Compelling interest, my ass.

[dblack]

Authoritarians, of both the liberal and conservative varieties, love to cite 'compelling state interest' as an excuse for their ambitions. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Near as I can tell, it's just a catch-all for anything they want to cram down our throats.

 

[Skylar]

Authoritarians, of both the liberal and conservative varieties, love to cite 'compelling state interest' as an excuse for their ambitions. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Near as I can tell, it's just a catch-all for anything they want to cram down our throats.

Issues of public interest or concern that don't violate rights, generally speaking. And yes, its ridiculously broad.

But then, so is the 10th amendment.

 

[dblack]

Authoritarians, of both the liberal and conservative varieties, love to cite 'compelling state interest' as an excuse for their ambitions. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Near as I can tell, it's just a catch-all for anything they want to cram down our throats.

Issues of public interest or concern that don't violate rights, generally speaking. And yes, its ridiculously broad.

But then, so is the 10th amendment.

I haven't noticed the "don't violate rights" part. In fact, the "compelling interest" excuse is usually only invoked as justification for laws that DO violate rights.

 

[Skylar]

Authoritarians, of both the liberal and conservative varieties, love to cite 'compelling state interest' as an excuse for their ambitions. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Near as I can tell, it's just a catch-all for anything they want to cram down our throats.

Issues of public interest or concern that don't violate rights, generally speaking. And yes, its ridiculously broad.

But then, so is the 10th amendment.

I haven't noticed the "don't violate rights" part. In fact, the "compelling interest" excuse is usually only invoked as justification for laws that DO violate rights.

The term usually only comes to your attention when there is some disagreement on the matter. In almost every case 'compelling interests of the state' go along just fine....and ridiculously broad.

 

[dblack]

Authoritarians, of both the liberal and conservative varieties, love to cite 'compelling state interest' as an excuse for their ambitions. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Near as I can tell, it's just a catch-all for anything they want to cram down our throats.

Issues of public interest or concern that don't violate rights, generally speaking. And yes, its ridiculously broad.

But then, so is the 10th amendment.

I haven't noticed the "don't violate rights" part. In fact, the "compelling interest" excuse is usually only invoked as justification for laws that DO violate rights.

The term usually only comes to your attention when there is some disagreement on the matter. In almost every case 'compelling interests of the state' go along just fine....and ridiculously broad.

Read up on it. The 'compelling interest' concept defines exceptions, cases where the government's "interests" (again, whatever the hell THAT means) are judged to be more important than the rights of citizens.

 

[Skylar]

Authoritarians, of both the liberal and conservative varieties, love to cite 'compelling state interest' as an excuse for their ambitions. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Near as I can tell, it's just a catch-all for anything they want to cram down our throats.

Issues of public interest or concern that don't violate rights, generally speaking. And yes, its ridiculously broad.

But then, so is the 10th amendment.

I haven't noticed the "don't violate rights" part. In fact, the "compelling interest" excuse is usually only invoked as justification for laws that DO violate rights.

The term usually only comes to your attention when there is some disagreement on the matter. In almost every case 'compelling interests of the state' go along just fine....and ridiculously broad.

Read up on it. The 'compelling interest' concept define exceptions, cases where the government's "interests" (again, whatever the hell THAT means) are judged to be more important than the rights of citizens.

In the context of court conflicts between the State and individuals who allege the State has violated their rights, sure.

In the context of the actual application of State authority on a daily basis, almost never. 'Compelling State Interests' is a ludicrously broad category generally encompassing pretty much any issues of public interest or concern.

You're only aware of those rare instances where it it is alleged to come into conflict with rights.

 

[dblack]

Authoritarians, of both the liberal and conservative varieties, love to cite 'compelling state interest' as an excuse for their ambitions. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Near as I can tell, it's just a catch-all for anything they want to cram down our throats.

Issues of public interest or concern that don't violate rights, generally speaking. And yes, its ridiculously broad.

But then, so is the 10th amendment.

I haven't noticed the "don't violate rights" part. In fact, the "compelling interest" excuse is usually only invoked as justification for laws that DO violate rights.

The term usually only comes to your attention when there is some disagreement on the matter. In almost every case 'compelling interests of the state' go along just fine....and ridiculously broad.

Read up on it. The 'compelling interest' concept define exceptions, cases where the government's "interests" (again, whatever the hell THAT means) are judged to be more important than the rights of citizens.

In the context of court conflicts between the State and individuals who allege the State has violated their rights, sure.

In the context of the actual application of State authority on a daily basis, almost never. 'Compelling State Interests' is a ludicrously broad category generally encompassing pretty much any issues of public interest or concern.

You're only aware of those rare instances where it it is alleged to come into conflict with rights.

I guess I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here. My complaint with the "compelling interest" rationale is that it's used as a catch-all excuse for government violating our rights wily-nily. And, yeah, it's ridiculously broad. It effectively neutralizes Constitutional limits on government. Are you agreeing with me that it's wrong?

 

[Skylar]

Issues of public interest or concern that don't violate rights, generally speaking. And yes, its ridiculously broad.

But then, so is the 10th amendment.

I haven't noticed the "don't violate rights" part. In fact, the "compelling interest" excuse is usually only invoked as justification for laws that DO violate rights.

The term usually only comes to your attention when there is some disagreement on the matter. In almost every case 'compelling interests of the state' go along just fine....and ridiculously broad.

Read up on it. The 'compelling interest' concept define exceptions, cases where the government's "interests" (again, whatever the hell THAT means) are judged to be more important than the rights of citizens.

In the context of court conflicts between the State and individuals who allege the State has violated their rights, sure.

In the context of the actual application of State authority on a daily basis, almost never. 'Compelling State Interests' is a ludicrously broad category generally encompassing pretty much any issues of public interest or concern.

You're only aware of those rare instances where it it is alleged to come into conflict with rights.

I guess I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here. My complaint with the "compelling interest" rationale is that it's used as a catch-all excuse for government violating our rights wily-nily. And, yeah, it's ridiculously broad. It effectively neutralizes Constitutional limits on government. Are you agreeing with me that it's wrong?

What I said in my first post:

[Compelling State Interests are] Issues of public interest or concern that don't violate rights, generally speaking. And yes, its ridiculously broad.

But then, so is the 10th amendment.

 

[dblack]

I haven't noticed the "don't violate rights" part. In fact, the "compelling interest" excuse is usually only invoked as justification for laws that DO violate rights.

The term usually only comes to your attention when there is some disagreement on the matter. In almost every case 'compelling interests of the state' go along just fine....and ridiculously broad.

Read up on it. The 'compelling interest' concept define exceptions, cases where the government's "interests" (again, whatever the hell THAT means) are judged to be more important than the rights of citizens.

In the context of court conflicts between the State and individuals who allege the State has violated their rights, sure.

In the context of the actual application of State authority on a daily basis, almost never. 'Compelling State Interests' is a ludicrously broad category generally encompassing pretty much any issues of public interest or concern.

You're only aware of those rare instances where it it is alleged to come into conflict with rights.

I guess I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here. My complaint with the "compelling interest" rationale is that it's used as a catch-all excuse for government violating our rights wily-nily. And, yeah, it's ridiculously broad. It effectively neutralizes Constitutional limits on government. Are you agreeing with me that it's wrong?

What I said in my first post:

[Compelling State Interests are] Issues of public interest or concern that don't violate rights, generally speaking. And yes, its ridiculously broad.

But then, so is the 10th amendment.

Are you agreeing with me that the concept is abused? That there is no clear definition of what comprises a "compelling interest" and that it's used as a loophole for government to extend its power to violate the rights of citizens rather than protect them?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Authoritarians, of both the liberal and conservative varieties, love to cite 'compelling state interest' as an excuse for their ambitions. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Near as I can tell, it's just a catch-all for anything they want to cram down our throats.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Although inalienable, are rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see e.g. DC v. Heller).

 

[dblack]

Authoritarians, of both the liberal and conservative varieties, love to cite 'compelling state interest' as an excuse for their ambitions. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Near as I can tell, it's just a catch-all for anything they want to cram down our throats.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Although inalienable, are rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see e.g. DC v. Heller).

And what restrictions are "reasonable"? Answering that question is the whole point of the "compelling interest" rationale in the first place. Do you gave any actual knowledge of the topic? What criteria does the Court use to determine what interests are "compelling" an which aren't? I haven't found any consistent formulation of such criteria, which leaves the concept - as Skylar points out - ridiculously broad.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Authoritarians, of both the liberal and conservative varieties, love to cite 'compelling state interest' as an excuse for their ambitions. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Near as I can tell, it's just a catch-all for anything they want to cram down our throats.

Issues of public interest or concern that don't violate rights, generally speaking. And yes, its ridiculously broad.

But then, so is the 10th amendment.

I haven't noticed the "don't violate rights" part. In fact, the "compelling interest" excuse is usually only invoked as justification for laws that DO violate rights.

When Utah enacted Amendment 3, prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying in that state, the measure was invalidated by the courts because Utah failed to establish a compelling governmental interest in doing so.

Our rights are often safeguarded by the Constitution and its case law from unwarranted attack by the state.

When demonstrators sought to stage a ‘sleep-in’ on public property in Washington, D.C., to bring attention to the problem of homelessness, the City prohibited the demonstration. The Supreme Court upheld the City’s decision to do so, as the City established a compelling governmental interest to keep public areas free from obstructions and accessible citizens (see Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence).

Again, our rights are not absolute, they are indeed subject to reasonable restrictions by government, consistent with the Constitution and its case law, and the rule of law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Authoritarians, of both the liberal and conservative varieties, love to cite 'compelling state interest' as an excuse for their ambitions. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Near as I can tell, it's just a catch-all for anything they want to cram down our throats.

Issues of public interest or concern that don't violate rights, generally speaking. And yes, its ridiculously broad.

But then, so is the 10th amendment.

I haven't noticed the "don't violate rights" part. In fact, the "compelling interest" excuse is usually only invoked as justification for laws that DO violate rights.

The term usually only comes to your attention when there is some disagreement on the matter. In almost every case 'compelling interests of the state' go along just fine....and ridiculously broad.

Read up on it. The 'compelling interest' concept defines exceptions, cases where the government's "interests" (again, whatever the hell THAT means) are judged to be more important than the rights of citizens.

That would depend on the level of judicial review warranted by the nature of the Constitutional controversy: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny.

Not all issues concerning the constitutionality of government laws, measures, and policies are subject to the same level of review.

In general, in order to pass Constitutional muster, a law must be rationally based, it must be supported by objective, documented evidence, and it must pursue a legitimate legislative purpose.

This is why measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law failed: there was no rational basis for such measures, there was no objective, documented evidence in support, and the measures did not have a legitimate legislative purpose, as they sought only to make homosexuals different from everyone else, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Laws concerning the rights of gay Americans are for the most part subject to intermediate scrutiny, where laws concerning race or religion are subject to strict scrutiny of judicial review.

 

[dblack]

Authoritarians, of both the liberal and conservative varieties, love to cite 'compelling state interest' as an excuse for their ambitions. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Near as I can tell, it's just a catch-all for anything they want to cram down our throats.

Issues of public interest or concern that don't violate rights, generally speaking. And yes, its ridiculously broad.

But then, so is the 10th amendment.

I haven't noticed the "don't violate rights" part. In fact, the "compelling interest" excuse is usually only invoked as justification for laws that DO violate rights.

When Utah enacted Amendment 3, prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying in that state, the measure was invalidated by the courts because Utah failed to establish a compelling governmental interest in doing so.

Our rights are often safeguarded by the Constitution and its case law from unwarranted attack by the state.

When demonstrators sought to stage a ‘sleep-in’ on public property in Washington, D.C., to bring attention to the problem of homelessness, the City prohibited the demonstration. The Supreme Court upheld the City’s decision to do so, as the City established a compelling governmental interest to keep public areas free from obstructions and accessible citizens (see Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence).

Again, our rights are not absolute, they are indeed subject to reasonable restrictions by government, consistent with the Constitution and its case law, and the rule of law.

Yep, 'rights are not absolute' is your go-to line, but it's simply an obvious observation and irrelevant. Rights are always limited to freedoms that don't violate the freedom of others (your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, etc...). This is perfectly compatible with the concept of government tasked with protecting our rights.

The idea of 'compelling interests', as near as I can tell, is an attempt to justify government that actually violates our rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Issues of public interest or concern that don't violate rights, generally speaking. And yes, its ridiculously broad.

But then, so is the 10th amendment.

I haven't noticed the "don't violate rights" part. In fact, the "compelling interest" excuse is usually only invoked as justification for laws that DO violate rights.

The term usually only comes to your attention when there is some disagreement on the matter. In almost every case 'compelling interests of the state' go along just fine....and ridiculously broad.

Read up on it. The 'compelling interest' concept define exceptions, cases where the government's "interests" (again, whatever the hell THAT means) are judged to be more important than the rights of citizens.

In the context of court conflicts between the State and individuals who allege the State has violated their rights, sure.

In the context of the actual application of State authority on a daily basis, almost never. 'Compelling State Interests' is a ludicrously broad category generally encompassing pretty much any issues of public interest or concern.

You're only aware of those rare instances where it it is alleged to come into conflict with rights.

I guess I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here. My complaint with the "compelling interest" rationale is that it's used as a catch-all excuse for government violating our rights wily-nily. And, yeah, it's ridiculously broad. It effectively neutralizes Constitutional limits on government. Are you agreeing with me that it's wrong?

Actually it’s not broad at all.

First Amendment jurisprudence, for example, has evolved over the last two centuries to afford both the courts and lawmakers a comprehensive resource as to what laws and measures are Constitutional, and what are not concerning speech, religion, and assembly.

And the doctrine of compelling governmental interest is neither a ‘catch all’ nor ‘wily-nily.’

If government has acted in a manner consistent with Constitutional case law, then no rights have been ‘violated.’

 

[dblack]

And the doctrine of compelling governmental interest is neither a ‘catch all’ nor ‘wily-nily.’

Then it should be no problem to define it succinctly. What constitutes a compelling interest?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The term usually only comes to your attention when there is some disagreement on the matter. In almost every case 'compelling interests of the state' go along just fine....and ridiculously broad.

Read up on it. The 'compelling interest' concept define exceptions, cases where the government's "interests" (again, whatever the hell THAT means) are judged to be more important than the rights of citizens.

In the context of court conflicts between the State and individuals who allege the State has violated their rights, sure.

In the context of the actual application of State authority on a daily basis, almost never. 'Compelling State Interests' is a ludicrously broad category generally encompassing pretty much any issues of public interest or concern.

You're only aware of those rare instances where it it is alleged to come into conflict with rights.

I guess I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here. My complaint with the "compelling interest" rationale is that it's used as a catch-all excuse for government violating our rights wily-nily. And, yeah, it's ridiculously broad. It effectively neutralizes Constitutional limits on government. Are you agreeing with me that it's wrong?

What I said in my first post:

[Compelling State Interests are] Issues of public interest or concern that don't violate rights, generally speaking. And yes, its ridiculously broad.

But then, so is the 10th amendment.

Are you agreeing with me that the concept is abused? That there is no clear definition of what comprises a "compelling interest" and that it's used as a loophole for government to extend its power to violate the rights of citizens rather than protect them?

No, there is no agreement that the concept of compelling governmental interest is ‘abused,’ as in fact it is not. There is a clear definition of what comprises a compelling interest, one needs only to review the relevant case law, and a compelling governmental interest is not used as a ‘loophole’ for government to extend its power to violate the rights of citizens, as the courts frequently invalidate laws and measures where government has indeed failed to establish a compelling interest to limit or preempt citizens’ rights.

 

[dblack]

Read up on it. The 'compelling interest' concept define exceptions, cases where the government's "interests" (again, whatever the hell THAT means) are judged to be more important than the rights of citizens.

In the context of court conflicts between the State and individuals who allege the State has violated their rights, sure.

In the context of the actual application of State authority on a daily basis, almost never. 'Compelling State Interests' is a ludicrously broad category generally encompassing pretty much any issues of public interest or concern.

You're only aware of those rare instances where it it is alleged to come into conflict with rights.

I guess I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here. My complaint with the "compelling interest" rationale is that it's used as a catch-all excuse for government violating our rights wily-nily. And, yeah, it's ridiculously broad. It effectively neutralizes Constitutional limits on government. Are you agreeing with me that it's wrong?

What I said in my first post:

[Compelling State Interests are] Issues of public interest or concern that don't violate rights, generally speaking. And yes, its ridiculously broad.

But then, so is the 10th amendment.

Are you agreeing with me that the concept is abused? That there is no clear definition of what comprises a "compelling interest" and that it's used as a loophole for government to extend its power to violate the rights of citizens rather than protect them?

No, there is no agreement that the concept of compelling governmental interest is ‘abused,’ as in fact it is not. There is a clear definition of what comprises a compelling interest, one needs only to review the relevant case law, and a compelling governmental interest is not used as a ‘loophole’ for government to extend its power to violate the rights of citizens, as the courts frequently invalidate laws and measures where government has indeed failed to establish a compelling interest to limit or preempt citizens’ rights.

Hmm... well, you're the self-styled expert on 'case law'. Which interests does 'case law' consider "compelling" and which spurious? Are there any consistent criteria applied to the judgement?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And the doctrine of compelling governmental interest is neither a ‘catch all’ nor ‘wily-nily.’

Then it should be no problem to define it succinctly. What constitutes a compelling interest?

A court order preempting a news outlet from disseminating the movement of troops during a time of war.

Government may place “regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.” (Frisby v. Schultz).

Child pornography.

Speech advocating for imminent violence or lawlessness.

Defamation

Remember that the burden of proof rests with government, it alone must justify its desire to limit or preempt citizens’ rights, and failing to do so, any act of government to restrict or preempt citizens’ rights will be invalidated by the courts.

 

[dblack]

And the doctrine of compelling governmental interest is neither a ‘catch all’ nor ‘wily-nily.’

Then it should be no problem to define it succinctly. What constitutes a compelling interest?

A court order preempting a news outlet from disseminating the movement of troops during a time of war.

Government may place “regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.” (Frisby v. Schultz).

Child pornography.

Speech advocating for imminent violence or lawlessness.

Defamation

Remember that the burden of proof rests with government, it alone must justify its desire to limit or preempt citizens’ rights, and failing to do so, any act of government to restrict or preempt citizens’ rights will be invalidated by the courts.

Ok. Some examples. Thanks for that. But can you characterize any general principles that are being applied here? Obviously, government is supposed to protect our rights, so we might argue that it has a 'compelling interest' to regulate behavior that violates rights. Child abuse, inciting violence, libel, etc ... clearly fall under that rubric. I think the concept should be limited to that. But clearly it's not. My question is what other state interests justify limiting individual rights? How does the Court make this call? I'm honestly interested if you have any knowledge on the issue.

I guess this topic really dovetails back to the purpose of government. Is it there to protect our freedom to live as we wish, or to tell us how to live for the 'greater good' (again, whatever THAT is).