Eleven Christians Arrested and Jailed For Sharing

[apothanein kerdos]

Also, I ask you to research Forsyth County, Georgia v. Nationalist Movement (1992) which talks about the legality of permits and the ability to obtain them.

[dwinkjr]

We're not promised tomorrow, and neither are they. Sometimes we only have the moment. If you knew somebody was going to die that night, that you had only one chance to evangelize, would you spend that few minutes telling the person how wonderful they are seen in God's eyes, how loved, while scratching those itchy ears; or do you let the person know they are in desperate need of a Saviour for that their sins are punishable by hell-fire, and then tell them of the love of God displayed in Jesus Christ, to forgive their sins if they turn from them in faith in Jesus?

I contend the latter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sheepish,

This is the best paragraph in this entire thread. Sometimes we cannot take the time to spend days weeks or months with these people. What if the people you are "working on" now, do not accept Christ today and he returns tomorrow? Have you done them justice? Have you given them the opportunity to recieve Christ? Have you let them know yet that they need Christ? Have you let them know that there just reward for Sin is Eternal Damnation, BUT God has paid that price for them, so they donot have to Die the second death, they can repent and turn from there sins, accept the precious gift of Salvation through Christ.

We must live everyday like it may be our last, as it very well may be.

God Bless,

Dave

[Steff]

SJ, I think you are confusing current precident with what the constitution says. When a civil case goes to court, a precidient is set. However what the courts wrongly assume today is that precident is then to become a hard and fast law. This is not the case.

First, court judgements are only binding on the parties involved. This is one of the primary reasons why I disagree with the way current courts operate. Instead of directly interpreting the first amendment they use case precident, which in itself is wrong. Read the first amendment.

Amendment I

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.

Now read it. Does it say congress shall require a permit for the people to peacably assemble? No it doesn't. Now remember the constitution supercedes any state law or local law. Requirement of a permit to assemble on public land is a clear violation of the first amendment, provided the assemblers are not violating anyone else's rights.

The first amendment is very clear and any other requirements other than the innate responsibilities that come with the rights apply (IE, not infringing on anyone else's rights).

It can limit it. I cannot walk into the White House and have a sit in. However, I can say what I want and do what I want (so long as it's peaceful) on a sidewalk...but once I step onto government or public property, I need a permit.

I would agree that the White house would be off limits, but that is because they are protecting the best interests of our people by protecting the president from harm. However government / public property (the same thing) is not the case.

I'm sure you will disagree but in reality the angle you are coming from only has to do with precident and not a direct interpretation of the constitution. Whether you like it or not, since each case is different precident has no binding on future decisions, or at least it shouldn't.

You are falling into the trap of what is "legal" and what is constitutional.

[lifeandliberty]

Photos of the event can be seen at Repent America

[Kabowd]

What the law or the constitution does or does not allow is really irrelevant. In light of the fact that - legal or not - these ministries are misrepresenting the Spirit of the gospel and inciting anger towards God and believers with their self-righteous attitudes and lack of grace.

[Kabowd]

Repent America needs to repent.

[apothanein kerdos]

SJ, I think you are confusing current precident with what the constitution says. When a civil case goes to court, a precidient is set. However what the courts wrongly assume today is that precident is then to become a hard and fast law. This is not the case.

First, court judgements are only binding on the parties involved. This is one of the primary reasons why I disagree with the way current courts operate. Instead of directly interpreting the first amendment they use case precident, which in itself is wrong. Read the first amendment.

This is a fallacy. The entire premise behind precidence is what other judges have ruled. While it is not binding in certain cases (such on a local circuit level) it provides a standard by which to go by. However, when the Supreme Court rules (as it has in the cases I showed you) that IS the final interpretaiton of the law that applies to the land. If the Supreme Court says something we can't just say, "Oh, I disagree" and go off of our own interpretation. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is okay to gain a permit to use public land and request a fee as long as it is not excessive. Furthermore, they've ruled that a permit must always be granted unless the government can provide good reason not to grant it. Either way, the idea of a permit to use public ground for protest purposes has constantly been held up by the Supreme Court.

Now read it. Does it say congress shall require a permit for the people to peacably assemble? No it doesn't. Now remember the constitution supercedes any state law or local law. Requirement of a permit to assemble on public land is a clear violation of the first amendment, provided the assemblers are not violating anyone else's rights.

It also says nothing about treason, liable, or slander. So I guess these are unconstitutional as well. Just because something is not listed doesn't mean it's not implied or prohibited. Also, the Supreme Court would disagree with you on this issue.

However government / public property (the same thing) is not the case.

The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.

I'm sure you will disagree but in reality the angle you are coming from only has to do with precident and not a direct interpretation of the constitution. Whether you like it or not, since each case is different precident has no binding on future decisions, or at least it shouldn't.

*sigh*

These are all from rulings on the Constitution from the United States Supreme Court. It's not precident, it's interpretation.

[Steff]

This is a fallacy. The entire premise behind precidence is what other judges have ruled. While it is not binding in certain cases (such on a local circuit level) it provides a standard by which to go by. However, when the Supreme Court rules (as it has in the cases I showed you) that IS the final interpretaiton of the law that applies to the land.

False. The only reason people assume this is because of Marbury Vs. Madison. John Marshall wrote in that decision: "Ceratinly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution is void."

However what he failed to mention is that the 10th amendment forbids the Supreme Court from taking any more power than is granted to it by the constitution. Instead that power resides with the states or the people respectively.

If the Supreme Court says something we can't just say, "Oh, I disagree" and go off of our own interpretation.

Actually you can, it's called Jury Nullification. The interpretation of the constitution is not given to the supreme court by the constitution therefore they cannot take that power. That power resides with the people (Jury Trial).

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is okay to gain a permit to use public land and request a fee as long as it is not excessive. Furthermore, they've ruled that a permit must always be granted unless the government can provide good reason not to grant it. Either way, the idea of a permit to use public ground for protest purposes has constantly been held up by the Supreme Court.

Just because the Supreme Court says it is okay doesn't mean it is. That is legalism. Remember the Supreme Court was not given the power to interpret the constitution.

Why bothing listing the things they CAN do if they are going to do anything they want?

It also says nothing about treason, liable, or slander. So I guess these are unconstitutional as well. Just because something is not listed doesn't mean it's not implied or prohibited. Also, the Supreme Court would disagree with you on this issue.

Treason, yes. Liable and Slander, no but both would infringe on another's rights and prosecutable under common law.

The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.

And they are wrong.

[apothanein kerdos]

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution

All cases would include cases in question on the constitution, thus this gives them the right to interpret the constitution. This makes all of your arguements fall by the wayside.

[Steff]

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution

All cases would include cases in question on the constitution, thus this gives them the right to interpret the constitution. This makes all of your arguements fall by the wayside.

Read the key word I indicated in bold.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Clearly stating where the judicial power resides and how judges tenure is handled.

Section. 2.

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The constitution does not fall under Law and Equity it is above Law and Equity, it is the Supreme "Law of the Land". Law comprises three sections, Common Law, Admiralty law, and Equity law. It does not cover interpretation of the constitution. If that were the case it would have been clearly stated. That power is not given, therefore the US Supreme Court does not have it.

Lets take an example. Parents often tell their kids when they leave the house the things that they are allowed to eat out of the fridge. What do they mean? They mean ONLY eat those things. Things that are not mentioned are off limits. The same goes for our government. Powers that are NOT LISTED are specifically reserved to the states and the people. Because "We the People" are above the constitution, that right belongs to us. The constitution is a framework outlining my rights and limiting those of government, not the other way around.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

PREAMBLE TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS:

The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Indicating that the bill of rights supercedes the constitution and that again power resides with the people alone. Leaving the bill of rights to reign in all powers not specifically declared, to the people or the states alone, not the judiciary.