Should honor killings be legal in the US because of the First Amendment?

[A18]

Explain.

[A18]

No, and you should see Employment Division v. Smith.

[A18]

I'm sure the right to one's own life is ensured by some other part of the constitution...

No, it isn't.

However, free exercise does not excuse a person from a neutral law of general applicability.

[A18]

The fifth amendment says, "No person shall ... be deprived of life ... without due process of law."

In plain language, it says, "killing someone is not okay unless the person is sentenced to death in a court of law."

What a ridiculous argument. The Fifth Amendment restricts the federal government, not private individuals.

[A18]

Although you disagree with Gabu's arguement, you must agree that some crazed zealot can't just go around killing people in the name of some damn religon.

It's called the compelling interest test, except it doesn't even apply here, because under Employment Division v. Smith, free exercise never excuses a person from a neutral law of general applicability (as I've pointed out twice now).

[A18]

There was that weird Taft opinion on due process, but the reasoning there has long been abandoned.

[A18]

The same is true of Article I, Section 8, and yet you see the same restrictions applied to the states in Article I, Section 9.

[A18]

There was that weird Taft opinion on due process, but the reasoning there has long been abandoned.

Which case are you talking about? I would be interesting in reading this opinion.

Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312 (1921)

... A law which operates to make lawful such a wrong as [picketing] deprives the owner of the business and the premises of his property without due process, and cannot be held valid under the Fourteenth Amendment. ...