Grieve In Private, Not Along Maryland's Highways

[http]

Originally posted by SurfaceTension
A(n uncostitutional?) law was passed to stop burning crosses.
A(n unconstitutional?) Statelaw was passed prohibiting signs resembling traffic signs.



Call me dense, but explain again to me why they CANNOT pass a law prohibiting the memorials given the above. Then, please, explain why you have a problem with this, but not the gun control example in the last post.

You are correct. They can pass a law to prohibit them. I was saying as the law stands RIGHT NOW, the CANNOT prohibit them based on the 1st amendment unless they fall under some other obscure law dealing with littering or whatever that none of us are aware of. That's all I was saying.

And I don't have a problem with it. Never said I did. I could care less.

 

[tater]

 

[http]

Originally posted by Ken King
The premise you pushed, if I am following this right, was that roadside memorials were an expression of one’s 1st Amendment rights and that the memorials were on “public lands”. My point is that most aren’t on “public land”, I say that they are on private property designated for specific public use (roadways or utilities) and that the individual must have the land owners permission to place their displays upon it.


I’ve filled potholes on streets down here (at least in Compton). Back when what we had were mostly dirt roads. Wasn’t silly as my Dad had me load and move dirt while he sculpted what I just dumped into a temporary patch. It was work, the whole community was doing it, but we had to if we wanted smooth streets? County didn’t have money for us that far off the main roads.

Because the county has lain pavement does not give you, the individual, the right to use the surrounding property as you see fit.

That's all fine Ken, I really can't argue. Fighting about land rights and property lines is on a case by case basis and is one of the longest ongoing debates in World History. I tried to give you an example of the house that I grew up in, and you did the same. You may be right. Granted.

 

[http]

I have a correction to my rant above.

The Constitution actually came first and then the first 13 amendments immediately afterwards which were called the Bill of Rights. This was spearheaded by Patrick Henry and George Mason because they felt as though the Constitution protected the new central government, but no the individual. Afterwards there were 16 more amendments later added. Basically, that's how it went, I think.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by http
I have a correction to my rant above.

The Constitution actually came first and then the first 13 amendments immediately afterwards which were called the Bill of Rights. This was spearheaded by Patrick Henry and George Mason because they felt as though the Constitution protected the new central government, but no the individual. Afterwards there were 16 more amendments later added. Basically, that's how it went, I think.

Actually, the first submission of amendments made September 25, 1789 included 12 of which 10 were ratified on 15 December 1791. The two not passed dealt with Congressional representation and pay. The amendment concerning pay was ratified May 7, 1992 over 200 years later.