Reply With QuoteNo court has the authority to interpret or change the Constitution.Originally Posted by evince
Lord Yurt will suffice
So what court is the highest authority for criminal cases?
Verified User
No court has the authority to interpret or change the Constitution.
Verified User
Not a fact. A false authority fallacy. Learn what a fact is. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth.
Verified User
Not a fact. A false authority fallacy.
Verified User
False equivalence fallacy. No one is arguing the Bill of Rights is nothing but inherent rights. It is not an exhaustive list of rights either.
The 1st amendment prohibits the federal government from passing laws banning pictures of child pornography or pass any libel law.
Neither are absolute rights. False equivalence fallacy. States may pass laws concerning libel or child pornography. The 1st amendment does not apply to the States and is not binding on them.
They already do.
Verified User
Don't ever count your chickens until they hatch BOY! LOL!
Verified User
Court of Criminal Appeals (that made the ruling in the case under discussion).
rebel
rights that are 'regulated' are not rights, but privileges. It is the height of stupidity to believe that the frarmers and colonists would give power to a new government to 'regulate' their rights after having won independence from a government that 'regulated' their rights.
A common misconception that the whole 'rights can be regulated' crowd is the idea that absolute rights mean you can do any damn thing you please............where you got that bullshit idea is probably based in the mental disease that is liberalism. Individual rights are absolute because they don't include the ability to infringe on the rights of others...........but i'm sure you'll find some idiocy that you'll believe justifies your position.
if they can't be trusted with a weapon, they can't be trusted in public. If a convicted murderer or rapist is allowed back in to society again, it should be done with the belief that they will not offend again and have all of their rights restored. Otherwise, they should remain incarcerated.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
rebel
given this position, then, it should stand to reason that threats of violent rebellion would make it too politically expensive to make gun laws, right?
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Verified User
They didn't include those rights at all. The Bill of Rights was only added after the Constitution was ratified as a deal to get opponents to ratify it. They did not think any of those restrictions on federal power were necessary.
What keeps you from being able to do any damn thing you please by publishing pictures of child pornography or infringing on the rights of others? Criminal laws prevent you from doing that. A criminal law making it illegal to publish child pornography is a regulation. Therefore, you argue against your own case.
You say our rights (free press) cannot be regulated but then claim those rights can be restricted. When the 1st says "no law" shall abridge free press you are saying laws can abridge (infringe) the right of a person to publish child pornography. In your definition, that means free press is a privilege and not a right.
You are simply agreeing with the views of most Americans and posters who believe our rights are not absolute and can be restricted and those restrictions are based on court interpretation.
rebel
ridiculous argument. Are you saying that if those laws didn't exist, people would have the right to publish child pornography?????
you are confused on what rights are. especially given the fact that I've told you that your rights don't allow you to harm others.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Verified User
If it was a right that could not be abridged then the laws would not exist because government would declare them unconstitutional--that is what a right means.
Yes, you cannot harm others because criminal laws prevent it. Those are regulations of our rights.
Assume the child pornography consists of pictures of nude children not engaged in any sexual activities taken by their parents. Whose rights are being harmed if those pictures are published? What if it is computer generated child pornography not involving any real children--whose rights are being harmed.
You see examples of behavior which you do not approve of but refuse to admit that behavior can be regulated if it is one of our rights. Is "hate speech" harming others? It cannot be regulated.
rebel
it is confirmed that you have no clue what rights are.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Banned
The chickens have already hatched and, unlike you, I can count them, BOY.
Banned
It is clear that no one should trust a dishonorably discharged disgrace like you with anything he says.
Posting Rules
Bookmarks