First Amendment

Freedom of Religion

A huge POV article has been added on 7th Novemeber 2005. It is inappropriate and should be removed and replaced with a link. Scott197827 11th November 2005

[edit]

Executive orders

the legislature makes laws, the executive executes them and the judiciary interprets them. If there were no legislation, there would be nothing for the executive to enforce or the judiciary to interpret; thus, those two branches can only act in the presence of authorizing legislation.

This doesn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t seem accurate at all. At best it is a gross oversimplification. The executive, for instance, makes a number of actions which are not initiated by the legislature.

The duty of the executive is only to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, under Article II. If there is no law, the executive cannot act (save in such circumstances as the Constitution authorizes). Of course, the President issues executive orders and the like. These, however, are issued only to ensure the faithful execution of the laws: if there were no laws, there would be no executive orders to ensure their execution. Thus, constitutional or legal authority is required for actions. -- Emsworth 20:34, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

You\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'ve ignored the majority of Article II. The President, in addition to taking care that the laws are faithfully executed, is commander in chief of the armed forces, makes treaties with the advice and consent of congress, appoints various government officials, gives state of the union addresses, receives ambassadors and other government officials, and commissions the officers of the United States. This is all in addition to those inherent powers that the Supreme Court has deemed the Executive to have. By no means is the President limited to merely executing laws created by congress. anthony (see warning) 01:38, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Actual malice standard

In 1988, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell extended the \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"actual malice\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" standard, protecting satirists from libel suits based on intentional infliction of emotional distress.

This case wasn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t even about a libel suit. The jury had already found Hustler not guilty of the libel suit. I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'ve reverted back to the original wording. anthony (see warning) 01:47, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We do need to indicate, though, that that case only applies to a narrow context - satire of public figures. - jredmond 02:06, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I thought the case applied the \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"actual malice\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" standard to all suits based on intentional infliction of emotional distress. I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'ll look up the actual text and try to fix this if it isn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t true. anthony (see warning) 14:05, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"actual malice,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. OK, I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'ll fix that. anthony (see warning) 14:09, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Shunting of text to Wikisource

The reason given in the edit summary for the removal of the text is that Wikipedia policy is not to include primary sources. But referring to Wikipedia:Don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t include copies of primary sources, I read the policy as specifically exempting this case. No, it\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s not a \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"paragraph-by-paragraph\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" reading, but that\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s because this is only a single sentence, about which 5500 words of article text have been written! I think that qualifies as a \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"close reading.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" The text should be brought back. (Is this just an attempt to promote Wikisource, perhaps?) --TreyHarris 17:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree. It seems ridiculous to have to go to another site just to see the 40-odd words that the whole article is about. Wikipedia:Don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t include copies of primary sources was more intended to prevent people dumping the complete text of Hamlet into the \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'pedia, not for short texts like this. -- DrBob 17:39, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it is an attempt to maintain consistency with Article One, etc. When \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Article One\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" was nominated, it was objected to on the grounds that it included the article text. Article One may also be regarded as a \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"paragraph-by-paragraph\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" analysis. While it is true that Art. I is much longer, I think that to maintain consistency all articles on parts of the US Constitution should follow the same model in regard to text inclusion. -- Emsworth 17:42, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t want to actually put a primary source here,