January 24Jan 24 2 hours ago, Tnt4philly said: The founders that were against the bill of rights predicted this would happen. They feared that the people would give more weight to the enumerated rights, and they the government would assume they could infringe on the rights not enumerated. 9a was supposed to address that but it hasn’t. If we didn’t have the bill of rights the government would have and would be violating those enumerated rights to a degree that would be unimaginably unacceptable. The government is comprised of men, and men need rules. The fact that so many politicians and members of the government of all branches have tried to violate constitutional rights even when they’re Fing written down is testimony as to why enumeration is so needed in the first place.
January 24Jan 24 The man with a plan is back and the loser with no plan is finally out of here. Yet the loonies on the left hate it. Idiots https://notthebee.com/article/us-marines-seen-deployed-at-the-border
January 24Jan 24 On 1/23/2025 at 8:05 AM, Bill said: Ah, I get what you’re saying. Oddly enough, I’d put Roe V Wade into a 9th Amendment category as abortion was actually pretty common when it was written. Ambiguity is fine when you’re giving rights. Not so much when you’re taking them away. I definitely disagree with this. The more ambiguous something is, the more you are inviting its intent to be subverted by clever wordsmiths. Especially because the amendments in the bill of rights are not, in fact, rights which are granted, but limitations on government power; ambiguity is the mother of malicious pretense when it comes to the law.
January 24Jan 24 1 hour ago, TEW said: I definitely disagree with this. The more ambiguous something is, the more you are inviting its intent to be subverted by clever wordsmiths. Especially because the amendments in the bill of rights are not, in fact, rights which are granted, but limitations on government power; ambiguity is the mother of malicious pretense when it comes to the law. Yeah, but the great thing about the amendments is that they aren’t ambiguous. They’re cut and dry. People add the ambiguity ex post facto. That’s not a fault of the authors. That’s the fault of us.
January 24Jan 24 31 minutes ago, Bill said: Yeah, but the great thing about the amendments is that they aren’t ambiguous. They’re cut and dry. People add the ambiguity ex post facto. That’s not a fault of the authors. That’s the fault of us. They’re really not. Take the first amendment. By "the letter of the law” screaming fire in a crowded theater is protected under the law. You would have to delineate every single thing which is allowed to be said for it to be crystal clear. So we don’t do that. At best we will have a qualifier in the amendment. At worst, we leave that for judges to decide, as we have with the first amendment. And then we argue about exactly where those lines are drawn.
January 24Jan 24 20 minutes ago, TEW said: They’re really not. Take the first amendment. By "the letter of the law” screaming fire in a crowded theater is protected under the law. You would have to delineate every single thing which is allowed to be said for it to be crystal clear. So we don’t do that. At best we will have a qualifier in the amendment. At worst, we leave that for judges to decide, as we have with the first amendment. And then we argue about exactly where those lines are drawn. Screaming fire in a crowded theater is not criminal. Causing a panic by falsely yelling fire is not protected by free speech.
January 24Jan 24 Trump 🤣. What a complete loser! Mexico refuses to accept a U.S. deportation flight https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna189182
January 25Jan 25 4 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Screaming fire in a crowded theater is not criminal. Causing a panic by falsely yelling fire is not protected by free speech. Which, again, by the "letter of the law” should be protected. That’s the point. If you want a literal interpretation of the document, then causing a panic is irrelevant. But that’s not what we do. Because it’s impossible. And so there is ambiguity, especially before SCOTUS rules on a particular issue.
January 25Jan 25 31 minutes ago, TEW said: Which, again, by the "letter of the law” should be protected. That’s the point. If you want a literal interpretation of the document, then causing a panic is irrelevant. Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of what you say.
January 25Jan 25 3 hours ago, Tnt4philly said: Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of what you say. From the government? By the literal interpretation of the text? Yes, actually, it does — at least if we are going to take the constitution literally. That’s the entire point of an enumerated right. The government is restricted in its power to deny these actions or impose consequences. Which is precisely the point I’m making. Think about what you’re saying. "You have freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequences of what you say — the government can throw you in prison for wrong speak.” These are totally nonsensical and fundamentally conflicting ideas. Freedom of speech means absolutely nothing if the government can do whatever it wants when it dislikes what you say. The "freedom from consequences” argument is supposed to apply to private actors, not the government, and is based on freedom of association. The entire point of the bill of rights is there CAN’T be consequences imposed by the government for exercising a right. We make exceptions to this because exceptions are inevitably necessary for practicality’s sake. But that’s in direct opposition to a "letter of the law” argument. By the letter of the law, you literally are "free from consequences” when exercising a right from the government. But we also recognize that, for instance, if you are plotting to detonate a nuke in Manhattan, that "freedom of speech” with your accomplice should not be protected. And we also recognize that it is totally impractical to list every exception. So we leave it to courts to decide. And that interpretation is purely subjective.
January 25Jan 25 50 minutes ago, lynched1 said: Homan: We're gonna need more planes....😆 ICE version of "You're gonna need a bigger boat!"
January 26Jan 26 17 hours ago, The_Omega said: That shirt was from a fundraiser for Haiti. Damn these celebrities trying to use their platform to help a struggling country! They should just STFU and do nothing, right?
January 27Jan 27 22 hours ago, It Hurts said: Corrupt to the core This has been a game that was played for a long time. NGOs and their members need to be prosecuted for aiding and abetting.
January 27Jan 27 23 hours ago, DEagle7 said: Haiti is really pretty. Just poor as F. It’s half a Caribbean island, of course the natural land is beautiful. Its just populated by some of the worst people on earth.
Create an account or sign in to comment