Constitution???? What Constitution?

[JakeStarkey]

False analogy. Personal opinion is protected. Subject to the commerce clause governs public association in business. No one gets to advertise a service to the public that denies access to people based on civil rights categories.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The most basic, fundamental of freedoms....free speech....has been throttled by Progressives and Liberals.

I can prove that ...effortlessly.

a. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Need I identify the source of the above?
Is an explanation of the importance of same to America necessary?



2. Politics and the rule of inverse effects:
The increase in Progressive power is directly proportional to the demise of American values.
Those values, memorialized in the Constitution, are the bane of Progressive doctrine.

a. Beginning with their embrace of German political theory, wherein the state is preeminent, Progressives have done everything they could to strangle the and shred the Constitution.

b. "Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. …"
Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5]




3.Rather than Germany, let's compare Progressive tactics with one they are more directly related to....
'Stalin once asked a meeting of interrogators, "How much does the Soviet Union weigh?" Of course, he was reminding them to use the full weight of the state to break suspects.'
Static Age Stalin the Terrible



Would you like to see the weight of Progressive government applied to individual liberty?

"State Silences Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbian Couple, Fines Them $135K" Ore. Silences Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbians

Far from commensurate with the harm done to the Lesbian cake-eaters....$135,000 puts an end to the livelihoods of the bakers.
But that was not enough.....the state decided to obviate the United States Constitution: "In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs."


"... make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech,...."

So what, exactly, can't you say?

Your education coming right up!


During the Democrat Lyndon Johnson administration, basically FDR-redux, the freedom of religious leaders to avail themselves of free speech was restricted.

4. " Churches and other nonprofits are strictly prohibited from engaging in political campaigning. This prohibition stems from the requirements of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”).

In order to remain tax-exempt under 501(c)(3), churches must abide by strict guidelines that prohibit election activity.

Churches cannot engage in any of the following activities under the federal tax law:

· Cannot endorse or oppose candidates for public office

· Cannot make any communication—either from the pulpit, in a newsletter, or church bulletin—which expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a candidate for public office

· Cannot ask a candidate for public office to sign a pledge or other promise to support a particular issue
Churches and Political Lobbying Activities - Freedom From Religion Foundation




"... make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech,...."

 

[Obiwan]

PoliticalChic

This part of your post is particularly interesting, since Democrats campaign in black churches on a regular basis....

In order to remain tax-exempt under 501(c)(3), churches must abide by strict guidelines that prohibit election activity.

Churches cannot engage in any of the following activities under the federal tax law:

· Cannot endorse or oppose candidates for public office

· Cannot make any communication—either from the pulpit, in a newsletter, or church bulletin—which expresslyadvocates for the election or defeat of a candidate for public office

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChic

This part of your post is particularly interesting, since Democrats campaign in black churches on a regular basis....

In order to remain tax-exempt under 501(c)(3), churches must abide by strict guidelines that prohibit election activity.

Churches cannot engage in any of the following activities under the federal tax law:

· Cannot endorse or oppose candidates for public office

· Cannot make any communication—either from the pulpit, in a newsletter, or church bulletin—which expresslyadvocates for the election or defeat of a candidate for public office

You hit the nail on their heads.

Bro.....you and I both know that restrictions, penalties, punishments, vituperation are reserved for Republicans/conservatives/traditionalists/Americans.

No attention will be paid if the 'communicating' is in a direction of which the Liberals/Progressives/Democrats approve.


Case in point, the IRS 'investigation' into Jesse Jackson's bookkeeping.
"....a decade ago, when the IRS did not audit Jesse Jackson’s left-of-center organization, the Citizenship Education Fund, whose tax returns were a massive red flag."
Jesse Jackson The Politicized IRS The American Conservative



Rectitude, honesty, and ethics are not requirements for Leftists.
As you know, one of the most invidious Leftists on the board calls himself 'Righwinger.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

Isn't it amazing how the less astute have become fascists without even acknowledging it to themselves?

currently women are free to say "i'm pregnant and need to get an abortion."

currently women are free to say "i'd like to raise my child by myself."

currently women are free to say "i'd like to raise my child with my wife."

and fascists like YOU would like to create legislation to control these women.

Like the three holes in the ground....well, well, well.

I gave you a chance to prove you aren't a lying gutter snipe....

"This will be a simple test to see how much of a lying gutter snipe you are.....

All you have to do is provide any such posts of mine that state what you claim: "and fascists like YOU would like to create legislation to control these women."

Ready?

GO!"


....and....NOTHING!

You know....like your integrity. A big fat zero.

So....you were lying about me in your post, huh.


So......how long have you been a Liberal?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Would a 'constitutional expert' like Barack Obama.....that was a joke.....appoint an advocate of restrictions on free speech to the Supreme Court???

You betcha'!



5. "In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."




In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.




That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

[Anyone puzzled by Progressives' motives for banning speech?]


Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."


["... make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech,...." Another fascist who doens't seem to understand 'make NO law'...]





If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
The Daley Gator Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut



God Bless America.....I miss it sooooo much.

 

[Valerie]

Isn't it amazing how the less astute have become fascists without even acknowledging it to themselves?

currently women are free to say "i'm pregnant and need to get an abortion."

currently women are free to say "i'd like to raise my child by myself."

currently women are free to say "i'd like to raise my child with my wife."

and fascists like YOU would like to create legislation to control these women.

Like the three holes in the ground....well, well, well.

I gave you a chance to prove you aren't a lying gutter snipe....

"This will be a simple test to see how much of a lying gutter snipe you are.....

All you have to do is provide any such posts of mine that state what you claim: "and fascists like YOU would like to create legislation to control these women."

Ready?

GO!"


....and....NOTHING!

You know....like your integrity. A big fat zero.

So....you were lying about me in your post, huh.


So......how long have you been a Liberal?

actually, nutjob, i'm busy at work and was in the middle of a webinar.

that said, i don't jump thru hoops for dishonest hacks like you. i know i could dig up posts but i don't care enough bother. those of us who've been reading your partisan tripe for years know what i posted struck has a nerve with YOU.

 

[Valerie]

OMFG the judge told the jury they are not permitted to SPEAK about this case to anyone..

OMFG a gag order? my free speech rights have been violated!


derrrrrrrr

 

[Valerie]

No law, state or federal, forbids discrimination in a general sense.

Public Accommodations and Religious Freedom Restoration Acts - The Atlantic

 

[Valerie]

in reality, gag orders occur all the time...sometimes they might be questionable or troublesome enough to be challenged, but most times perfectly appropriate and routine within our system of justice which has built in legal mechanisms to remedy any and every circumstance in order to insure our constitution is ultimately upheld...


"Constitution???? What Constitution? "



hysterical hyperbolic cries of FASCISM over pending cases in the daily news are hysterical.



just watch, I can prove that ^ ...effortlessly. >

 

[PoliticalChic]

Isn't it amazing how the less astute have become fascists without even acknowledging it to themselves?

currently women are free to say "i'm pregnant and need to get an abortion."

currently women are free to say "i'd like to raise my child by myself."

currently women are free to say "i'd like to raise my child with my wife."

and fascists like YOU would like to create legislation to control these women.

Like the three holes in the ground....well, well, well.

I gave you a chance to prove you aren't a lying gutter snipe....

"This will be a simple test to see how much of a lying gutter snipe you are.....

All you have to do is provide any such posts of mine that state what you claim: "and fascists like YOU would like to create legislation to control these women."

Ready?

GO!"


....and....NOTHING!

You know....like your integrity. A big fat zero.

So....you were lying about me in your post, huh.


So......how long have you been a Liberal?

actually, nutjob, i'm busy at work and was in the middle of a webinar.

that said, i don't jump thru hoops for dishonest hacks like you. i know i could dig up posts but i don't care enough bother. those of us who've been reading your partisan tripe for years know what i posted struck has a nerve with YOU.

".... i know i could dig up posts but i don't care enough bother. those of us who've been reading your partisan tripe for years know what i posted struck has a nerve with YOU."

Actually...no, you liar....you stuck your foot down your throat.

You will not be able to find any such posts of mine that support this:
" "and fascists like YOU would like to create legislation to control these women."


Turns out, the appellation "dishonest hacks like you" came back to bite you in the butt.



The fact is, if you were given an enema, you could be buried in a matchbox.

But....I will allow you to apologize and beg forgiveness....

 

[PoliticalChic]

in reality, gag orders occur all the time...sometimes they might be questionable or troublesome enough to be challenged, but most times perfectly appropriate and routine within our system of justice which has built in legal mechanisms to remedy any and every circumstance in order to insure our constitution is ultimately upheld...


"Constitution???? What Constitution? "



hysterical hyperbolic cries of FASCISM over pending cases in the daily news are hysterical.



just watch, I can prove that ^ ...effortlessly. >

You're begging for an education???

No prob......here it comes......I'll do it effortlessly:



Gag orders: unconstitutional
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2165&context=faculty_scholarship


A couple more examples......

6. Regardless of what judges call them or who initiates them, gag orders interfere with your efforts to gather and disseminate news. Orders prohibiting participants in a case from commenting to reporters or the public also infringe on the First Amendment rights of the individuals gagged. At least one court has ruled gag orders on trial participants are as serious as those on the press and subject to the same strict test for constitutionality.
Introduction -- What to do if a court issues a gag order Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press



7. ".... the Obama State Department has been quietly moving ahead with a proposal that could censor online speech related to firearms.

While ITAR (the International Traffic in Arms Regulations)and its regulations have not been a concern in the past, as far as constraining or limiting “material posted on publicly available websites,” there are some within the current State Department arguing that “anything published online in a generally-accessible location has essentially been ‘exported,'” simply by virtue of being posted, and is therefore under the purview of ITAR.

The proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the ‘authorization’ of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible. Obama To Circumvent Congress With Gag Order On Firearm Coverage


What the heck.....at least we'll always have Pravda.

 

[Valerie]

why don't you address the point of my original post rather than obfuscating and hanging your hat on making things personal all the time?

you know, like let's make pretend you support reproductive choice, single mothers, and gay couples...

now, can you tell me why you are not concerned for those other people - not you of course - but those other people who would deny those individuals their freedoms. why do you not cry about those FASCISTS on those issues?

 

[Valerie]

Isn't it amazing how the less astute have become fascists without even acknowledging it to themselves?

currently women are free to say "i'm pregnant and need to get an abortion."

currently women are free to say "i'd like to raise my child by myself."

currently women are free to say "i'd like to raise my child with my wife."

and fascists like YOU would like to create legislation to control these women.

 

[PoliticalChic]

why don't you address the point of my original post rather than obfuscating and hanging your hat on making things personal all the time?

you know, like let's make pretend you support reproductive choice, single mothers, and gay couples...

now, can you tell me why you are not concerned for those other people - not you of course - but those other people who would deny those individuals their freedoms. why do you not cry about those FASCISTS on those issues?

Looka you!!!!

In full retreat!


Now it's "you know, like let's make pretend you support reproductive choice, single mothers, and gay couples..."

No longer:
"and fascists like YOU would like to create legislation to control these women."


I beat you like a rented mule, huh?

 

[Valerie]

sure you did, now how 'bout you address your selective outrage over supposed FASCISM.

 

[Nosmo King]

Gag orders are unconstitutional? Prove it.

 

[Dot Com]

“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders (Aaron and Melissa Klein) to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,”

so they don't get to advertise that they discriminate... what's the problem?

exactly. Whats the BFD?

The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders (a possible person known as Dot Com) to cease and desist from publishing, posting, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication regarding politics or religion"

What's the BFD?

Debating FAIL!!!

 

[Dot Com]

False analogy. Personal opinion is protected. Subject to the commerce clause governs public association in business. No one gets to advertise a service to the public that denies access to people based on civil rights categories.

yep. The Court realized that was settled by the 14th amendment but not our resident eXtreme rw'ers.

 

[Camp]

in reality, gag orders occur all the time...sometimes they might be questionable or troublesome enough to be challenged, but most times perfectly appropriate and routine within our system of justice which has built in legal mechanisms to remedy any and every circumstance in order to insure our constitution is ultimately upheld...


"Constitution???? What Constitution? "



hysterical hyperbolic cries of FASCISM over pending cases in the daily news are hysterical.



just watch, I can prove that ^ ...effortlessly. >

You're begging for an education???

No prob......here it comes......I'll do it effortlessly:



Gag orders: unconstitutional
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2165&context=faculty_scholarship


A couple more examples......

6. Regardless of what judges call them or who initiates them, gag orders interfere with your efforts to gather and disseminate news. Orders prohibiting participants in a case from commenting to reporters or the public also infringe on the First Amendment rights of the individuals gagged. At least one court has ruled gag orders on trial participants are as serious as those on the press and subject to the same strict test for constitutionality.
Introduction -- What to do if a court issues a gag order Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press



7. ".... the Obama State Department has been quietly moving ahead with a proposal that could censor online speech related to firearms.

While ITAR (the International Traffic in Arms Regulations)and its regulations have not been a concern in the past, as far as constraining or limiting “material posted on publicly available websites,” there are some within the current State Department arguing that “anything published online in a generally-accessible location has essentially been ‘exported,'” simply by virtue of being posted, and is therefore under the purview of ITAR.

The proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the ‘authorization’ of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible. Obama To Circumvent Congress With Gag Order On Firearm Coverage


What the heck.....at least we'll always have Pravda.

Here we are with the usual refusal to acknowledge that your the concept of your thread has been destroyed by pointing out that no gag order was ever issued in this case. A cease and desist order was issued instructing the party to stop breaking a law. You simply refuse to acknowledge that refute and debunking of your thread. Others have challenged your concept even by giving you the benefit of distorting the cease and desist order into a gag order. I am not being as kind. I have called you out on the misuse of the phrase "gag order". I am calling it a lie. There never was a gag order. The premise of the OP is fraudulent and hence everything that follows is tainted and voided as contaminated with your lie.