Judge rules on student punished for criticizing lesbians

How does "Congress" apply to the states via incorporation? Is there some sort of magic transformation that makes the text different when incorporated by the fourteenth amendment? Moreover, how is a restriction clearly upon the government applicable to a private institution? — I know it's a private institution because of other interesting legal discussions regarding rights more explicitly protected

Actually, there is a magic transformation with the 14th Amendment. The entire point of Section 1 is that the states aren't allowed to do what Congress can't. If you have an immunity/privilege at that federal level, well now you have it guaranteed at the state level as well.
Also, I haven't really looked into it, but I'm pretty sure the University of New Mexico is a public institution, at the state level... Unless NM sold their university system to some random rich dude?

>> How does "Congress" apply to the states via incorporation? Is there some sort of magic transformation that makes the text different when incorporated by the fourteenth amendment? Moreover, how is a restriction clearly upon the government applicable to a private institution? — I know it's a private institution because of other interesting legal discussions regarding rights more explicitly protected
>
> Actually, there is a magic transformation with the 14th Amendment.

Oh, magic in the Law, not rationality and logic? Not, even literalism, but Magic!

The entire point of Section 1 is that the states aren't allowed to do what Congress can't.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

How does the underlined (which I assume you are referring to) confer to the general citizenry anything but the continued security of religious-/press-/association-freedom against CONGRESS, which is specifically named?

If you have an immunity/privilege at that federal level, well now you have it guaranteed at the state level as well.

And the Constitution plainly says that the first amendment is binding upon Congress; even if it was binding upon state legislatures via the 14th HOW does it apply to a university? Especially given the university is not a government entity.

Also, I haven't really looked into it, but I'm pretty sure the University of New Mexico is a public institution, at the state level... Unless NM sold their university system to some random rich dude?

Just because it's a public institution doesn't necessarily mean it's government — or do you wish to claim that Churches aren't public institutions?

Oh, magic in the Law, not rationality and logic? Not, even literalism, but Magic!

Yes, that 'magic' you first mentioned is called law and legalese. It's like any advanced technology. For just about any normal person, the law is "magic".

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
How does the underlined (which I assume you are referring to) confer to the general citizenry anything but the continued security of religious-/press-/association-freedom against CONGRESS, which is specifically named?

Congress isn't specifically named, the individual states are (bolded part). So now, we are applying the object of that sentence to the subject: the inviolability of privilege/immunities to the States. So you go back to all those privileges and immunities things, and replace "Congress" with "--your state here--".

But how would it confer continued security of religion/press/etc against Congress? Congress is already banned from doing those things, that's what the original privileges/immunities do. There's no reason to tell Congress that it can't do what you already say it can't do. That would be redundant.

Yes, I'll admit that almost the entirety of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated through the due process clause (still 14A Section 1), and has only been slowly individually incorporated, but that doesn't mean the P/I clause isn't a guarantee of rights. And really, how does due process incorporate anything? The process of law that clause refers to would be the P/I clause, which is what actually does the incorporating. By itself, Due Process can't incorporate anything. Try reading Justice Thomas's concurrence for McDonald v Chicago.
Privileges or Immunities clasue alive again
PDF Download of opinions
Online text of Thomas's opinion

Especially given the university is not a government entity.

Per Wikipedia:
"The University of New Mexico was founded on February 28, 1889, with the passage of House Bill No. 186 by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of New Mexico; stipulating that "Said institution is hereby located at or near the town of Albuquerque, in the county of Bernalillo within two miles north of railroad avenue in said town, upon a tract of good high and dry land, of not less than twenty acres suitable for the purposes of such institution," and that it would be the state university when New Mexico became a state."

Just because it's a public institution doesn't necessarily mean it's government — or do you wish to claim that Churches aren't public institutions?

You're right, churches aren't public institutions. They're private. At least all the ones I know of are, unless you're posting from Great Britain? In which case I could understand how you have such a fundamental misunderstanding here, since the Church of England actually is a public church. Public doesn't mean that anyone can use it. It refers to the ownership, does the citizenry as a whole own it (through the government)? Or a single individual/small group?

> Oh, magic in the Law, not rationality and logic? Not, even literalism, but Magic!
>>
>> Yes, that 'magic' you first mentioned is called law and legalese. It's like any advanced technology. For just about any normal person, the law is "magic".

Utterly ignoring the mere fact that the Constitution is written in plain language, meant to be read and understood by the common people — complex and "magic" legalese has no place there. — Even way back in Marbury v. Madison it's recognized that the general population established the government via the Constitution:

The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it. That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent. This original and supreme will organizes the government and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments. The Government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited [p177] and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.

It makes little sense, therefore; to assume that they used legalese as a code, but rather common languages with the intent that it should be readily understood — the length of the Constitution [a mere 4 pages] contrasts greatly with the example of legalese ObamaCare [many more than 10,000 pages] illustrates the difference nicely.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; How does the underlined (which I assume you are referring to) confer to the general citizenry anything but the continued security of religious-/press-/association-freedom against CONGRESS, which is specifically named?

Congress isn't specifically named, the individual states are (bolded part).

It is when we're talking about the incorporation of the First Amendment, like we were:

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.

How does applying this to the states suddenly make the legislatures [not Congress] of said states bound?

But how would it confer continued security of religion/press/etc against Congress? Congress is already banned from doing those things, that's what the original privileges/immunities do. There's no reason to tell Congress that it can't do what you already say it can't do. That would be redundant.

Sure it does — Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution says: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. &mdsh; Given this, the clause you specifically cite is redundant. (If the States may abridge Privileges and Immunities, then the citizens of each state cannot be said to be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities, can they?)

>> Especially given the university is not a government entity.
> > Per Wikipedia:
"The University of New Mexico was founded on February 28, 1889, with the passage of House Bill No. 186 by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of New Mexico; stipulating that "Said institution is hereby located at or near the town of Albuquerque, in the county of Bernalillo within two miles north of railroad avenue in said town, upon a tract of good high and dry land, of not less than twenty acres suitable for the purposes of such institution," and that it would be the state university when New Mexico became a state."

Ok, so it's instituted by the state — How does prohibitions against the legislative portion of the government apply to this non-legislative body?

>> Just because it's a public institution doesn't necessarily mean it's government — or do you wish to claim that Churches aren't public institutions?
>
> You're right, churches aren't public institutions. They're private. At least all the ones I know of are, unless you're posting from Great Britain? In which case I could understand how you have such a fundamental misunderstanding here, since the Church of England actually is a public church. Public doesn't mean that anyone can use it. It refers to the ownership, does the citizenry as a whole own it (through the government)? Or a single individual/small group?

So, you're saying that no township (or general citizenship thereof) in the US ever decided to build a church for the town?
Are you from some alternate reality?

Utterly ignoring the mere fact that the Constitution is written in plain language, meant to be read and understood by the common people — complex and "magic" legalese has no place there.

The Constitution is written in plain language of the time, which is way beyond many people today (and it's in cursive). If it was so clearly delineated, why would we need the Supreme Court to interpret the law? Legalese isn't used as code, it's legal writing that means exactly what it says. You can't extrapolate or infer a different meaning from the text than what is written.

How does applying this to the states suddenly make the legislatures [not Congress] of said states bound?

Because we aren't applying that statement to the states (even though they do have their own congresses), what we are applying to the states is the restriction against violating the citizens' privileges/immunities. That they have as citizens of the United States, NOT that they have as a citizen of one of the states. There are two levels of everything here. Two levels of government, two levels of P/Is, two levels enforcement, etc. And, in many court cases, those P/Is are (partially) defined as the Bill of Rights.

Sure it does — Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution says: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." &mdsh; Given this, the clause you specifically cite is redundant. (If the States may abridge Privileges and Immunities, then the citizens of each state cannot be said to be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities, can they?)

No, that's not redundant. If you do a bit more research, you'll find that 4-2 was continually held to apply in a state-to-state situation, not state-fed. It prevented a state from discriminating against the citizens of another state simply because they weren't a citizen of that state. It has never been held to relate to Federally recognized P/Is.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Can you read the difference? One refers to a bunch of individual states. The other refers to a federal entity.

Ok, so it's instituted by the state — How does prohibitions against the legislative portion of the government apply to this non-legislative body?

Fruit of the tree. The state creates the DMV, Tax office, LEOs, etc etc. They are all still required to follow the law. The legislature can't give itself the ability to do something that it's not allowed to do, just by using a third party it creates to do so.

So, you're saying that no township (or general citizenship thereof) in the US ever decided to build a church for the town?
Are you from some alternate reality?

No, but please, tell me. How many town-owned churches do you know of? Every single one I've seen is associated with a certain denomination, and funded by that denomination. I'd ask if you were living 100s of years in the past, but your inability to comprehend the Amendments above puts me at a loss.

Fruit of the tree. he state creates the DMV, Tax office, LEOs, etc etc. They are all still required to follow the law. The legislature can't give itself the ability to do something that it's not allowed to do, just by using a third party it creates to do so.

Ah, well, I'm so glad that the fruits of the tree are so bound, I mean the TSA never violates the 4th, and neither does the NSA, right?

Ah, well, I'm so glad that the fruits of the tree are so bound, I mean the TSA never violates the 4th, and neither does the NSA, right?

Irrelevant. But they do, and that's why there's been anger against the TSA/NSA, and as cases slowly work through the courts, they'll be determined to be acting unConstitutionally.

Irrelevant. But they do, and that's why there's been anger against the TSA/NSA, and as cases slowly work through the courts, they'll be determined to be acting unConstitutionally.

Bullshit!

The Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements: All searches and seizures must be reasonable; and a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity. Although “‘searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable,’” Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, this presumption may be overcome when “‘the exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. […] The proper test follows from the principle that permits warrantless searches: warrantless searches are allowed when the circumstances make it reasonable, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, to dispense with the warrant requirement.
KENTUCKY v. KING

So, all searches should must be reasonable [as per the 4th] and unwarranted searches are presumptively unreasonable [and therefore disallowed] except when within the 4th amendment it is 'reasonable' to dispense with the requirement (even though it's admitted that unwarranted searches are not reasonable) — IOW, it's all a giant circle-jerk saying we can dispense with the requirement of a warrant when it suits us.

So, all searches should must be reasonable [as per the 4th] and unwarranted searches are presumptively unreasonable [and therefore disallowed] except when within the 4th amendment it is 'reasonable' to dispense with the requirement (even though it's admitted that unwarranted searches are not reasonable) — IOW, it's all a giant circle-jerk saying "we can dispense with the requirement of a warrant when it suits us".

And you're right. But just because they do that doesn't mean it's right. But what part of my statement, exactly, do you think is bullshit?

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

-PJ

>> So, all searches should must be reasonable [as per the 4th] and unwarranted searches are presumptively unreasonable [and therefore disallowed] except when within the 4th amendment it is 'reasonable' to dispense with the requirement (even though it's admitted that unwarranted searches are not reasonable) — IOW, it's all a giant circle-jerk saying "we can dispense with the requirement of a warrant when it suits us". >
> And you're right. But just because they do that doesn't mean it's right. But what part of my statement, exactly, do you think is bullshit?

This part: But they do, and that's why there's been anger against the TSA/NSA, and as cases slowly work through the courts, they'll be determined to be acting unConstitutionally.

There's simply too much incentive for them to declare everything the government does as good.
(Or ignore the problem by declaring that there's no standing.)