Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/27/2011 9:36:00 PM   
HeatherMcLeather


Posts: 2559
Joined: 5/21/2011
From: The dog house
Status: offline 		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.


< Message edited by HeatherMcLeather -- 9/27/2011 9:40:48 PM >

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/27/2011 11:10:20 PM   
Iamsemisweet


Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to HeatherMcLeather)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/27/2011 11:16:43 PM   
Iamsemisweet


Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline 		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.


_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/27/2011 11:39:21 PM   
HeatherMcLeather


Posts: 2559
Joined: 5/21/2011
From: The dog house
Status: offline
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.


< Message edited by HeatherMcLeather -- 9/27/2011 11:40:57 PM >

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/27/2011 11:55:16 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
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".

< Message edited by Real0ne -- 9/27/2011 11:57:38 PM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 12:02:21 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
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....


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to HeatherMcLeather)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 12:21:29 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline 		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.



_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 7:20:29 AM   
hot4bondage


Posts: 403
Joined: 7/29/2009
Status: offline
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!

(in reply to kat321)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 8:56:11 AM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to hot4bondage)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 9:57:42 AM   
Iamsemisweet


Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline 		I didn't think you were mucking anything up.  Compared to some of the comments on P & R, yours were pure genius.  LOL

_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 10:05:54 AM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		Aww thanks ...been a long time since anyone accused me of "pure genius", even if your accusation came with a mighty big qualifier

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to Iamsemisweet)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 10:16:02 AM   
Iamsemisweet


Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline 		Damnation with faint praise?

_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 10:28:15 AM   
HeatherMcLeather


Posts: 2559
Joined: 5/21/2011
From: The dog house
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 10:30:05 AM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		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?


_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to Iamsemisweet)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 1:10:25 PM   
Iamsemisweet


Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline 		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


_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 1:11:14 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Hey, if the feller wants to be an idiot, let him be an idiot. So many out here fight their calling tooth and nail.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Iamsemisweet)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 1:12:41 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		I stand corrected...an actual idiot just showed up




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

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 1:14:23 PM   
Iamsemisweet


Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline 		Not only are you not an idiot, you have a sense of humor!  How refreshing.

_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 1:15:03 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		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.



Can politics get their own emoticons?

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

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. - 9/28/2011 2:34:02 PM   
dovie


Posts: 1211
Status: offline 		Just came by to see what Ron wrote...cause I luvz me some Ron and have a low tolerance for imposter syndrome folks.

dovie

_____________________________

"Sometimes love is a nice long lick!"

gentle dove with 38's *the kind you shoot with*


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.109