Ronald Reagan Profile In Alzheimer's Award Goes To: Justice Kennedy

who said anything about outside groups NOT being allowed to participate?

That would be Congress. They specifically banned any ads, movies, or books by any outside group that mentioned any candidate during the months leading up to an election. IS there some reason you are talking about a decision that overturned a law you claim to support when you don't even know what that law actually said?



To my patience? Undoubtedly, but God's grace keeps me going.

the real world data shows that money does indeed corrupt. have you bothered to read what Justice Douchebagh Kennedy has written:

“We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption


Power corrupts more. Maybe we should require anyone who holds political office to go to prison as long as they hold office.


Limits not banning


get a grip

The US has always had limits on speech


The US has always had limits on speech? Like what?
 
I'm going to bet your con law professors also taught you that we're a common law country and that the constitution and the caselaw have equal weight.

Absent caselaw, "unreasonable search and seizure" has no meaning. What constitutes a reasonable search is only defined by the caselaw.

All searches without a warrant are unreasonable, and any search, even with a warrant, that is not supported by facts is also unreasonable. I don't need case law to tell me that.

What is a fundamental right?

Answer: it's defined by the caselaw. Marriage happens to be one. The right to govern one's own body and use contraception if one wishes and terminate a pregancy within a given timeperiod is another.

What is "commerce"? Answer: it's defined by the caselaw.

So, when the constitution says something like all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside if doesn't actually define a fundamental right unless a court later says it is? How about when it says the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people?

I find that hard to believe, not to mention downright frightening.

What is the "general welfare". Answer: it's defined by the caselaw.

Actually, it is defined by context in the constitution, which is why anyone with a brain knows that general welfare doesn't apply to anything but the power of the government to spend money on itself.

Is that imperfect. Yep... just like Citizens United is a horrible decision... and Dred Scott was a horrible decision... and Ledbetter was a horrible decision...

Why is citizens United a horrible decision? What is wrong with letting people get together and say things about politicians, even during elections? Why shouldn't the people who made "Hillary, the Movie" be able to show it? Better yet, why shouldn't HBO be able to run "Game Change" even if Palin decides to run for office?

The court has to fix it's screw ups sometimes.

It is still working on some from more than 100 years ago, I don't expect miracles. Until it does, I will keep fighting for my actual rights, not just the ones the government says I have, that way the court can't decide to take any of them away.

But it's sure better than a bunch of "originalists"...

Like the origimnalists who decided that the 14th Amendment actually gave Congress the power to pass civil rights laws? God forbid we get any more people like that.

you want to know what was "original"?

slavery
women not having the vote
only white, male, landed gentry voting
interracial marriage being prohibited... well, heck with being prohibited, blacks were 3/5 of a person.

i'm thinking that's not the world you want to live in today. i know i don't.

All of which have actually been changed by Amending the Constitution, which gives originalists all the text they need to enforce laws that implement those rights, which is exactly why that is the world I want to live in, even if you prefer one where the government decides what is, and is not, a right.
 
I'm going to bet your con law professors also taught you that we're a common law country and that the constitution and the caselaw have equal weight.

Absent caselaw, "unreasonable search and seizure" has no meaning. What constitutes a reasonable search is only defined by the caselaw.

All searches without a warrant are unreasonable, and any search, even with a warrant, that is not supported by facts is also unreasonable. I don't need case law to tell me that.

Uhm. No.

Searches conducted without a warrant MIGHT be unreasonable. But they need not necessarily be unreasonable. So, in fairness, you DO need case law to straighten that out.
 
That would be Congress. They specifically banned any ads, movies, or books by any outside group that mentioned any candidate during the months leading up to an election. IS there some reason you are talking about a decision that overturned a law you claim to support when you don't even know what that law actually said?



To my patience? Undoubtedly, but God's grace keeps me going.



Power corrupts more. Maybe we should require anyone who holds political office to go to prison as long as they hold office.

Limits not banning


get a grip

The US has always had limits on speech

The US has always had limits on speech? Like what?

Like the prohibition on yelling fire (when there is no fire) in a crowded theater.

Like advocating for the forceful overthrow of the United States government.

Etc.

Also, although not criminal in nature, there are also laws prohibiting (and civilly sanctioning) libel and slander etc.

And back to criminal: filing a false report. Perjury. Etc. Just words. But not protected speech.
 
Limits not banning


get a grip

The US has always had limits on speech

The US has always had limits on speech? Like what?

Like the prohibition on yelling fire (when there is no fire) in a crowded theater.

Like advocating for the forceful overthrow of the United States government.

Etc.

Also, although not criminal in nature, there are also laws prohibiting (and civilly sanctioning) libel and slander etc.

And back to criminal: filing a false report. Perjury. Etc. Just words. But not protected speech.

there are also limits on commercial speech. (although I'm not sure if Metromedia has been modified since i last checked).

Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego - 453 U.S. 490 (1981) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

SIGN REGULATION AND FREE SPEECH:
 
All searches without a warrant are unreasonable, and any search, even with a warrant, that is not supported by facts is also unreasonable. I don't need case law to tell me that.

no. once again you don't have a clue.

there are exceptions to the requirement of a warrant. this is a helpful guide published as part of police training

Exigent circumstances
Stop and frisk
Search incident to arrest
Custodial
Plain view
Vehicle
Border
Open fields
Abandoned property
Consent
Administrative
Probation search
Protective sweep

for an explanation as to each in terms simple enough for you to understand:

Search Warrant Exceptions
 
I'm going to bet your con law professors also taught you that we're a common law country and that the constitution and the caselaw have equal weight.

Absent caselaw, "unreasonable search and seizure" has no meaning. What constitutes a reasonable search is only defined by the caselaw.

All searches without a warrant are unreasonable, and any search, even with a warrant, that is not supported by facts is also unreasonable. I don't need case law to tell me that.

Uhm. No.

Searches conducted without a warrant MIGHT be unreasonable. But they need not necessarily be unreasonable. So, in fairness, you DO need case law to straighten that out.

Actually, since the crown had a habit of issuing general warrants that allowed soldiers multiple homes without any cause whatever, and the people who wrote the constitution actually experienced that, they might tend to disagree with you. The only thing case law does in this area is expand the power of the government to ignore people's rights and trample liberty.

Can You Handle the Truth? The Framers Preserved Common-Law Criminal Arrest and Search Rules in 'Due Process of Law' - 'Fourth Amendment Reasonableness' is Only a Modern, Destructive, Judicial Myth by Thomas Davies :: SSRN
 
Limits not banning


get a grip

The US has always had limits on speech

The US has always had limits on speech? Like what?

Like the prohibition on yelling fire (when there is no fire) in a crowded theater.

Like advocating for the forceful overthrow of the United States government.

Etc.

Also, although not criminal in nature, there are also laws prohibiting (and civilly sanctioning) libel and slander etc.

And back to criminal: filing a false report. Perjury. Etc. Just words. But not protected speech.

Why do I have to keep repeating this? Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not a free speech issue, and never was. Neither is making a false accusation against another person. None of those are limits on speech, they are acknowledgments that rights do not extend to damaging other people.
 
All searches without a warrant are unreasonable, and any search, even with a warrant, that is not supported by facts is also unreasonable. I don't need case law to tell me that.

no. once again you don't have a clue.

there are exceptions to the requirement of a warrant. this is a helpful guide published as part of police training

Exigent circumstances
Stop and frisk
Search incident to arrest
Custodial
Plain view
Vehicle
Border
Open fields
Abandoned property
Consent
Administrative
Probation search
Protective sweep

for an explanation as to each in terms simple enough for you to understand:

Search Warrant Exceptions

Not a clue? They are called exceptions because the court had to invent them in order to expand the power of government, not because they are reasonable. By the way, consent is the same as a warrant in law, not an exception to one.
 
why are you so stuck on stupid?
All searches without a warrant are unreasonable, and any search, even with a warrant, that is not supported by facts is also unreasonable. I don't need case law to tell me that.

only as a general rule

We all (people with brains) know in certain cases police can legally conduct a search without first obtaining a warrant.

===
just like Ronald Reagan you have your own reality:

November 13, 1986 -- in his first public statement about the allegations of secret arms-for-hostages negotiations with Iran

"In spite of the wildly speculative and false stories of arms for hostages and alleged ransom payments, we did not -- repeat did not -- trade weapons or anything else for hostages nor will we."


March 3, 1987 -- from a televised address in which he admitted to the findings of the Tower Commission

"A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not."
 
Last edited:
funny... i think there are enough nutbar "originalists" on the Court.

just sayin'

I don't.

Just answerin'.

It's not BEING a nutbar to argue that the Constitution actually means what it says.

I'm going to bet your con law professors also taught you that we're a common law country and that the constitution and the caselaw have equal weight.

Absent caselaw, "unreasonable search and seizure" has no meaning. What constitutes a reasonable search is only defined by the caselaw.

What is a fundamental right?

Answer: it's defined by the caselaw. Marriage happens to be one. The right to govern one's own body and use contraception if one wishes and terminate a pregancy within a given timeperiod is another.

What is "commerce"? Answer: it's defined by the caselaw.

What is the "general welfare". Answer: it's defined by the caselaw.

Is that imperfect. Yep... just like Citizens United is a horrible decision... and Dred Scott was a horrible decision... and Ledbetter was a horrible decision...

The court has to fix it's screw ups sometimes.

But it's sure better than a bunch of "originalists"...

you want to know what was "original"?

slavery
women not having the vote
only white, male, landed gentry voting
interracial marriage being prohibited... well, heck with being prohibited, blacks were 3/5 of a person.

i'm thinking that's not the world you want to live in today. i know i don't
.


Most of that was changed by Constitutional amendment not your stupid "case law" one thing we do have in this country are too many liberal Lawyers. How about foreign law? should that be considered too? Give me a break... Scalia makes all those liberal justices look like the idiots they are.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRKgOjNPxIM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRKgOjNPxIM[/ame]
 
Last edited:
why are you so stuck on stupid?
All searches without a warrant are unreasonable, and any search, even with a warrant, that is not supported by facts is also unreasonable. I don't need case law to tell me that.

only as a general rule

We all (people with brains) know in certain cases police can legally conduct a search without first obtaining a warrant.

===
just like Ronald Reagan you have your own reality:

November 13, 1986 -- in his first public statement about the allegations of secret arms-for-hostages negotiations with Iran

"In spite of the wildly speculative and false stories of arms for hostages and alleged ransom payments, we did not -- repeat did not -- trade weapons or anything else for hostages nor will we."


March 3, 1987 -- from a televised address in which he admitted to the findings of the Tower Commission

"A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not."

Go back and read my posts, then point out where I asserted that it is always illegal to search without a warrant. Go ahead, I can wait.


:eusa_whistle:


Can't find anything, can you? The reason for that is actually pretty simple, I understand the difference between stating an informed opinion, which I did, and talking about what is legal and illegal. Did you know that, in some countries, it is actually legal to arrest people without a warrant, and locking them up without a trial? Are you aware that, under the NDAA, it is actually legal to do that right here in the US? Does the fact that it is legal make it right?

Not in my opinion, but if you are willing to let the government define right and wrong by deciding what is, and is not, legal, don't be surprised if you end up in a country where it is legal to kill you without a trial.
 
funny... i think there are enough nutbar "originalists" on the Court.

just sayin'

I don't.

Just answerin'.

It's not BEING a nutbar to argue that the Constitution actually means what it says.

I'm going to bet your con law professors also taught you that we're a common law country and that the constitution and the caselaw have equal weight.

Absent caselaw, "unreasonable search and seizure" has no meaning. What constitutes a reasonable search is only defined by the caselaw.

What is a fundamental right?

Answer: it's defined by the caselaw. Marriage happens to be one. The right to govern one's own body and use contraception if one wishes and terminate a pregancy within a given timeperiod is another.

What is "commerce"? Answer: it's defined by the caselaw.

What is the "general welfare". Answer: it's defined by the caselaw.

Is that imperfect. Yep... just like Citizens United is a horrible decision... and Dred Scott was a horrible decision... and Ledbetter was a horrible decision...

The court has to fix it's screw ups sometimes.

But it's sure better than a bunch of "originalists"...

you want to know what was "original"?

slavery
women not having the vote
only white, male, landed gentry voting
interracial marriage being prohibited... well, heck with being prohibited, blacks were 3/5 of a person.

i'm thinking that's not the world you want to live in today. i know i don't.

I bet you are only partly right.

I love ya like a sister. (I don't have any sisters, but that's not really the point, is it?)

We most certainly do have common law roots. And to some extent we remain a common law country.

But to think that common law has the same weight as the Constitution is just plain -- wrong.
 
The US has always had limits on speech? Like what?

Like the prohibition on yelling fire (when there is no fire) in a crowded theater.

Like advocating for the forceful overthrow of the United States government.

Etc.

Also, although not criminal in nature, there are also laws prohibiting (and civilly sanctioning) libel and slander etc.

And back to criminal: filing a false report. Perjury. Etc. Just words. But not protected speech.

Why do I have to keep repeating this? Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not a free speech issue, and never was. Neither is making a false accusation against another person. None of those are limits on speech, they are acknowledgments that rights do not extend to damaging other people.

Actually, yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is very much a free speech "issue." It's just not part of what the Constitution addresses.

You probably have to keep repeating it because you are incorrect.

If one can not damage others by free speech, then speech is not entirely free.

And that's the point. It isn't and was never meant to be under our Constitution.

I contend (and I am far from alone) that what was intended to be covered by the guarantee of freedom of speech in the First Amendment was political speech. One could oppose the President and his policies without fear of being accused of treason or sedition, etc.

But for all the First Amendment absolutists, the proposition that "Congress shall make no law" appears to entail an absolute bar on any law that restricts any speech in any way at any time. That's just stupidity.
 
[

Go back and read my posts, then point out where I asserted that it is always illegal to search without a warrant. Go ahead, I can wait.


:eusa_whistle:


Can't find anything, can you? The reason for that is actually pretty simple, I understand the difference between stating an informed opinion, which I did, and talking about what is legal and illegal.

Did you know that, in some countries, it is actually legal to arrest people without a warrant, and locking them up without a trial? Are you aware that, under the NDAA, it is actually legal to do that right here in the US? Does the fact that it is legal make it right?

Not in my opinion, but if you are willing to let the government define right and wrong by deciding what is, and is not, legal, don't be surprised if you end up in a country where it is legal to kill you without a trial.

What? gawd, back at this game again?

okay:

I never said you "asserted that it is always illegal to search without a warrant."

you said: "All searches without a warrant are unreasonable, and any search, even with a warrant, that is not supported by facts is also unreasonable. "

I said two things: "only as a general rule" - replying to bold - "We all (people with brains) know in certain cases police can legally conduct a search without first obtaining a warrant." - notice__"in certain cases"

you write: "...let the government define right and wrong by deciding what is, and is not, legal..."

I write: wtf was talking about right and wrong?

you also wrote: "any search, even with a warrant, that is not supported by facts is also unreasonable"

you are creating arguments here. you sound like some nut with a secret language and personal definitions. did you take your meds today?
 
Like the prohibition on yelling fire (when there is no fire) in a crowded theater.

Like advocating for the forceful overthrow of the United States government.

Etc.

Also, although not criminal in nature, there are also laws prohibiting (and civilly sanctioning) libel and slander etc.

And back to criminal: filing a false report. Perjury. Etc. Just words. But not protected speech.

Why do I have to keep repeating this? Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not a free speech issue, and never was. Neither is making a false accusation against another person. None of those are limits on speech, they are acknowledgments that rights do not extend to damaging other people.

Actually, yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is very much a free speech "issue." It's just not part of what the Constitution addresses.

You probably have to keep repeating it because you are incorrect.

If one can not damage others by free speech, then speech is not entirely free.

And that's the point. It isn't and was never meant to be under our Constitution.

I contend (and I am far from alone) that what was intended to be covered by the guarantee of freedom of speech in the First Amendment was political speech. One could oppose the President and his policies without fear of being accused of treason or sedition, etc.

But for all the First Amendment absolutists, the proposition that "Congress shall make no law" appears to entail an absolute bar on any law that restricts any speech in any way at any time. That's just stupidity.

I despise the Masses test, because at the time, the theater was on fire....
 
Like the prohibition on yelling fire (when there is no fire) in a crowded theater.

Like advocating for the forceful overthrow of the United States government.

Etc.

Also, although not criminal in nature, there are also laws prohibiting (and civilly sanctioning) libel and slander etc.

And back to criminal: filing a false report. Perjury. Etc. Just words. But not protected speech.

Why do I have to keep repeating this? Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not a free speech issue, and never was. Neither is making a false accusation against another person. None of those are limits on speech, they are acknowledgments that rights do not extend to damaging other people.

Actually, yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is very much a free speech "issue." It's just not part of what the Constitution addresses.

You probably have to keep repeating it because you are incorrect.

If one can not damage others by free speech, then speech is not entirely free.

And that's the point. It isn't and was never meant to be under our Constitution.

I contend (and I am far from alone) that what was intended to be covered by the guarantee of freedom of speech in the First Amendment was political speech. One could oppose the President and his policies without fear of being accused of treason or sedition, etc.

But for all the First Amendment absolutists, the proposition that "Congress shall make no law" appears to entail an absolute bar on any law that restricts any speech in any way at any time. That's just stupidity.

If it isn't what the constitution addresses it isn't a constitutional free speech issue, which makes me right when I say it isn't an issue. Yelling fire in a theater is not, in itself, illegal, or wrong. If it was then it would be illegal, and wrong, to yell fire if the theater is on fire. That is so absurd that we don't even have to discuss it.

Falsely yelling it might, in some circumstances, cause injury. If it does, people have a right to seek civil redress. It might even be possible for the government to actually bring a criminal case against the person that does it, if they can prove an intent to cause harm.

My rights are inviolate and inherent to me. The fact that the government has managed to justify to itself that they should have the power to restrict my rights in no way actually changes the fact that they are absolute. You should read my signature sometime.

By the way, I don't think the fact that the constitution says Congress shall make no law prohibits a state, or city, from making a law. It does, however, prevent congress from making one.
 
Why do I have to keep repeating this? Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not a free speech issue, and never was. Neither is making a false accusation against another person. None of those are limits on speech, they are acknowledgments that rights do not extend to damaging other people.

Actually, yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is very much a free speech "issue." It's just not part of what the Constitution addresses.

You probably have to keep repeating it because you are incorrect.

If one can not damage others by free speech, then speech is not entirely free.

And that's the point. It isn't and was never meant to be under our Constitution.

I contend (and I am far from alone) that what was intended to be covered by the guarantee of freedom of speech in the First Amendment was political speech. One could oppose the President and his policies without fear of being accused of treason or sedition, etc.

But for all the First Amendment absolutists, the proposition that "Congress shall make no law" appears to entail an absolute bar on any law that restricts any speech in any way at any time. That's just stupidity.

I despise the Masses test, because at the time, the theater was on fire....

Which is why it is easier to assume that make no law means exactly what it says.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top