Just a note...

The 14th Ammendment makes the First Ammendment apply to all States and not just the Federal Government.

Cat fight! Cat fight! Meow!!!

Perhaps, but as soon as they get injured, Americans Lite flock to the U.S. for treatment. Beats waiting in those looooooong government lines.

So sayeth the Supreme Court--you DO know that, right? It's called "incorporation." If SCOTUS hadn't come up with that philosophy, your statement would be false.

I actually agree with Philly Fan, which may be our Christmas/Chanukah miracle of 2004!!

I have no problem with religious symbols being in public. I have no problems with the ten commandments statue being near a law or court building...nativity scenes...menorahs, etc.

But, I do have a problem if the truth is that the goverment is trying to mandate that the ten commandments be posted in ALL government buildings or court houses. That simply is implying that these "religious intentions" are more important than others- if individual states or counties decide to post them on their own local centers, fine. But at a federal level- I would find a huge problem with that.

Especially when there would have to be money spent on it- that is flippin stupid when our economy is in the pits... Spend money on something else.

The reality is exactly that. You've summed up the so-called Christian right's beliefs perfectly (I spent 20+ years among them, so I know), and they now control two of the three branches of the federal government (as well as who knows how many states). They believe in freedom only for themselves and those who kowtow to them. Watch out for flying rocks. eek!

Actually, so sayeth the Constitution...

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

What then is a privilege?

priv·i·lege
A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.

Hmmmm...what is it? Oh yeah, "The Bill of Rights."

Seems pretty self-explanatory. I don't think you need to be a Supreme Court Justice to interpret this amendment. By definition this means that no state may make a law that contradicts the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.

An interesting local case has been dragging on for years.

Google for creche fairfax county aclu

I'm not sure of the details, but I believe that, for some time, a woman named Rita Warren had been diplaying the creche. Then the county rewrote the law so that only county residents could do so. Warren did not live in Fairfax County. The ACLU thought that was nonsense and came to her defense. Her ACLU attorney was Alexandria's Victor Glasberg. Seven years ago, they lost the case.

December 18, 1997: Woman, ACLU Lose Creche Suit in Virginia

Warren Loses Suit with Fairfax County Over Creche Display

I'm sure, though, that was not the final word on the issue, and that she does, in fact, have the creche on display. I'll leave a further search to someone else. You can be sure that she will be on TV and in the Washington Post again this year.

Why does a private citizen who doesn't even pay taxes in a municipality have some sort of right to their public spaces. This has nothing to do with religion. I play a game that meets in public parks. We hit each other with foam padded sticks and pretend to cast magic at each other. It's silly, but it's fun. We have repeatedly tried to get a park going in the city of Richardson (a near suburb of Dallas), but cannot get a foothold because the use regulations for their parks are so strict, that if we are there with more people who don't live in Richardson than do, we'll be tossed out of the park. Municipalities restrict the use of public space. I think Ms Warren is displaying (pun intended) a great deal of arrogance in her attempt to use public space to which she has no right to promote her beliefs. This isn't suppresion of religious expression. If she can't find some resident of the county who agrees with her, perhaps that county is an inappropriate venue for her message.

Uh, no it doesn't. "Incorporation" is a judicial philosophy, one that the Supreme Court adopted to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states and not just the federal government.

SCOTUS used several cases on specific Bill of Rights issues to eventually incorporate its protections via the 14th Amendment.

Here is a summary for you...

Of Speech & Press (1st Am.): Gitlow v. New York

To Have Attorney in Capital Cases (6th Am.):
Powell v. Alabama

To Exercise Any Religion (1st Am.):
Hamilton v. Regents of U.C.

Of Assembly & Petition (1st Am.):
DeJonge v. Oregon

From Establishment of Religion (1st Am.):
Everson v. Board of Ed.

To Have a Public Trial (6th Am.):
In re Oliver

From Unreasonable Searches & Seizures (4th Am.):
Mapp v. Ohio

From Cruel & Unusual Punishments (8th Am.):
Robinson v. California

To Have Attorney for Felony Cases (6th Am.):
Gideon v. Wainwright

From Self-incrimination (5th Am.): Malloy v. Hogan

To Confront Witnesses (6th Am.): Pointer v. Texas

To Have an Impartial Jury Trial (6th Am.):
Parker v. Gladden

To Have a Speedy Trial (6th Am.): Klopfer v. North Carolina

To Compel Witnesses to Testify (6th Am.):
Washington v. Texas

To Trial by Jury (6th Am.): Duncan v. Louisiana

From Double Jeopardy (5th Am.): Benton v. Maryland

To Have Attorney for Charges That Could Be Jailed For (6th Am.): Argersinger v. Hamilin

By 1937, freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition had all been "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment's due process clause. This meant that these First Amendment freedoms were now also part of the 14th Amendment, which limited state laws and actions. The Supreme Court had yet to explain why some rights from the Bill of Rights had been "incorporated" while others had not.

In a case involving the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy (being tried twice for the same crime), Justice Benjamin Cardozo explained that only "fundamental rights" need be "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment. He went on to define these rights as "of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty" and "rooted in the tradition and conscience of our people."

While such rights as freedom of speech were clearly "fundamental," according to Justice Cardozo and the Supreme Court majority, others were not. Thus, the Supreme Court established the principle of "partial incorporation": Only certain "fundamental rights," not the entire Bill of Rights, apply to the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. [Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937)] By 1972, the Supreme Court had "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment all but five rights named in the Bill of Rights. Those rights still not deemed "fundamental" include the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the Third Amendment protection against quartering troops in private homes, the Fifth Amendment right of grand jury indictment, the Seventh Amendment right of trial by jury in civil cases, and the Eighth Amendment guarantee against excessive bail and fines. (The Ninth and Tenth amendments do not name specific personal rights.)

JQ, I realize this is pretty off topic, but that hasn't stopped others so it won't stop me. Where do you get those sticks and what are they called? A friend of mine and I have been looking for them for months and don't even know what they're called, let alone where to find them; we just want to use them on each other! We call them "battlesticks," but that's only a guessonym. Deets, please! Thanks. :cool:

Acutally, I was not defending the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th Ammendment. I actually researched based on what the original framers of the amendment intended. Their original intent was to create an amendment that applied all of the rights of the Constitution and it's Amendments to the State level. It was drafted right after the Civil War, partially in response to states who passed laws limiting the freedoms of Freedmen. So yes, I understand the judicial concept of Selective Incorporation and am quite capable of looking up the case history (which I had already done). That does not mean that from a historical context that it is correct. I would argue that it is not. Whatever the case, the Supreme Court agrees that the correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment does in fact apply the 1st Amendment to the State level (the subject of the thread).

We call them "swords" I don't know that they have a name outside the fantasy fandom that hits each other with them. We tend to make them ourselves. Kitespar, funnoodle and packing tape is a good start. You can use grapite golf club shafts and you have a ready made handle.

There are places online that sell them, but you're looking at a significant investment for a stick and foam.

Another option is to get someone in the local LARP community to make them for you, or show you how to make them yourself (you might even take advantage of the opportunity to find more people who enjoy hitting each other with foam padded sticks).

I play a game called Amtgard. Local groups are listed at the Amtgard Atlas. There is a group supposedly in San Deigo, but their entry hasn't been updated since April 2003, so take that with a grain of salt. I do know there is an active community in Southern California, but haven't heard from anyone south of Los Angeles lately.