Timeline for Does encoding constitutional rights in state law have any effect?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 19, 2019 at 18:57 | comment | added | Mark Amery | 4. "the government, while in the role of an employer of government work, can restrict employee speech as if it was a private company not bound by the first amendment." - not true. The government gets more leeway to impose speech restrictions on government employees than other citizens, but not infinite leeway. The courts apply a balancing test of governmental interest against employee rights to determine whether a particular speech restriction is a First Amendment violation. See law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/…. | |
| Nov 19, 2019 at 18:51 | comment | added | Mark Amery | 3. "Double Jeopardy only stops the same court from hearing the same case about the same action" - no, the Double Jeopardy clause of the 5th Amendment only stops the same sovereign from prosecuting someone twice for the same action. The feds can't simply proescute you again for the same actions in a different federal court and somehow dodge double jeopardy. Beyond that, "double jeopardy" is not just a 5th Amendment thing. Some states have Double Jeopardy statutes that are aimed at preventing someone from being prosecuted federally and at state-level for the same offence. | |
| Nov 19, 2019 at 18:44 | comment | added | Mark Amery | 2. "Thus, the Ohio Bill is not redundent because it is a law that restricts government employee's speech (Teachers opinions on religion)" - eh? Pretty sure this is untrue. I don't see anything in the text of the bill that restricts teachers from voicing opinions on religion. (Although, again, this is irrelevant to the question I asked.) | |
| Nov 19, 2019 at 18:42 | comment | added | Mark Amery | 1. "Article III makes it illegal to criminlize Treason" - not according to Wikipedia, which says "The Constitution does not itself create the offense [of treason]; it only restricts the definition ... [and] permits the United States Congress to create the offense". Not that this has anything to do with the question anyway, as far as I can see. | |
| Nov 19, 2019 at 18:38 | comment | added | Mark Amery | There are many things wrong with this answer. Most importantly, it's enormous and mostly irrelevant to the question I asked. But there are also several things that I'm pretty sure are outright errors. | |
| Nov 19, 2019 at 12:47 | history | answered | hszmv | CC BY-SA 4.0 |