Unconditional Love for The Constitution?

I heard last night that the mosque group is considering a different location now. Not sure if that's right, wrong or indifferent, but I commend them. They have the support of the Mayor, President and most people who recognize that our fundamental rights should not be compromised, but the fact that they desire this peacably speaks mountains to me.

Unconditional Love for The Constitution?

Many politicians loudly declare their love for the Constitution & say they want it strictly interpreted...Except when they don't.

The 1st Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion in relation to the Islamic Center near Ground Zero is just one example.

SPIN METER: Republicans hot, cold on Constitution - Yahoo! News

I for one believe they have the unquestioned right to build a mosque on the property; they own the land and the right to property is foundational to our society. I also think it is a slap in the face of the families of the victims and the Governor of New York was absolutely right in proposing a land swap with the state. This is the best solution for all concerned.

I just hope my liberal friends will be this ardent in their support of property rights and freedom of religion in the future when it involves a 20 story building next door to you or placing a nativity scene at Christmas.

Freedom and liberty are sometimes messy affairs but to preserve them for yourself you sometimes must defend the rights of others you personally find offensive.

I for one believe they have the unquestioned right to build a mosque on the property; they own the land and the right to property is foundational to our society. I also think it is a slap in the face of the families of the victims and the Governor of New York was absolutely right in proposing a land swap with the state. This is the best solution for all concerned.

I just hope my liberal friends will be this ardent in their support of property rights and freedom of religion in the future when it involves a 20 story building next door to you or placing a nativity scene at Christmas.

Freedom and liberty are sometimes messy affairs but to preserve them for yourself you sometimes must defend the rights of others you personally find offensive.

If it meets zoning requirements and it's not public sector, they can put up a 900 ft. Jesus. As far as offensive, look at some of the crap they put up on the strip in Panama City. I defend their right, but 😱.

If it meets zoning requirements and it's not public sector, they can put up a 900 ft. Jesus. As far as offensive, look at some of the crap they put up on the strip in Panama City. I defend their right, but 😱.

Like I said, freedom is sometimes messy but it sure beats the alternative

Unconditional Love for The Constitution?

Many politicians loudly declare their love for the Constitution & say they want it strictly interpreted...Except when they don't.

The 1st Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion in relation to the Islamic Center near Ground Zero is just one example.

SPIN METER: Republicans hot, cold on Constitution - Yahoo! News

They are politicians. What do you expect? I love that Jesse Jackson Jr has proposed Constitutional Amendment which give everyone new rights to quality housing and education. I sure could use a new house paid for by government. :sarc:

ugabuga, you state that the Islamic center at ground zero NYC is one example, but it is one that seems to be missing from the article you linked. Did I read it too fast and miss it?

If you want to get technical and strictly interpret the US Constitution, Amendment 1 states that "Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... right of the people peaceably to assemble...."

Basically, it states that whether or not a mosque is built anywhere in the US isn't up to the Federal Government to decide.

The Constitution goes on to say that the powers not expressly given to the Federal Government, are left to the States or the People.

Sounds to me like a state issue or a community issue.

ugabuga, you state that the Islamic center at ground zero NYC is one example, but it is one that seems to be missing from the article you linked. Did I read it too fast and miss it?

No, you didn't miss it--it wasn't there.

I was surprised the article didn't mention it, so I put the comment in my post.

The article focused on actual proposed amendments--but I think/thought even if an amendment wasn't proposed it's still hypocritical to say "I love the Constitution" while ignoring it's provisions.

I respectfully disagree w/ your interpretation that whether & where a mosque can be built can be determined by State vs. Fed law:

Under what is known as the Incorporation Doctrine of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court has ruled that the States must honor & enforce essentially all rights in the Bill of Rights.

Unconditional Love for The Constitution?

Many politicians loudly declare their love for the Constitution & say they want it strictly interpreted...Except when they don't.

The 1st Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion in relation to the Islamic Center near Ground Zero is just one example.

SPIN METER: Republicans hot, cold on Constitution - Yahoo! News

But it turns out there are parts of the document he doesn't care for ? lots of them. He wants to get rid of the language about birthright citizenship, federal income taxes and direct election of senators, among others. He would add plenty of stuff, including explicitly authorizing castration as punishment for child rapists.

This hot-and-cold take on the Constitution is surprisingly common within the GOP, particularly among those like Broun who portray themselves as strict Constitutionalists and who frequently accuse Democrats of twisting the document to serve political aims.

Whoever wrote this article clearly doesn't understand the issue. The article references proposed amendments, that's the *right* way to change the Constitution. Liberals really don't have much of a soap box to stand on on this subject. They attempt to change the meaning through the courts.. that's the *wrong* way to change the Constitution, because it circumvents the people's right to have a say.

...
I respectfully disagree w/ your interpretation that whether & where a mosque can be built can be determined by State vs. Fed law:

Under what is known as the Incorporation Doctrine of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court has ruled that the States must honor & enforce essentially all rights in the Bill of Rights.

Are you talking about Section 1 which provides for equal protection of the laws? If so, I don't understand what you mean, because Amendment 1 states that Congress will make no laws regarding religion. It isn't up to Congress, nor the Federal Government to say if a Christian church or an Islamic mosque is built in the USA.

Are you talking about Section 1 which provides for equal protection of the laws? If so, I don't understand what you mean, because Amendment 1 states that Congress will make no laws regarding religion. It isn't up to Congress, nor the Federal Government to say if a Christian church or an Islamic mosque is built in the USA.

The language "Congress shall make no law" has been extended to "no governmental entity w/in the US shall make any law"...regarding freedom of religion, assembly...etc. via the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

I refer you to:
Incorporation Doctrine legal definition of Incorporation Doctrine. Incorporation Doctrine synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Incorporation:
"A constitutional doctrine whereby selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The doctrine of selective incorporation, or simply the incorporation doctrine, makes the first ten amendments to the Constitution?known as the Bill of Rights?binding on the states. Through incorporation, state governments largely are held to the same standards as the federal government with regard to many constitutional rights, including the First Amendment freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly, and the separation of church and state; the Fourth Amendment freedoms from unwarranted arrest and unreasonable searches and seizures; the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination; and the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy, fair, and public trial."

The States Rights argument was attempted & failed repeatedly during the civil rights era.

I thought you were talking about taking the Constitution literally. Don't change horses mid-stream.

It really doesn't matter in this case because there is no government entity, federal, state, nor local, which is making the law as to whether or not this mosque can be built. It is up to the community and the local governments to decide through the same process afforded to all property holders.