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

[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.

[Emsworth]

Honor killings are not protected by the First Amendment. The free exercise clause does not authorize the individual to do whatever he pleases in the name of religion. In particular, it does not shield an individual against a religiously neutral, non-discriminatory law that applies to the general public.

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."

Both the first and the fifth amendment exist in the Constitution; therefore, one is obligated to develop an interpretation of the Constitution in which these two can coexist.  The only interpretation that satisfies this is that which says that the First Amendment's allowance of the "free exercise of religion" does not include passages that require killing someone else.

That is an interesting argument, but I would respectfully disagree with it. The Constitution only restricts the government, not private persons. In fact, it only restricts the federal government, unless the states are explicitly mentioned. (The Supreme Court adopted this view a long time back, in 1833; this interpretation has never since been overturned.)

[Dr. Cynic]

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.

[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).

[Dr. Cynic]

I was talking to Emsworth, but thank you anyway.

[Emsworth]

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.

Yes. I indicated this view at the beginning of my previous post.

However, although nothing in the Constitution protects honor killings performed by private individuals, nothing in the Constitution prohibits them either.

[A18]

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

[Emsworth]

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.

[Gabu]

That is an interesting argument, but I would respectfully disagree with it. The Constitution only restricts the government, not private persons. In fact, it only restricts the federal government, unless the states are explicitly mentioned. (The Supreme Court adopted this view a long time back, in 1833; this interpretation has never since been overturned.)

Why is this, out of curiosity?  The First Amendment explicitly mentions Congress, while the Fifth Amendment simply states what it does without mentioning to whom it applies at all.

[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.

[Emsworth]

Why is this, out of curiosity?  The First Amendment explicitly mentions Congress, while the Fifth Amendment simply states what it does without mentioning to whom it applies at all.

Chief Justice John Marshall explained it as follows:

"The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated."

The original text of the Constitution supports Marshall's line of reasoning. For example, one clause declares in broad and general terms: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." Yet, at the same time, there is another clause that provides: "No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder [or] ex post facto Law." This indicates that the Framers did not believe that the first of the aforementioned clauses encompassed the states. If they did, there would be no reason to repeat exactly the same prohibition in another clause.

EDIT: Today, this distinction is not really important as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned. The Fourteenth Amendment specifically applied the Bill of Rights--including the First Amendment, which only refers to "Congress"--to the state governments as well.

[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. ...

[Emsworth]

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. ...

Thank you. I've read the decision. Its reasoning surprised me at first glance, but then again the Supreme Court was engaged in appalling conservative activism during the 1920s.