Senator Baldwin: The First Amendment does not apply to individuals

[Angel Eyes]

http://mediatrackers.org/wisconsin/2015/07/02/sen-baldwin-1st-amendment-doesnt-apply-individuals?utm_content=buffer264e6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The relevant portion of Baldwin’s MSNBC appearance transcript reads:

“Certainly the First Amendment says that in institutions of faith that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs. But I don’t think it extends far beyond that. . . . n this context, they’re talking about expanding this far beyond our churches and synagogues to businesses and individuals across this country. I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America.”

...

During the MSNBC appearance, which was covered by Breitbart and NewsBusters, Baldwin appeared clueless to the fact that the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment has already been found to apply to individuals – not just churches, synagogues, mosques or other institutions of faith and worship.

I have nothing to add.  The senator's (presumably willful) ignorance is simply stunning.

[Perd Hapley]

This is just another outgrowth of the hyper-privatizing of religion. We long ago began to think of religion as something that belongs only in the cloister of one's family and close friends, but doesn't belong in the "real world," where it might affect normal people.

Unless your religion is Islam. 

[SADShooter]

To be fair, I don't think he's truly suggesting the 1st doesn't cover individuals, but that 1st Amendment protection is subordinate to subsequent law such as the Civil Rights Act, etc. Doesn't change that fact that he and his argument are blivets.

[Angel Eyes]

To be fair, I don't think he's truly suggesting the 1st doesn't cover individuals, but that 1st Amendment protection is subordinate to subsequent law such as the Civil Rights Act, etc. Doesn't change that fact that he and his argument are blivets.

She, actually.



And she is wrong. Constitutional rights are not subordinate to any other law.

[SADShooter]

She, actually.



And she is wrong. Constitutional rights are not subordinate to any other law.

I instinctively knew she self-identifies as male, because anyone making such a preposterous argument must be very confused.

[brimic]

Baldwin appeared clueless

>snip<
'Clueless' is Baldwin's natural state.
We've dealt with her for years in the state assembly- to say that she is as dumb as a fence post is not an exaggeration, and actually doesn't do the fence post justice.
She rode into the senate on obama's coattails. Sen Herb kohl retired, the Rs put up a weak candidate (Tommy Thompson- who only ran for his own ego), and Baldwin being on the far fringe of the left and a lesbian, easily wrapped up the D nomination. WI went to obama in 12, and baldwin picked up the senate seat in the same election. Had it been an off year election, and the Rs put up a real candidate, she wouldn't have had a chance.

[vaskidmark]

and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America.”

I have right here a new context he can abide by.

Rhetorical question just so I do not go out and do damage to the first induhvidual I run over:  From whence does this come: "Baldwin appeared clueless to the fact that the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment has already been found to apply to individuals – not just churches, synagogues, mosques or other institutions of faith and worship."

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.

The free exercise clause always extended to the individual, and to nothing but the individual.  Congress shall not establish a state religion to which the adherents would of necessity have some advantage and the non-adherents would of necessity have some disadvantage.  That notion was probably the biggest reason there were 13 original colonies as opposed to only 12 or maybe even only 11.  Forget Papist Maryland for the moment and consider Rhode Island, which owed its existence to the fact that while the Puritans would not abide Baptists among them they had not the gumption to just up and kill them so they banished them to their own reservation.

stay safe.

[Ben]

Tangent, but related to this, is that an Oregon bakery was just fined I think $135K for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian couple (with allegations of "mental rape" by the OR regulatory agency that fined them) and in addition, the owners were "ordered" not to talk about why they (for religious reasons) refused to bake the cake. I find that incomprehensible.

[makattak]

Tangent, but related to this, is that an Oregon bakery was just fined I think $135K for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian couple (with allegations of "mental rape" by the OR regulatory agency that fined them) and in addition, the owners were "ordered" not to talk about why they (for religious reasons) refused to bake the cake. I find that incomprehensible.

Welcome to the desert (of reason) of the real.

[SADShooter]

Tangent, but related to this, is that an Oregon bakery was just fined I think $135K for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian couple (with allegations of "mental rape" by the OR regulatory agency that fined them) and in addition, the owners were "ordered" not to talk about why they (for religious reasons) refused to bake the cake. I find that incomprehensible.

The owner also claims they had served the couple previously, they just didn't want to bake this particular cake.

[Blakenzy]

People who seek to be in Government are out to get "we the people".

[MechAg94]

The owner also claims they had served the couple previously, they just didn't want to bake this particular cake.

What did they want this one to say?

[Scout26]

Paging Ms. Claire Wolf......Ms. Claire Wolf to the white courtesy phone....


"How about now?"

[RoadKingLarry]

After a careful review of the facts, it is my studied opinion that Senator Baldwin is dumber than a box of rocks.

[HeroHog]

After a careful review of the facts, it is my studied opinion that Senator Baldwin is dumber than a box of rocks.

On, as Skid calls it "The Book of Face," I would insert this image here in RE Baldwin: http://herohog.com/images/Humor/2015021103.jpg (Linked due to "F" word in image)

[Pb]

Lots of Democrats believe exactly what Baldwin does.

Remember the Hobby Lobby case?  Another example of the Democrats trying to force people to violate their beliefs.  I remember a anti-hobby lobby protester carrying a sign that said "Churches don't sell glitter."

As if only churches had religious rights!

[Tallpine]

If you want to express an opinion, go to journalism school and join a major news network (except for Focks News, of course). 

You can't just have everybody shooting off their mouth on Main Street.

Reasonable restrictions 

[griz]

Sometimes I think our elected officials are hypocrites who don't abide by their oaths.  But people like her show that I have set the bar too high, she's just too stupid to know what it means.  I think it was Lily Tomlin who said "no matter how cynical I get I can never keep up".

[brimic]

Sometimes I think our elected officials are hypocrites who don't abide by their oaths.  But people like her show that I have set the bar too high, she's just too stupid to know what it means.  I think it was Lily Tomlin who said "no matter how cynical I get I can never keep up".

Tammy Baldwin is from the madison area- she is a very good representative of the ideology of constituents who elected her to the state assembly- flat out communists.

[Regolith]

Adam Baldwin remains the only good Baldwin.

[makattak]

Adam Baldwin remains the only good Baldwin.

As I recall, one of Alec's brothers is also not bad. (Can't remember which one, though)

[Perd Hapley]

As I recall, one of Alec's brothers is also not bad. (Can't remember which one, though)

Stephen, the born-again one?

[Hawkmoon]

Tangent, but related to this, is that an Oregon bakery was just fined I think $135K for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian couple (with allegations of "mental rape" by the OR regulatory agency that fined them) and in addition, the owners were "ordered" not to talk about why they (for religious reasons) refused to bake the cake. I find that incomprehensible.

I find it reprehensible.

[230RN]

Angel Eyes remarked that "Constitutional rights are not subordinate to any other law."

Is that a new concept?  Seems to me that something like that might wipe out most of our laws.

And since this is a gun forum, what about all those gun laws?  Don't they over-ride the constitution?

[AJ Dual]

Angel Eyes remarked that "Constitutional rights are not subordinate to any other law."

Is that a new concept?  Seems to me that something like that might wipe out most of our laws.

And since this is a gun forum, what about all those gun laws?  Don't they over-ride the constitution?

It would... if we had a 100% hard-ass constructionist Judiciary, AND that Judiciary had some sort of teeth to enforce such decisions on the Legislative and Executive branches. Like if they actually had the power to send some sort of police/troops to oust a POTUS, or state Governor, or arrest members of Congress who insisted on acting in an unconstitutional fashion after said court had decided as such. But we've known the SCOTUS on down is toothless in the face of an Executive branch that says "FOAD NANANANANANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" since at least President Jackson.

Of course, the Legislative branch has the same problems too. They can't compel the Executive to do anything when that branch upsurps their power or ignores it either.

Meanwhile the President can use the DOJ/Atty General and the IRS to go after anyone/anything he wants. The only limitation being if the press catches wind of it to turn public opinion against the POTUS.