I think that the law is a dumb law. I’m pro-choice when it comes to blasphemy. I don’t like to blaspheme, but I respect the right of other people to blaspheme. Scratch that. I do like to blaspheme. So I’m not pro-choice. I’m just pro-blasphemy.

That said, it’s definitely constitutional, because it’s pro-Jesus. Here’s my argument:

1. Everything good and decent is constitutional.
2. Everything that is pro-Jesus is good and decent.
3. Therefore, everything that is pro-Jesus is constitutional.

This is a formally valid argument, which is more than you can say for the reasoning in most Supreme Court decisions. So there.

Seems like a funny vestige of the Puritans. I tend to be pro-choice for blasphemy like DKL. I do tend to be pro-choice and pro-blasphemy though…. Constitutinality? Can’t argue with Jesus being constitutional.

all i can say is awesome

DKL, I might have known that the most reviled man on the bloggernacle would be for blasphemy. You break the commandment and encourage others to do so. I don’t know whether to call you to repentance or have a criminal complaint sworn out against you. As for your theory of interpreting a constitution, I think it is brilliant. You have a future either as a test question writer for the LSAT or a Supreme Court Justice (there are, of course, no qualifications to be on the Court). Your brand of judicial philosophy would definitely play well in both the Bible and Book Of Mormon belts. You may give originalism a run for its money.

adam e., I am shocked that you don’t think the Mass. Supreme Court wouldn’t adhere to precedence … oh, wait, never mind. The law seems pretty specific to me, though you raise an interesting point with respect to interpreting this law to include Latter-day scripture. It seems to me that if you had blasphemed the holy word of God as contained in the Book of Mormon and if the District Attorney’s Office prosecuted and if there were a trial, if at least one juror did not believe in modern scripture, I think you go free.

Devyn S., don’t just blame the Puritans, the people’s assembly also reintroduced this law, in some form, into the Code in 1697, 1782, 1836, 1860, 1882, and 1902. Also, it has not been rescinded, though there have been attempts.

WMP, You overlook that it could be the legislature just though that this was a worthwhile law. Okay, maybe not. But let me add this thought, why would a legislature with a 184 of 200 majority, in such a left leaning, religiously apathetic state be worried about repercussions from rescinding an “archaic law”? If they defeat every bill, year after year, designed to repeal the statute, doesn’t that add legitimacy to it. I know what you (and Deveyn S., and adam e.) will say. This is a simple case of the legislature not wanting to take action and deferring to the courts to strike the law down if it is ever used again. Right? Well I for one don’t think I can share such a pessimistic view of a party that calls itself Democrats. Why, next thing you know the legislative branch and executives (Democrats and Republicans alike) will always defer political issues to the judiciary merely to avoid a controversial or seemingly controversial vote or stand that may hamper a re-election bid or majority control. You three are so cynical!

Sam, thanks.

Mark N., Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 270, section 14, reads: “Whoever expectorates or spits upon any public sidewalk, or upon any place used exclusively or principally by pedestrians, or, except in receptacles provided for the purpose, in or upon any part of any city or town hall, any court house or court room, any public library or museum, any church or theatre, any lecture or music hall, any mill or factory, any hall of any tenement building occupied by five or more families, any school building, any ferry boat or steamboat, any railroad car or elevated railroad car, except a smoking car, any street railway car, any railroad or railway station or waiting room, or on any track, platform or sidewalk connected therewith, and included within the limits thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than twenty dollars.”

I’ll bet you knew that already.

Not so fast here, Chief. Whether the blasphemy law is constitutional depends on whether blaspheming is a fundamental right. Given Supreme Court jurisprudence over the past several decades (DKL’s Jesus syllogism notwithstanding) I may have a fundamental right to blaspheme, making this law decidedly unconsitutional. You overlook the non-Originalism scope of the 14th Amendment to your peril!

Obviously the major barrier for enforcement here is proving contumeliousity… people skirt the law all the time with blasphemy that is merely pejorative or exceptionable.

Can we quantify restitution in terms of Hail Marys?

nasa – apparently it’s been a sad day for 300 years…no, scratch that. Since the times of Adam

Tagor, forgive the lateness of this reply. I have been furiously attempting to come up with an argument to rebut yours. I never thought that anyone could be so clever as to use the 14th Amendment. Alas, I have found no line of reasoning that can counter the all powerful penumbra doctrine. I guess you win this one.

annegb, them’s fighten’ words!

Orwell, nice observation. I would think any demeaning comment for a believer, would be seen as contumelious. If you ever find yourself indicted for this crime pick your jury carefully.

ed42, interesting point. The answer, I would think, is that society is the victim. The legislature believes that imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or a fine of not more than three hundred dollars makes society whole. I’m guessing you disagree. Also, as Orwell points out, restitution may take many forms. Do you have a better idea?

nasamomdel, in my mind almost all laws are designed to create, or if you like induce, good behavior. Remember, we elect a government to make and enforce laws. Why do we do this? Well, to borrow from James Madison, “If men were angels, no government, would be necessary.” The Federalist No. 51.