Comments on: Judge Moves To Block San Francisco Circumcision Ban Vote

By: charliehall

charliehall — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:02:36 +0000

“no one argues that what was protected in 1791 is still protected”

The First Amendment did not prohibit states from restricting religious freedom when it was first enacted. Indeed several New England states continued to operate essentially as theocracies into the 19th century. The application of the 1st Amendment to the states was as a result of court decisions on “incorporation”.

By: akuperma

akuperma — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:37:54 +0000

#3- The first amendment probably applies since the matter was discussed in the late 18th century, and while using original intent to restrict application of the bill of rights to new situations is controversial, no one argues that what was protected in 1791 is still protected.

By: AlanH923

AlanH923 — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:37:52 +0000

Baruch Hashem

By: responder88

responder88 — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:28:22 +0000

We are forgetting that it was the work of Hashem who put the Daas in the minds of those who thought out the issue and did not act hastily but rather logically

By: Moose613

Moose613 — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:22:12 +0000

A wise decision.

By: chaimss

chaimss — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 06:09:39 +0000

#2- agreed, but I don’t think it’s that simple. The first amendment says that the government can’t stop a belief system, but that doesn’t mean that you can do whatever you want for the sake of religion, especially when it comes to children. There are many cases where parents don’t want their child treated my modern medicine because it’s against their religion, but the courts rule that since the child can’t make that decision on its own it it must be treated.

By: akuperma

akuperma — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 02:53:38 +0000

What a diplomatic way to dispose of it. No need to bring down the First amendment. If the proponents say it is a religious thing, then they admit to being anti-semites and lose on first amendment grounds. If they deny it is a religious/anti-semitic campaign, they have to say its a medical procedure and they lose on state law grounds.

Good lawyering by our side.

By: simon01

simon01 — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 02:36:23 +0000

B”h this court order will Stop copy cats in many local cities from even attempting to get a Bris Milah Ban on a Ballot