Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="msd" data-source="post: 1658500" data-attributes="member: 19974">Generally, I tend to agree with you, but in certain countries such as the U.S., its rarely this simple.  There is an inherent tension between the authority of the local and state officials' ability to set regulations, policies, and generally to govern in a way that insures the security of the jurisdiction (typically referred to as the "police power" of the state) and the rights guaranteed to each and every citizen by the Bill of Rights (the rights guaranteed in the 1st Amendment in this particular instance).  Constitutional jurisprudence is all about discerning the line that governs the point of demarcation between those opposing forces...(IMO)HYPO:Assume the law says something to the effect that "possession of dangerous object A in public is a violation of Chapter X, Section Y of the state code".  Religious observer B of religion C is sitting in Central Park meditating about the tenets of C while in possession of A, an object of religious significance in the tenets of C.  No one is within 1500 feet of him as he has chosen a secluded portion of the park.  Mounted police ride by, notice him in possession of A and arrest him...has he violated the law?  Is the law unconstitutional as applied to someone in his circumstances (someone who poses no visible threat and ostensibly doesn't trigger the policy concern motivating the original passage of the law - the protection of the public from A), or will the court simply decide that a park doesn't come within the meaning of "in public" as the phrase is used in this law?Short answer...who the heck knows?  Maybe its a bad hypo, but it surely demonstrates the point that the theoretical balance between the need to protect the public and the need to preserve individual liberties is almost never clear given an actual set of specific facts.  Talking in generalities always erases the complexities...Just an opinion...its worth what you paid for it  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> -matt</blockquote>

Verification