give examples for all. What I am telling is that if people consider some rights should be limited, the Constitution should be amended, not ignored. Two wrongs don't make a right, if something in the Constitution is wrong (the rights are too absolute) then raping the Constitution does not make it right. Please explain me where I am wrong in terms that use logic, especially for someone like me that is a complete foreigner (I live in Europe) and not familiar with these apparent wrongdoings. I am not saying anything in support or against this decision, I am saying this decision does not make sense in the context of the US Constitution text.

nsajko 6y ago
Consider a hypothetical religion that has worship which consists of something criminal (i.e. adherents kill for their god or something). I don't know the legal justification, but their freedom of religion would surely be trumped by my right to life, if an adherent tried to murder me :)
- AdrianB1 6y ago
  You completely failed to understand my comment: if the Constitutional freedom of religion is too broad why do you accept the Constitution to be ignored with such decisions instead of fixing the problem, the Constitutional text? In your example it is clear the problem is the Constitution text being too broad/generic. SCOTUS is not there to rewrite or cut the text, people voting can do that.
  - nsajko 6y ago
    I think a constitution is meant to be broadly worded so it would not have to be changed often, though. Are you proposing to make the constitution just a regular old law?
    - AdrianB1 6y ago
      I am not looking for a solution for a problem that is not mine. I am looking to understand how people see the Constitution is ignored (not sure what is the right term) and feel fine about that. My line of thought is that everything in the Constitution can be ignored in the same way, so it is completely worthless and no right does really exist because it can be revoked by a law or government statute at any point. People loosing rights is a matter of principle, I could not care less about churches in California, I am not affected in any way.
      - kmonsen 6y ago
        It is not ignored, but there is a long practice of interpreting it and defining exactly what it means. You have to spend some effort here in understand it and how it has changed through history instead of expecting to be able to just read the law and fully understand what it means.
        AdrianB1 6y ago
        Then the law is a failure; if it is written in such a way that regular people cannot understand it (because it does not mean what it says?) and it needs to be "interpreted", then the law failed because it is not what it was written, but what the people want to interpret it based on their own interests: this leads to corruption. In the same logic, Pythagoras' theorem should be interpreted because it is very old, it had a different meaning when it was written and we need to adapt it to current realities. For example, it should be restricted to triangles with less than 100 inches on the longest side; anyone that disagrees must show a legitimate need for having bigger triangles and even then, the theorem needs to respect criminal laws or the country. Or, as an Australian Prime minister said, "The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia." /s
dvt 6y ago
> That reasoning tells that a law (the "criminal law") beats the Constitution by putting restrictions on a Constitutional right. There's a lot to parse in your post, but I would strongly suggest reading J.S. Mill's On Liberty[1]. In it, Mill describes (what is now known) as the Harm Principle[2]. This (or something like this), and not necessarily criminal law, is essentially what the Constitution is beholden to. It just so happens that most crimes also violate ethical principles. [1] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm [2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/#HarPri https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/#Har...
- AdrianB1 6y ago
  Do I need to read a book of over 220 pages to solve a simple logic problem? This is the problem: 1. Constitution gives a right: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" 2. A law restricts the right 3. A law cannot disobey the Constitution. 4. Everyone thinks this is fine, including SCOTUS. You don't have to be Vulcan to see logic is broken.
  - thomasmeeks 6y ago
    Yes, you do, but here's a short primer. https://www.dummies.com/education/history/american-history/how-the-u-s-constitution-is-interpreted/ https://www.dummies.com/education/history/american-history/h... Ultimately if you can't be bothered to read a short book on the subject, you can just live with your confusion on the subject. The world can't be boiled down to sophomoric sequences of logic that ignore the complexities of reality and human behavior.
    - AdrianB1 6y ago
      So there is no logic explanation of the problem. I am fine with that answer, no need for more.
      - chrisoverzero 6y ago
Retric 6y ago
You’re missing the core limitation on the constitution, it’s extremely short limiting precision. Freedom of speech is not about standing on a street corner with a megaphone, it’s about the content of the message. Where that line is between message and method is complicated, but that’s the core issue being decided in free speech issues. In terms of this, if a religion had a specific requirement for exactly 101 people to preform a ceremony then they have a real case. However, region is not a blank check to allow arbitrary gatherings of any size especially if there are any options.
gamblor956 6y ago
The Constitution protects religious beliefs not religious practices. Restrictions on religious practices was considered acceptable. Similarly, the content of speech is protected, but the action performed by that speech (for examine, incitement) is not.
- AdrianB1 6y ago
  False: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". "Free exercise" = "free practice" for the layman. For free speech, the protection should be for speech, there is no free action so your comment is not clear on what it points at.
  - kmonsen 6y ago
    You are making strong statements about things you need to read up more on. The congress and others can put limits on religious practice in many ways. The most relevant example here is that building and fire codes apply for churches.
    - AdrianB1 6y ago
      I quote a text, I am not making statements. What is wrong with that?
      - gamblor956 6y ago
        In a nutshell: religion back then strictly meant beliefs but not actions. (Thomas Jefferson has a letter discussing this with one of the members of the BOR convention.) Since then, religion has come to take on the layman's meaning including both beliefs and actions, and courts have given religious practices First Amendment protections similar to speech. (In this sense, it is similar to the dichotomy between the blanket protection on the content of speech but the allowance for restrictions on the actions that speech may effectuate.)
chrisoverzero 6y ago
>Please explain me where I am wrong in terms that use logic […] That’s not really possible, since logic isn’t the basis of law. This is a trap that the engineering-minded seem to fall into frequently when examining the law: There is more to American jurisprudence than the literal text of the Bill of Rights. It’s not particularly difficult to see where this would fall apart, even. Imagine a religion which requires its adherents to kill one person per year. A person with the required “sincerely held beliefs” who follows this religion would be allowed to kill with impunity under a literal examination of the first amendment. (Or, maybe not. Since we’re looking only at the BoR, I guess we’re pretending there’s no incorporation in this hypothetical?) Rather than try to keep rewriting that one rule to greater and greater, more and more unwieldy specificity – don’t forget that the US Constitution is difficult to amend on purpose – the entire body of law applies. Given the prominence of the first amendment, there are likely more cases relating to it than one could conceivably read in order, beginning to end. Employment Division v. Smith [1] probably relates most directly to your question. (But do remember when you read it that incorporation is a real thing that exists. Don’t let it distract that it wasn’t federal action.) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

nsajko 6y ago

Consider a hypothetical religion that has worship which consists of something criminal (i.e. adherents kill for their god or something). I don't know the legal justification, but their freedom of religion would surely be trumped by my right to life, if an adherent tried to murder me :)

AdrianB1 6y ago
You completely failed to understand my comment: if the Constitutional freedom of religion is too broad why do you accept the Constitution to be ignored with such decisions instead of fixing the problem, the Constitutional text? In your example it is clear the problem is the Constitution text being too broad/generic. SCOTUS is not there to rewrite or cut the text, people voting can do that.
- nsajko 6y ago
  I think a constitution is meant to be broadly worded so it would not have to be changed often, though. Are you proposing to make the constitution just a regular old law?
  - AdrianB1 6y ago
    I am not looking for a solution for a problem that is not mine. I am looking to understand how people see the Constitution is ignored (not sure what is the right term) and feel fine about that. My line of thought is that everything in the Constitution can be ignored in the same way, so it is completely worthless and no right does really exist because it can be revoked by a law or government statute at any point. People loosing rights is a matter of principle, I could not care less about churches in California, I am not affected in any way.
    - kmonsen 6y ago
      It is not ignored, but there is a long practice of interpreting it and defining exactly what it means. You have to spend some effort here in understand it and how it has changed through history instead of expecting to be able to just read the law and fully understand what it means.
      - AdrianB1 6y ago
        Then the law is a failure; if it is written in such a way that regular people cannot understand it (because it does not mean what it says?) and it needs to be "interpreted", then the law failed because it is not what it was written, but what the people want to interpret it based on their own interests: this leads to corruption. In the same logic, Pythagoras' theorem should be interpreted because it is very old, it had a different meaning when it was written and we need to adapt it to current realities. For example, it should be restricted to triangles with less than 100 inches on the longest side; anyone that disagrees must show a legitimate need for having bigger triangles and even then, the theorem needs to respect criminal laws or the country. Or, as an Australian Prime minister said, "The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia." /s

dvt 6y ago

> That reasoning tells that a law (the "criminal law") beats the Constitution by putting restrictions on a Constitutional right. There's a lot to parse in your post, but I would strongly suggest reading J.S. Mill's On Liberty[1]. In it, Mill describes (what is now known) as the Harm Principle[2]. This (or something like this), and not necessarily criminal law, is essentially what the Constitution is beholden to. It just so happens that most crimes also violate ethical principles. [1] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm [2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/#HarPri https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/#Har...

AdrianB1 6y ago
Do I need to read a book of over 220 pages to solve a simple logic problem? This is the problem: 1. Constitution gives a right: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" 2. A law restricts the right 3. A law cannot disobey the Constitution. 4. Everyone thinks this is fine, including SCOTUS. You don't have to be Vulcan to see logic is broken.
- thomasmeeks 6y ago
  Yes, you do, but here's a short primer. https://www.dummies.com/education/history/american-history/how-the-u-s-constitution-is-interpreted/ https://www.dummies.com/education/history/american-history/h... Ultimately if you can't be bothered to read a short book on the subject, you can just live with your confusion on the subject. The world can't be boiled down to sophomoric sequences of logic that ignore the complexities of reality and human behavior.
  - AdrianB1 6y ago
    So there is no logic explanation of the problem. I am fine with that answer, no need for more.
    - chrisoverzero 6y ago

Retric 6y ago

You’re missing the core limitation on the constitution, it’s extremely short limiting precision. Freedom of speech is not about standing on a street corner with a megaphone, it’s about the content of the message. Where that line is between message and method is complicated, but that’s the core issue being decided in free speech issues. In terms of this, if a religion had a specific requirement for exactly 101 people to preform a ceremony then they have a real case. However, region is not a blank check to allow arbitrary gatherings of any size especially if there are any options.

gamblor956 6y ago

The Constitution protects religious beliefs not religious practices. Restrictions on religious practices was considered acceptable. Similarly, the content of speech is protected, but the action performed by that speech (for examine, incitement) is not.

AdrianB1 6y ago
False: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". "Free exercise" = "free practice" for the layman. For free speech, the protection should be for speech, there is no free action so your comment is not clear on what it points at.
- kmonsen 6y ago
  You are making strong statements about things you need to read up more on. The congress and others can put limits on religious practice in many ways. The most relevant example here is that building and fire codes apply for churches.
  - AdrianB1 6y ago
    I quote a text, I am not making statements. What is wrong with that?
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      In a nutshell: religion back then strictly meant beliefs but not actions. (Thomas Jefferson has a letter discussing this with one of the members of the BOR convention.) Since then, religion has come to take on the layman's meaning including both beliefs and actions, and courts have given religious practices First Amendment protections similar to speech. (In this sense, it is similar to the dichotomy between the blanket protection on the content of speech but the allowance for restrictions on the actions that speech may effectuate.)

chrisoverzero 6y ago

>Please explain me where I am wrong in terms that use logic […] That’s not really possible, since logic isn’t the basis of law. This is a trap that the engineering-minded seem to fall into frequently when examining the law: There is more to American jurisprudence than the literal text of the Bill of Rights. It’s not particularly difficult to see where this would fall apart, even. Imagine a religion which requires its adherents to kill one person per year. A person with the required “sincerely held beliefs” who follows this religion would be allowed to kill with impunity under a literal examination of the first amendment. (Or, maybe not. Since we’re looking only at the BoR, I guess we’re pretending there’s no incorporation in this hypothetical?) Rather than try to keep rewriting that one rule to greater and greater, more and more unwieldy specificity – don’t forget that the US Constitution is difficult to amend on purpose – the entire body of law applies. Given the prominence of the first amendment, there are likely more cases relating to it than one could conceivably read in order, beginning to end. Employment Division v. Smith [1] probably relates most directly to your question. (But do remember when you read it that incorporation is a real thing that exists. Don’t let it distract that it wasn’t federal action.) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith