Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Tue Jul 29, 2014 7:45 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:45 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Well, I guess that's one man's opinion, and helps the world go 'round.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5357
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
I'm getting ready to get on a plane . . . just wondering if I have the freedom of speech to utter a particular word that starts with "b" and ends with "b" and has "om" in the middle. I am also curious what would happen if I got on the plane and started reading the Koran outloud and praying to myself. Would I have freedom of speech?

Sorry . . . I've had more than my share of Yuenglings in the Atlanta airport after a long day of depositions and I'm half in the bag. :lol:

I hate to be a cynic but I can't help but think that if the movie involved George W. Bush and portrayed him in an incredibly negative light that the majority of the Justices would have voted in favor of the law and the dissenters would have voted that the law was unconstitutional.

Outcome determinative reasoning? Am I a cynic? Yeah, pretty much.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:27 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6168
Black and tans No. 9? Jeez they were a the second best part of Georgia and north Florida last August. 8-) 8-) 8-)


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 4809
Location: Pittsburgh
No. 9 wrote:
I'm getting ready to get on a plane . . . just wondering if I have the freedom of speech to utter a particular word that starts with "b" and ends with "b" and has "om" in the middle. I am also curious what would happen if I got on the plane and started reading the Koran outloud and praying to myself. Would I have freedom of speech?

Sorry . . . I've had more than my share of Yuenglings in the Atlanta airport after a long day of depositions and I'm half in the bag. :lol:

I hate to be a cynic but I can't help but think that if the movie involved George W. Bush and portrayed him in an incredibly negative light that the majority of the Justices would have voted in favor of the law and the dissenters would have voted that the law was unconstitutional.

Outcome determinative reasoning? Am I a cynic? Yeah, pretty much.

They gotta back Bush. After all, they're the ones who appointed him to the job.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4079
Location: Zelienople, PA
Last check, only two of five.

No one has come up with anything resembling a rebuttal of Bucfan.

And, saying bomb in an airplane is not political speech.

I find it hard to fathom that folks don't get " .. the right to assembly for redress of the government"

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 1:04 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5357
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Uuuum Mike. Thanks. A lot.
So . . . the conversation went like this:

TSA Agent at airport: "Good evening, how are you?"
Me: "Not too good."
TSA: "Sorry to hear that, can I see your ticket and ID?"
[Handing him ticket and ID]
Me: "I'm really sick and tired of politics in this damn country. I'd like to take a bomb and blow up Congress. Then I like to use one of these planes and drop a bomb right on top of the Supreme Court."
TSA: "What did you just say?"
Me: "I hate those guys. All they do is grandstand and do absolutely nothing for the benefit of this country. Someone ought to blow up the lot of them. Hey . . what's with drawing the gun?"
TSA: "You are under arrest."
Me: "What? I was just making a comment on my political beliefs."

Anyway . . . can you send me some bail money? And some ibuprofen? They worked me over pretty good. :lol:

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 1:45 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5357
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Amendment I

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.


For anyone interested, above is the text to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

There are 3 clauses separated by semicolons:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
2. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
3. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So . . . for those strict constructionists out there, a question. What gives Congress the right to pass any laws "abridging" the freedom of any speech?

Why are laws burdening or abridging speech acceptable when the Government demonstrates that restriction of such speech “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” I don't see any language in the Constitution which states that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech unless such law furthers a compelling interest and such law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest."

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:04 am 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4079
Location: Zelienople, PA
I pulled out my old catholic school grammar diagram, and wala... I don't see how one can construct the right to assemble for redress as anything but that. A corporation is an assembly, and they have the right to redress government. A semi-colon separates it from the right to free speech, thus I am sending you a cake with ibuprofin and $50 inside... don't tell the guard.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:45 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
I understand now: if it's in the old catholic grammar school book it must be an infallible decision about the American constitution.

I went to catholic grammar school too. My memory includes the teachings of justice and fair play for all. To defend the practices that have created such imbalance in the way Americans take advantage of each other is a terrible distortion of catholic beliefs my man. Argue all you want about the SC decisions but don't imply that the catholic church or its teachings are in line with the crap that going on here.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 1:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4079
Location: Zelienople, PA
That is a complete misrepresentation of what I wrote.

Did you not do sentence diagrams in catholic school, I did. It has nothing to do with philosophy (which BTW, the constitution is very much in line with catholic teachings) but rather with the old English class practice of DIAGRAMMING SENTENCES.

When you do that, the structure of the 1st amendment is very clear as to separating the call of "Fire" in a crowded theater versus protecting political speech.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 1:38 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Not so sure Mike.

1. I learned much, including but not limited to the meaning of implication. Re-read what you say and see the obvious.
2. I learned and rely on diagraming to this day. A skill which is completely ignored today in schools.
3. The constitution is not always in line with catholic teachings. Just one example: the constitution allows for slavery by indicating the year in which Americans could no longer import them, but allowed ownership to continue without limits. I'm sure that the church does not teach ownership of another human being as a part of its doctrine.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 1:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5357
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
No. 9 wrote:
Amendment I

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.


For anyone interested, above is the text to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

There are 3 clauses separated by semicolons:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
2. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
3. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So . . . for those strict constructionists out there, a question. What gives Congress the right to pass any laws "abridging" the freedom of any speech?

Why are laws burdening or abridging speech acceptable when the Government demonstrates that restriction of such speech “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” I don't see any language in the Constitution which states that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech unless such law furthers a compelling interest and such law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest."


Isn't it a fair question as to why the Framers included the phrase "or of the press" immediately after "make no law abridging the freedom of speech?" If Congress could not make any law abridging the freedom of speech, isn't inclusion of "of the press" redundant? Or, as in contract law, must it be presumed that the Framers had a specific and particular reason for including such language?

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4079
Location: Zelienople, PA
No. 9 wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
Amendment I

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.


For anyone interested, above is the text to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

There are 3 clauses separated by semicolons:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
2. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
3. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So . . . for those strict constructionists out there, a question. What gives Congress the right to pass any laws "abridging" the freedom of any speech?

Why are laws burdening or abridging speech acceptable when the Government demonstrates that restriction of such speech “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” I don't see any language in the Constitution which states that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech unless such law furthers a compelling interest and such law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest."


Isn't it a fair question as to why the Framers included the phrase "or of the press" immediately after "make no law abridging the freedom of speech?" If Congress could not make any law abridging the freedom of speech, isn't inclusion of "of the press" redundant? Or, as in contract law, must it be presumed that the Framers had a specific and particular reason for including such language?



You are probably setting a lawyerly trap for us ill-informed geologists! But, I will bite. A read of the Federalist papers, and correspondences between folks like Adams and Jefferson, shows they were focused on political speech. That was at the core of their approach.

Where is the trap door that is about to open on me?

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:06 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
No. 9 wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
Amendment I

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.


For anyone interested, above is the text to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

There are 3 clauses separated by semicolons:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
2. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
3. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So . . . for those strict constructionists out there, a question. What gives Congress the right to pass any laws "abridging" the freedom of any speech?

Why are laws burdening or abridging speech acceptable when the Government demonstrates that restriction of such speech “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” I don't see any language in the Constitution which states that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech unless such law furthers a compelling interest and such law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest."


Isn't it a fair question as to why the Framers included the phrase "or of the press" immediately after "make no law abridging the freedom of speech?" If Congress could not make any law abridging the freedom of speech, isn't inclusion of "of the press" redundant? Or, as in contract law, must it be presumed that the Framers had a specific and particular reason for including such language?


I think that they understood the power of free press an wanted to make sure that the government could not control it and therein control any criticism of government actions.

Since we consider corporations citizens today, it would be redundant unless you are suggesting that corporations were not thought to be seen as citizens with the same rights by the founders. If that be the case, the SC has mistakenly ruled in this matter.

It may also be the case that they were protecting themselves if, like Franklin, some were owners of papers, magazines, or books.

Help me here, wasn't there a case of press censorship against a man in NY whose name started with a Z in early America? And was that before the constitution was written? Could that have influenced the founders on this inclusion of the press in the amendment?

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4079
Location: Zelienople, PA
You are wrong.

A corporation is not a citizen, and is not considered so.

A corporation is an assembly of individuals that have the right to redress.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:42 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Help here No.9 or Wilton, I'm no expert here but understood that to be the case.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4079
Location: Zelienople, PA
Go and reread Bucfan's post. He too, is a lawyer.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:26 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Just read it twice. Don't see the reference to corporation not being considered citizens. I'm probably wrong but on the outside chance I'm not, maybe one of the lawyers will clear up the matter.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 4:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5357
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
ZelieMike wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
Amendment I

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.


For anyone interested, above is the text to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

There are 3 clauses separated by semicolons:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
2. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
3. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So . . . for those strict constructionists out there, a question. What gives Congress the right to pass any laws "abridging" the freedom of any speech?

Why are laws burdening or abridging speech acceptable when the Government demonstrates that restriction of such speech “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” I don't see any language in the Constitution which states that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech unless such law furthers a compelling interest and such law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest."


Isn't it a fair question as to why the Framers included the phrase "or of the press" immediately after "make no law abridging the freedom of speech?" If Congress could not make any law abridging the freedom of speech, isn't inclusion of "of the press" redundant? Or, as in contract law, must it be presumed that the Framers had a specific and particular reason for including such language?



You are probably setting a lawyerly trap for us ill-informed geologists! But, I will bite. A read of the Federalist papers, and correspondences between folks like Adams and Jefferson, shows they were focused on political speech. That was at the core of their approach.

Where is the trap door that is about to open on me?

ZM


Not setting a trap at all . . . I'm no Constitutional scholar . . . been too long since I took ConLaw in school.

However, based upon what I see going on is you looking at the Federalist papers and correspondence between others to assist in interpreting the language of the Constitution. I've got no problem with that at all. In my eyes, that is not a "strict construction" approach. "Strict construction" involves looking at the words and the words only. In contract law, you only look beyond the words when there is an ambiguity.

The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." Is that vague? Is that ambiguous? If you (and I'm not referring to you Mike; I'm referring to a collective group of individuals) are truly a "strict constructionist," then you should wholly oppose the notion that Congress can pass any law which restricts speech - no matter how dangerous, repulsive or vile that speech may be. No matter how content neutral, time neutral or limited to particular places.

If you accept the notion that Congress can pass a law which is narrowly tailored to protect a legitimate governmental interest which also happens to restrict or abridge speech, then you are looking beyond the words of the Constitution and you are not a "strict constructionist." You are interpreting the words with the help of other sources of material, analyzing the intent of the "contract" and trying to figure out what the Framers not only intended but how they would have reacted if 2010s reality existed in the late 1700s.

So . . . if looking beyond the mere words is acceptable . . . and reliance upon other data, documents and "evidence" is acceptable . . . then, at least in my opinion, you must conclude that the Constitution does not enunciate "absolutes." Thus, if you are OK with this approach, then you simply cannot argue that the so-called "right to bear arms" is an absolute. That it is perfectly acceptable to look beyond the words and try to figure out what the Framers intended, in the atmosphere of the 1700s and how they would have reacted if the 2010s were reality in the late 1700s.

I'm not taking issue with the opinion. I simply too far removed to offer an educated opinion as to how the majority reached the opinion. Late last night, I printed the Citizens United case and have yet to read it and don't claim to understand yet the basis or bases for the conclusion. I stand by my observation (even after the Yuenglings have worn off) that the result may have been very different if it was a "liberal" organization and they intended to broadcast a villification of a conservative candidate one week before an election. I can't help but think that the arguments employed by the majority and the dissenters would have been nearly identical but that the justices signing off on the opinion/dissent would have been flip-flopped. I simply see too much outcome determinative analysis to avoid being cynical.

My issue is with those who characterize themselves to be "strict constructionists" when, in reality, they are no where close to being so. And, yes, it is my opinion that a certain Italian named Justice fits that category perfectly.

Me . . . I don't see how you can simply look at the words that were written in the late 1700s and not resort to interpretation and apply some sort of practical application to the existing real world.

Now . . . does that mean I agree/disagree with a law passed by Congress prohibiting a corporation from going on TV with an "infomercial" on the eve of an election? I have more digging to do before I have anything to offer on that.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
No. 9 has a point. If one were a literalist, then reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech would also be deemed unconstitutional. Such a stance would fly in the face of 100 years worth of 1st Amendment jurisprudence.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits