Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Holding: Californias ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors is unconstitutional. The Court held that the law imposes a restriction on the content of protected speech and cannot satisfy strict scrutiny.
Judgment: Affirmed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia on June 27, 2011. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, which was joined by the Chief Justice Roberts. Justices Thomas and Breyer filed dissenting opinions.
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association : SCOTUSblog
From Article I
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
It says nothing about how long the army can exist, but you cannot fund it for more than two years without congress re-approving it.
You leave out several clauses.
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
First there is no such restriction on the navy.
Second, the army was meant to be drawn out of the state's militias.
Which means that the navy was meant to be permanent..the army was meant to be "as needed". And the fact that it was drawn out of state militias indicates that it was meant to be citizen based and de-centralized.
What part of those clauses forbids the keeping of a permanent federal army? The only restriction is it has to be funded every two years instead of a blanket "fund it forvever" provision.
At best the two clauses regarding miltias allows for the federal goverment to take control of them, just as the national guard can be federalized.
In the 10th annual history issue of Time is an article well worth reading.
It opens with this comment:
"One Document, Under Siege. Here are a few things the framers did not know about: WW II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The Atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion machine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga.
"People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today. What would the framers say about whether the ..."
If you have an opinon on raising the debt ceiling, the 14th Amendment, the War Powers Resolution or any of a number of current issues, this article will either reinforce or weaken your opinion.
The problem with America is that the Constitution isn't followed all that closely any more. If it was, there would be fewer troubles.
Do you have an example? I wonder, do you have any interest in reading the article?
We have a large standing army under federal control.
Yeah, but we haven't had "times of peace" since Reagan.
I read your article.
Its just another piece of leftist porpoganda intent on making the constitution a rubber band to wrap up a bunch of federal laws to control society with a huge big brother federal govt.
The constitituion is not flexible unless you amend it.
You leave out several clauses.
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
First there is no such restriction on the navy.
Second, the army was meant to be drawn out of the state's militias.
Which means that the navy was meant to be permanent..the army was meant to be "as needed". And the fact that it was drawn out of state militias indicates that it was meant to be citizen based and de-centralized.
What part of those clauses forbids the keeping of a permanent federal army? The only restriction is it has to be funded every two years instead of a blanket "fund it forvever" provision.
At best the two clauses regarding miltias allows for the federal goverment to take control of them, just as the national guard can be federalized.
Nothing.
Which is funny..because somehow you guys seem to think there are restrictions on General Welfare and Commerce clauses.
We have a large standing army under federal control.
Yeah, but we haven't had "times of peace" since Reagan.
Which is probably the result of a large standing army under federal control.
I read your article.
Its just another piece of leftist porpoganda intent on making the constitution a rubber band to wrap up a bunch of federal laws to control society with a huge big brother federal govt.
The constitituion is not flexible unless you amend it.
I think its ambiguity is its genius.
I read your article.
Its just another piece of leftist porpoganda intent on making the constitution a rubber band to wrap up a bunch of federal laws to control society with a huge big brother federal govt.
The constitituion is not flexible unless you amend it.
I think its ambiguity is its genius.
You been standing out in the penumbra too long. There's NOTHING ambiguous about it. It's a broken contract between a formerly free people and a weak central government. The Progressive Jihad on it has successfully nullified it. The fault is ours, not the documents
I think its ambiguity is its genius.
You been standing out in the penumbra too long. There's NOTHING ambiguous about it. It's a broken contract between a formerly free people and a weak central government. The Progressive Jihad on it has successfully nullified it. The fault is ours, not the documents
Damn Frank, you are as dumb as a box of hammers. Nearly every post thus far suggests your wrong; interpretatons and opinions very among Constitutional scholars and even idiots such as yourself.
And idiot, no where in any post did I blame the document. I said, fool, that its abiguity was its genius. Of course a moron such as yourself wouldn't understand and not because you're willfully ignorant, you're too stupid to read, absorb and learn.
You been standing out in the penumbra too long. There's NOTHING ambiguous about it. It's a broken contract between a formerly free people and a weak central government. The Progressive Jihad on it has successfully nullified it. The fault is ours, not the documents
Damn Frank, you are as dumb as a box of hammers. Nearly every post thus far suggests your wrong; interpretatons and opinions very among Constitutional scholars and even idiots such as yourself.
And idiot, no where in any post did I blame the document. I said, fool, that its abiguity was its genius. Of course a moron such as yourself wouldn't understand and not because you're willfully ignorant, you're too stupid to read, absorb and learn.
There's no ambiguity in it at all, your flaccid insults notwithstanding.
Progressives have successfully nullified it through the Courts.
Damn Frank, you are as dumb as a box of hammers. Nearly every post thus far suggests your wrong; interpretatons and opinions very among Constitutional scholars and even idiots such as yourself.
And idiot, no where in any post did I blame the document. I said, fool, that its abiguity was its genius. Of course a moron such as yourself wouldn't understand and not because you're willfully ignorant, you're too stupid to read, absorb and learn.
There's no ambiguity in it at all, your flaccid insults notwithstanding.
Progressives have successfully nullified it through the Courts.
Insult? They're descriptions, the only insult was to the box of hammers, fool.
The problem with America is that the Constitution isn't followed all that closely any more. If it was, there would be fewer troubles.
Do you have an example? I wonder, do you have any interest in reading the article?
if the constitution was followed we wouldn't be at war in libya.
if the constitution was followed we wouldn't have the patriot act
if the constitution was followed we wouldn't have medicare part D
if the constitution was followed we wouldn't have a massive national debt due to federal entitlement programs.
there are 4.
The Constitution mattered today, for example:
One resource on an issue of controversy is linked below. The issue, the 2nd Amendment.
Constitutional Topic: The Second Amendment - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Which is probably the result of a large standing army under federal control.
Damn Frank, you are as dumb as a box of hammers. Nearly every post thus far suggests your wrong;
