RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 9:36:00 PM)

I don't think it gives a lot of wiggle room really, it gives justification for laws punishing unpeaceful gatherings, but the authorities can't know in advance that a given rally or protest or whatever will be peaceable or not, so that isn't a justification for preventing one, so the permits still seem to be on thin ice constitutionally speaking.

And I am unsure of where I stand on commercial speech. Our Charter is currently interpreted to mean that false advertising is protected speech. And that doesn't sit well with me.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 11:10:20 PM)

False advertising is protected speech? Really?
By wiggle room, I mean it gave the Court enough room to justify a decision they wanted to make. They do it all the time, creating new rights out of whole cloth. You can't find any mention of a right to privacy in the constitution, but that right is the basis for Roe V Wade, and any number of other cases. They have used the Commerce Clause to justify civil rights laws, even though on the surface, it wouldn't appear to have anything to do with it. You probably don't agree with that, so you are a strict constructionist. A lot of good things wouldn't have happened if they weren't willing to stretch the language.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 11:16:43 PM)

Slv, no derail intended, but have you read Heller? The attorneys from both side brought in linguists as expert witnesses when the case was tried. Tey also used historians. Their purpose was to determine what every word meant in the 2nd. It is a really, really tight decision, and the definitions of words in the 18th century is never going to change.
The Court obviously allows some regulation, it isn't an absolute right. Cases in the future will be about determining what regulations are reasonable, not what the whole thing means. They already decided that.
quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

What do the founders intend with the word "arms".
Clearly the Court has already agreed that government has not only a right but an absolute need to "infringe" a citizens right to posses certain classifications of weapons......while a strict constitutionalist might make a specious argument that the amendment makes no such distinction.



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 11:39:21 PM)

quote:

False advertising is protected speech? Really?
Technically yes, because our Charter not only specifies freedom of speech, but also freedom of expression, and that's how it has been interpreted. However, the Government can still prevent it using Section 1, and if need be Section 33, the infamous "not withstanding clause".

Our Constitution includes provisions for abridging or even suspending certain rights, so they are interpreted much more broadly than yours.

quote:

By wiggle room, I mean it gave the Court enough room to justify a decision they wanted to make.
OK, I see what you mean, I can see that use. I don't really like it, but I can see it.



Real0ne -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 11:55:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

False advertising is protected speech? Really?
By wiggle room, I mean it gave the Court enough room to justify a decision they wanted to make. They do it all the time, creating new rights out of whole cloth. You can't find any mention of a right to privacy in the constitution, but that right is the basis for Roe V Wade, and any number of other cases. They have used the Commerce Clause to justify civil rights laws, even though on the surface, it wouldn't appear to have anything to do with it. You probably don't agree with that, so you are a strict constructionist. A lot of good things wouldn't have happened if they weren't willing to stretch the language.


I have yet to see any court give anyone more rights, they always usurp them instead.

That is covered here:

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

of course I wont get into the crooked courts decisions around the civil war era that stole your unalienable rights and demoted you to civil rights.

I dont knwo about you but I never authorized such bullshit and I DO NOT CONSENT.]

what you are talking about would sue out as a "trespass on the person".



Real0ne -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 12:02:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

quote:

False advertising is protected speech? Really?
Technically yes, because our Charter not only specifies freedom of speech, but also freedom of expression, and that's how it has been interpreted. However, the Government can still prevent it using Section 1, and if need be Section 33, the infamous "not withstanding clause".

Our Constitution includes provisions for abridging or even suspending certain rights, so they are interpreted much more broadly than yours.

quote:

By wiggle room, I mean it gave the Court enough room to justify a decision they wanted to make.
OK, I see what you mean, I can see that use. I don't really like it, but I can see it.



thats my whole point about syntax terrorism!

the king stood up one day and proudly proclaimed "we have abolished feudalism" when all they did was changed the words from subinfeudination to substitution by grantor grantee arrangement.

Bottom line that same royal pyramid scam is still perfectly in place.

In fact the words changed so much in america we dont even have the proper words in our dictionaries to define it for a court!

You know what they say about no remedy eh....



Real0ne -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 12:21:29 AM)

On the contrary it IS an absolute right.  It was an absolute right 1000 years before the constitution here and the mudderland, angloland.

It is an unalienable to bear arms by whatever standards are the present form of armament.

They tremble in their heels now days that nukes are the size of fucking baseballs.  However even if ya wanted one they start at around a cool 1/4 mil.

You are looking at civil rights not unalienable rights wich they have long abandoned adjudication in the US corporate courts in exchange for commercial and civil rights of the MOB under the heading of policy, which of course is deMOBcratic.

They have established their own religion abandoning humanity with and by forcing statutory athiesitic commercialism upon us. 

It is all about money after all.




quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Slv, no derail intended, but have you read Heller? The attorneys from both side brought in linguists as expert witnesses when the case was tried. Tey also used historians. Their purpose was to determine what every word meant in the 2nd. It is a really, really tight decision, and the definitions of words in the 18th century is never going to change.
The Court obviously allows some regulation, it isn't an absolute right. Cases in the future will be about determining what regulations are reasonable, not what the whole thing means. They already decided that.
quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

What do the founders intend with the word "arms".
Clearly the Court has already agreed that government has not only a right but an absolute need to "infringe" a citizens right to posses certain classifications of weapons......while a strict constitutionalist might make a specious argument that the amendment makes no such distinction.




hot4bondage -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 7:20:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kat321

Concerning freedom of speech.....

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.  -Oliver Wendell Holmes

Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47 (1919)



This was the standard until 1991, when Reinquist's court ruled 5-4 that nude dancing in a bar is not a protected form of expression. So, the First Amendment offers far less protection than it used to. Twenty years later, and I still get mad as hell thinking about it!
[sm=anger.gif]



slvemike4u -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 8:56:11 AM)

I would like to apologize to everyone for mucking up this thread last night.....I fired off some pithy little posts that did not rise to the level of the subject matter.....apologies to all.
I really dislike coming off as an idiot [:D]



Iamsemisweet -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 9:57:42 AM)

I didn't think you were mucking anything up.  Compared to some of the comments on P & R, yours were pure genius.  LOL



slvemike4u -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 10:05:54 AM)

Aww thanks ...been a long time since anyone accused me of "pure genius", even if your accusation came with a mighty big qualifier [:D][:D]



Iamsemisweet -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 10:16:02 AM)

Damnation with faint praise?



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 10:28:15 AM)

OK, if you say so, but I don't see anything to apologize for Mike. Not even a hijack, sure you were talking about a different amendment, but you were still on the general topic of constitutional interpretations being used to limit rights, so it's all good.



slvemike4u -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 10:30:05 AM)

Lol,something like that.
By the way,and at the risk of further proving I am an idiot....wasn't the Heller decision specific to Federal districts,while McDonald sought to expand it to the states?



Iamsemisweet -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 1:10:25 PM)

You aren't an idiot. I still don't see what posts you felt were idiotic.
Yes, that is more or less the way it shook down.  The nitty gritty interpretation of the 2nd came in Heller, though.
i



mnottertail -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 1:11:14 PM)

Hey, if the feller wants to be an idiot, let him be an idiot. So many out here fight their calling tooth and nail.



slvemike4u -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 1:12:41 PM)

I stand corrected...an actual idiot just showed up [:D]




Just kidding of course,me and Ron are fine.....



Iamsemisweet -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 1:14:23 PM)

Not only are you not an idiot, you have a sense of humor!  How refreshing.



mnottertail -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 1:15:03 PM)

LOL. A purality of idiots here. (In keeping with the new moderation rules) I will occasionally engage in self-deprecating humor, but I will not mean it, of course.

[8D]

Can politics get their own emoticons?

Maybe a christ getting nailed to the cross for the religious posts?



dovie -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/28/2011 2:34:02 PM)

Just came by to see what Ron wrote...cause I luvz me some Ron and have a low tolerance for imposter syndrome folks. [sm=alien.gif]

dovie



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875