Can pinheads explain the contradiction? ...Probably not!

[Lao Tse]

Here's what you are confused about, a "corporation" is comprised of people. It is not a stand alone entity operating of its own volition. It is entirely composed of people, boards of directors in some cases, stockholders in some cases, employees, administrators, managers, accountants, CFOs and CEOs... all PEOPLE! INDIVIDUALS!

Composed of individuals. It's not an individual. Disallowing group speech does not mean individuals cannot speak separately. That's a truth.

 

[Timshel]

Haahaa... My position is the Constitutional Law you claim to know so much about, Stringy. It's weird, one moment, I think we are both on the same side of the argument here, and then... you go off into leftist-la-la-land, and I lose you completely. It's just bizarre to me!

There is nothing constitutional about your position. You are flailing around for any excuse you can find to infringe on this groups first amendment rights and attempting to make a mockery of judicial review. You lose me when that becomes your goal.

Your position here is that if enough people threaten to respond with criminal action then the state is justified in limiting the rights of those targeted by those threats as it serves to fulfill the state's interests in protecting the peace. But that is a poorly reasoned and unworkable position that does not serve the state's interest and is actually counter productive to those interests. Limiting the rights of the victims would only encourage more threats of violence as that is exactly what the protesters want.

Further, limiting the rights of the victims is not narrowly tailored to the state's interest in protecting the peace. Arresting those who would do violence is and possible restrictions on other protesters against the mosque would be less invasive and more narrowly tailored to fulfilling the state's interest here, though I am not necessarily supporting any state action in that regard.

 

[Lao Tse]

There is nothing constitutional about your position. You are flailing around for any excuse you can find to infringe on this groups first amendment rights and attempting to make a mockery of judicial review. You lose me when that becomes your goal.

Your position here is that if enough people threaten to respond with criminal action then the state is justified in limiting the rights of those targeted by those threats as it serves to fulfill the state's interests in protecting the peace. But that is a poorly reasoned and unworkable position that does not serve the state's interest and is actually counter productive to those interests. Limiting the rights of the victims would only encourage more threats of violence as that is exactly what the protesters want.

Further, limiting the rights of the victims is not narrowly tailored to the state's interest in protecting the peace. Arresting those who would do violence is and possible restrictions on other protesters against the mosque would be less invasive and more narrowly tailored to fulfilling the state's interest here, though I am not necessarily supporting any state action in that regard.

The state is justified on security grounds alone to repel an invasion by a theocratic military organization intent on estblishing bases here.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Composed of individuals. It's not an individual. Disallowing group speech does not mean individuals cannot speak separately. That's a truth.

You can't disallow "groupspeech" goofball! What do you think "petition" for redress of your grievances means? You would have to dissolve ALL political entities.... ALL parties... ALL church congregations... do you see where that's going? You want to deny a certain group of people from expressing their political viewpoint, and that is not conducive with the constitution or freedom of speech. It is akin to what Mussolini imposed on Italy......hmmmm... what was THAT called again????

 

[Lao Tse]

You can't disallow "groupspeech" goofball! What do you think "petition" for redress of your grievances means? You would have to dissolve ALL political entities.... ALL parties... ALL church congregations... do you see where that's going? You want to deny a certain group of people from expressing their political viewpoint, and that is not conducive with the constitution or freedom of speech. It is akin to what Mussolini imposed on Italy......hmmmm... what was THAT called again????

If we're talking about corporate money going to campaigns, we can limit groupspeech.

Individuals can still speak. It's just that the controllers of the group cannot usurp the dollars the group generates for political messages all individuals may not agree with.

 

[Timshel]

The state is justified on security grounds alone to repel an invasion by a theocratic military organization intent on estblishing bases here.

You are insane. That has nothing at all to do with this case.

 

[Lao Tse]

You are insane. That has nothing at all to do with this case.

It's correct, nonetheless.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There is nothing constitutional about your position. You are flailing around for any excuse you can find to infringe on this groups first amendment rights and attempting to make a mockery of judicial review. You lose me when that becomes your goal.

You've not successfully proven any individual constitutional right is infringed by not building this mosque.... sorry, you just haven't shown that. In order to prevail in such litigation, you must present 'show cause' to the court. In the absence of that, you have no case for infringement.

It's no secret I think the mosque is a stupid idea, and I know you love the idea of the mosque and think it's a great idea, but this isn't about what our personal opinions of the mosque are. It's about whether it's legitimate to question the building of it at this location, and if there is a legitimate state interest in denying the permit to build it. Eminent domain has been upheld by the SCOTUS, and can be a legitimate means to prohibit the building, and I think a case can be made on grounds of public safety. It would be cost-prohibitive for NYC to allow this, in terms of manpower cost to ensure public safety around it. I think that is a legitimate complaint, and one the court would certainly examine in this case.

Your position here is that if enough people threaten to respond with criminal action then the state is justified in limiting the rights of those targeted by those threats as it serves to fulfill the state's interests in protecting the peace. But that is a poorly reasoned and unworkable position that does not serve the state's interest and is actually counter productive to those interests. Limiting the rights of the victims would only encourage more threats of violence as that is exactly what the protesters want.

I said nothing about "enough people threaten to respond" did I? Nope... again, you are reading shit I don't write... I don't know what we do about that, Stringy, you got any suggestions??? I can't have a reasonable conversation with you, if you keep reading shit I am not posting!

Further, limiting the rights of the victims is not narrowly tailored to the state's interest in protecting the peace. Arresting those who would do violence is and possible restrictions on other protesters against the mosque would be less invasive and more narrowly tailored to fulfilling the state's interest here, though I am not necessarily supporting any state action in that regard.

You've yet to establish that ANY rights have been limited here! That continues to be your perception, and perhaps your perspective, but the fact of the matter is, that detail has yet to be established. It is your OPINION that someone's rights are being infringed by disallowing the mosque. Then there is the issue of who's rights are more fundamental in this case, and the rights of people to be secure in their person and property, trump a religious group's right to build a controversial construction. Or at the very least, such a consideration must be made by the courts. It's not set in stone, Stringy, that's what you don't seem to comprehend here. None of our fundamental individual rights are set in stone and untouchable for any reason! THAT is absurd!

 

[Timshel]

You've not successfully proven any individual constitutional right is infringed by not building this mosque.... sorry, you just haven't shown that. In order to prevail in such litigation, you must present 'show cause' to the court. In the absence of that, you have no case for infringement.

It's no secret I think the mosque is a stupid idea, and I know you love the idea of the mosque and think it's a great idea, but this isn't about what our personal opinions of the mosque are. It's about whether it's legitimate to question the building of it at this location, and if there is a legitimate state interest in denying the permit to build it. Eminent domain has been upheld by the SCOTUS, and can be a legitimate means to prohibit the building, and I think a case can be made on grounds of public safety. It would be cost-prohibitive for NYC to allow this, in terms of manpower cost to ensure public safety around it. I think that is a legitimate complaint, and one the court would certainly examine in this case.

It has nothing to with whether I think it is a good idea.

Again, your position is without merit and is nothing short of a call for mob rule. Restricting the rights of the individual because some hate mongers might break the law is not a justification for state action against the victims. The appropriate state action to keep the peace would be to arrest those breaking the law and violating the individual and civil rights of citizens.

There is absolutely no doubt that, at this point, any action to stop the building of this mosque/center would be an infringement on a fundamental first amendment right. The court would most certainly treat it as such and subject the state action to the most stringent of tests.

 

[Lao Tse]

It has nothing to with whether I think it is a good idea.

Again, your position is without merit and is nothing short of a call for mob rule. Restricting the rights of the individual because some hate mongers might break the law is not a justification for state action against the victims. The appropriate state action to keep the peace would be to arrest those breaking the law and violating the individual and civil rights of citizens.

There is absolutely no doubt that, at this point, any action to stop the building of this mosque/center would be an infringement on a fundamental first amendment right. The court would most certainly treat it as such and subject the state action to the most stringent of tests.

The hate and intolerance comes from islam.

The global theocratic jihadie army should not gain traction in our homeland.

Not on my watch.

 

[Lao Tse]

It has nothing to with whether I think it is a good idea.

Again, your position is without merit and is nothing short of a call for mob rule. Restricting the rights of the individual because some hate mongers might break the law is not a justification for state action against the victims. The appropriate state action to keep the peace would be to arrest those breaking the law and violating the individual and civil rights of citizens.

There is absolutely no doubt that, at this point, any action to stop the building of this mosque/center would be an infringement on a fundamental first amendment right. The court would most certainly treat it as such and subject the state action to the most stringent of tests.

Of course there's doubt. A court could find it's in the state interest to consider islam an enemy to freedom, as islam itself suggests.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Again, your position is without merit and is nothing short of a call for mob rule.

When the "mob" is big enough, you most certainly do have "mob rule" dumbass.

 

[Lao Tse]

So resisting Jihad is mob rule? Fine.

 

[Timshel]

Of course there's doubt. A court could find it's in the state interest to consider islam an enemy to freedom, as islam itself suggests.

Whether prohibiting it serves a state interest or not does not change the fact that this would be seen as infringement on first amendment rights. That's not even debatable.

 

[Timshel]

When the "mob" is big enough, you most certainly do have "mob rule" dumbass.

Yeah, fuck them. That's what the national guard is for. We are not going to throw out due process and the rule of law and bow to the will of terrorists.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yeah, fuck them. That's what the national guard is for. We are not going to throw out due process and the rule of law and bow to the will of terrorists.

No, fuck YOU... and "WE" ain't doing a goddamn thing except talking about this. Someone other than you and I will decide, it's not going to be left up to either of us.

You have still not established that a constitutional right has been violated by not permitting a mosque to be constructed at this location. I am waiting for you to make that case, but in your last response to AHZ, you seem to think this is "a given" when it has yet to be established. Yes, our rule of law and justice system does have rules and guidelines, including the requirement that you 'show cause' when claiming constitutional infringement. You can't just bow up and claim some right has been violated, and not present a case for it! The 1st does give them freedom of religious expression, but it is entirely up to YOU to establish that right has been abridged or violated in the denial of a building permit. You've not done that, you can't do that, you just want us all to skip over that little detail, and pretend this has already been determined... I don't know by whom, the Great and Wonderful Wise Man Stringy? Sorry, but our 'due process' doesn't include Stringy's Findings.

 

[Timshel]

No, fuck YOU... and "WE" ain't doing a goddamn thing except talking about this. Someone other than you and I will decide, it's not going to be left up to either of us.

You have still not established that a constitutional right has been violated by not permitting a mosque to be constructed at this location. I am waiting for you to make that case, but in your last response to AHZ, you seem to think this is "a given" when it has yet to be established. Yes, our rule of law and justice system does have rules and guidelines, including the requirement that you 'show cause' when claiming constitutional infringement. You can't just bow up and claim some right has been violated, and not present a case for it! The 1st does give them freedom of religious expression, but it is entirely up to YOU to establish that right has been abridged or violated in the denial of a building permit. You've not done that, you can't do that, you just want us all to skip over that little detail, and pretend this has already been determined... I don't know by whom, the Great and Wonderful Wise Man Stringy? Sorry, but our 'due process' doesn't include Stringy's Findings.

There is no question that stopping them from building a mosque would infringe upon their liberty. That does not necessarily mean the state cannot stop them, but the law/policy as described to this point would face strict scrutiny. In order to be ruled constitutional, it then must serve a compelling state interest, be narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means necessary to achieve the state's interest.

 

[Lao Tse]

There is no question that stopping them from building a mosque would infringe upon their liberty. That does not necessarily mean the state cannot stop them, but the law/policy as described to this point would face strict scrutiny. In order to be ruled constitutional, it then must serve a compelling state interest, be narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means necessary to achieve the state's interest.

Of course there's a question. We're not just free to do anything we want.

Scrutiny? Bring it on.

Most people understand the stupidty of allowing global theocratic armies to establish bases all over.

 

[Timshel]

Of course there's a question. We're not just free to do anything we want.

Scrutiny? Bring it on.

Most people understand the stupidty of allowing global theocratic armies to establish bases all over.

It just goes straight over your head.

We are free to do what we want unless the state limits our liberty in some way. This would be a burden on their liberty. There is no legitimate debate on that point. Because it involves a fundamental right it would have to pass strict scrutiny in order for it survive judicial review. There may be some debate on that, though you have not offered any.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There is no question that stopping them from building a mosque would infringe upon their liberty.

Yes, there IS a question, and it has yet to be answered. You've not established any infringement, you have just claimed it. I can claim you're violating my right to pursuit of happiness, does that mean you can be sued for everything you own and thrown in jail? Nope, because I would have to establish my case first. That's the small little detail you seem to be glossing over here, no one has established the Muslims right to religious expression is being infringed upon, in prohibiting the building of this facility. That case would HAVE to be made first, and it hasn't been. You've simply ASSUMED this, and we can't be assuming shit when it comes to our constitutional rights... it doesn't work like that.

That does not necessarily mean the state cannot stop them, but the law/policy as described to this point would face strict scrutiny. In order to be ruled constitutional, it then must serve a compelling state interest, be narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means necessary to achieve the state's interest.

Bullshit, the state can pretty much do whatever the fuck they want to do, under eminent domain, or as a matter of public safety, and there ain't a whole lot you can do about that. You can go to court and claim your rights have been infringed, but that brings us back to 'show cause' which you haven't presented as of yet. It's possible the court could find in your favor, and rule the state violated your 1st amendment rights, but it's also (very) possible, they could dismiss such a case because of lack of finding. All this remains to be seen, neither of us can accurately predict the outcome, even though you seem to be certain the court will undoubtedly rule in favor of the mosque builders... I'm not so sure about that.