WarpMyMind

Posted: **June 21st, 2005, 9:21 pm**

I believe the Blue Laws (while wrong) are constitutional because the constitution does not bar them from much. Also I believe technically a state could constitutionally pass them. The reason being that the first amendment clearly states 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 blue laws don't establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof they only enforce the rules of one. You may be able to argue that enforcing the rules are a form of establishment and I personally would agree that it crosses the line and would never vote for them (either state or federally, I wouldn't even vote for them locally as I believe they do nothing of any value what so ever). That being said it is a government by the people and it is constitutional but a major step in the wrong direction.

Thoughts?

Posted: **June 21st, 2005, 11:06 pm**

Mortal wrote:The blue laws don't establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof they only enforce the rules of one. You may be able to argue that enforcing the rules are a form of establishment and I personally would agree that it crosses the line and would never vote for them (either state or federally, I wouldn't even vote for them locally as I believe they do nothing of any value what so ever). That being said it is a government by the people and it is constitutional but a major step in the wrong direction.

Thoughts?

By enforcing the rules of a religion, they remove the freedom from religion which is needed for there to be freedom of religion.

Posted: **June 21st, 2005, 11:17 pm**

Mortal wrote:I believe the Blue Laws (while wrong) are constitutional because the constitution does not bar them from much. Also I believe technically a state could constitutionally pass them. The reason being that the first amendment clearly states 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 blue laws don't establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof they only enforce the rules of one. You may be able to argue that enforcing the rules are a form of establishment and I personally would agree that it crosses the line and would never vote for them (either state or federally, I wouldn't even vote for them locally as I believe they do nothing of any value what so ever). That being said it is a government by the people and it is constitutional but a major step in the wrong direction.

Thoughts?

I have a thought, Mortal. :wink: Get some psychiatric help. Then send your love letters to someone you know.

- - - - - - -

From: Mortal
To: sandy82
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:04 am
Subject: Please Read
Sandy,

I again apologize for my arrogance. I am not sure why I have gotten back on this computer again tonight I had gone to bed. I am not trying to patronize you in any way but I feel I must tell you you are loved. I know you may not accept that from strangers and I am not one that says that often but you are. You don't have to prove anything to anybody. I am sorry if this is not what you want to hear but I feel I need to say it. JI'm sure you think me a whacko and that's ok. If you have anything you want to talk about please feel free as I am always willing to lend an ear.

Again if this isn't what you wanted to hear I'm sorry

Love,
Greg
- - - - - -

Greg, you are so persuasive that I've changed my heart. I see the light. I bow to the persuasiveness of your pure spirit.

:D Your place or mine? :D

Posted: **June 21st, 2005, 11:22 pm**

rwpikul, you are entirely correct. But if you continue to say such things, Greg will never invite you over for a roll in the hay. I hear he has air conditioning, too. It's hot in Florida this time of year. :wink:

rwpikul wrote:
By enforcing the rules of a religion, they remove the freedom from religion which is needed for there to be freedom of religion.

Posted: **June 22nd, 2005, 6:29 am**

Sandy,

I am overjoyed that you recognize the spirit. But it is not mine.

Greg

Posted: **June 23rd, 2005, 1:51 am**

Dictionary.com wrote:sar·casm (särkzm)n.
A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
The use of sarcasm.

Posted: **June 23rd, 2005, 5:43 am**

I was giving Sandy the benefit of the doubt. Are you saying he was flaming me?

Posted: **June 23rd, 2005, 8:15 am**

Not at all.

WarpMyMind

Blue Laws and their Constitutionality

Blue Laws and their Constitutionality

Re: Blue Laws and their Constitutionality

Re: Blue Laws and their Constitutionality

Re: Blue Laws and their Constitutionality