Procrustes Stretched
"intuition and imagination and intelligence"
- Thread starter
- #21
This narrow decision will be overturned eventually if there is any justice.
and the right will call that activism...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This narrow decision will be overturned eventually if there is any justice.
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
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'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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
[
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....