SmarterthanYou
rebel
sure it is that simple. does the executive branch have any power outside of those enumerated in the constitution? simple yes or no answer will suffice.
Supreme Court
- Thread starter NOVA
- Start date
sure it is that simple. does the executive branch have any power outside of those enumerated in the constitution? simple yes or no answer will suffice.
Um... They did. In fact they, and others upset over overtly spendthrift government fascism, created what was to become the "TEA Party" in order to protest just this type of thing.
And getting a portion of your money back rather than having it work to pay for more socialist policy is a good thing, not a bad one. Had they not paid that money then I may be able to see your point, but they did. It's like trying to say, "Do you refuse to accept change in the name of free market?" It's inane, getting your change for overpaying for something is part of that market.
Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court.
In an 1996 she wrote an article in the University of Chicago Law Review entitled, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine.” Kagan argued that government has the right, even considering the First Amendment, to restrict free speech, when the government believes the speech is "harmful", as long as the restriction is done with good intentions.
(good intentions WTF)Ain't that just like a liberal pinhead ? And of course she will be in a position to decide if those "intentions" are good...
This boob doesn't have a clue what the 1st Amendment means to this nation or what and how its been viewed for well over 200 years.......
Shes not fit for the Supreme Court....
Adoption and the Common Law Background
Madison’s version of the speech and press clauses, introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, provided: “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.”1 The special committee rewrote the language to some extent, adding other provisions from Madison’s draft, to make it read: “The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.”2 In this form it went to the Senate, which rewrote it to read: “That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1bfrag1_user.html#amdt1b_hd3
=================================
Now lets hear from the board morons and apologists ....mott,TCKid,Toppin,RSdungfield, jarhead, etc...
In an 1996 she wrote an article in the University of Chicago Law Review entitled, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine.” Kagan argued that government has the right, even considering the First Amendment, to restrict free speech, when the government believes the speech is "harmful", as long as the restriction is done with good intentions.
(good intentions WTF)Ain't that just like a liberal pinhead ? And of course she will be in a position to decide if those "intentions" are good...
This boob doesn't have a clue what the 1st Amendment means to this nation or what and how its been viewed for well over 200 years.......
Shes not fit for the Supreme Court....
Adoption and the Common Law Background
Madison’s version of the speech and press clauses, introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, provided: “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.”1 The special committee rewrote the language to some extent, adding other provisions from Madison’s draft, to make it read: “The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.”2 In this form it went to the Senate, which rewrote it to read: “That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1bfrag1_user.html#amdt1b_hd3
=================================
Now lets hear from the board morons and apologists ....mott,TCKid,Toppin,RSdungfield, jarhead, etc...
Last edited:
This has been thoroughly discussed one of the eleventy billion other Kagan threads. Long story short, Kagan merely agreed with the unanimous opinion of he Supreme Court authored by Chief Justice Rehnquist that the government has an interest in prohibiting race-based assaults (not speech).
So your disagreement is not only with Kagan, but Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas, among others.
Weak spin, peckerhead...
Her article in the University of Chicago Law Review entitled, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: etc...
Get that...?
Private S P E E C H....
My point is that "good intentions" is far too ambiguous a concept to use to limit the freedoms given to us in the Constitution.....
Like the saying goes...The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions
(Just trying to rile up you pinheads....its been a slow day)
Like the saying goes...The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions
(Just trying to rile up you pinheads....its been a slow day)
Last edited:
Really ?
"the government has an interest in prohibiting race-based assaults (not speech)."
So assaults does not include speech...???
She just used the word "speech" in her article for.....fun, maybe?
OoooooKaaaayyy!
I give up, you win.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Once again, you keep trying to pass your opinion, supposition and conjecture off as fact and logic.
And once again, in the face of history, you fail miserably.
Case in point: Katherine Harris was NOT found guilty of voter fraud, because the court could prove incompetance, but NOT CRIMINIAL INTENT. That's a legal precedent, bunky.....I keep telling you to KNOW your subject before you embarass yourself by typing what you think is right. But hey, I guess calling everyone "pinheads" and "clarabells" and such compensates for your proud ignorance.
Carry on.
Katherine Harris was not found guilty of anything because she followed the law TO THE LETTER.....doing her job as the LAW REQUIRED....
(Hell, and here I was going to let you win one....well...not this one)
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you ever notice that that legal precedent is only applied to people in the capacity of an elected official or agent of the state? how's that make you feel, bunky?
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
:eek: "Socialist Policy?!!??" Once again Damo, for someone who is constantly swearing that he's NOT a neocon, you sure as hell adhere to the Rovian rhetoric from 2000-2008! And then you throw in some Libertarian malarky for good measure. Don't waste my time with this teabagging bullshit.
Bottom line: The Shrub & company gave out "public assistance" checks to the American populace. This wasn't based on actual individual taxes, it was a GENERALIZED DISTRIBUTION TO A PORTION OF SOCIETY. Some folks got back MORE than what they paid out in the previous year....and People PAID THEIR BILLS, and DID NOT run out to the department stores...so much for "stimulus". So stop making EXCUSES for the Shrub and his neocon buddies when they use socialist methods to prop up their bogus ideology/legacy.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
should have figured that taichi would fall back on the neocon rovian koolaid mix.
sad really. every now and then he shows just a glimmer of intelligence, then smudges it by talking.
sad really. every now and then he shows just a glimmer of intelligence, then smudges it by talking.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Newflash for ya, toodles....."legal precedent" can and has been applied to all types of court decisions. "legal precedent" refers to a previous court decision that can be applied to a current case for justification of a procedure used by cousel.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Since when is it the letter of the law to use a flawed voter scrub list? Especially after the company you hired to run said list TELLS you that it's flawed?The best that could be proved was that Harris fucked up royally...but for some inexplicable reason they couldn't prove she INTENTIONALLY fucked up.
Got that bunky? Let me know when YOU actually win one outside of your delusional view of the world.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Cool Damo....:lol:
And you thought you were gonna have a grownup, rational debate.....
Says the man who depends more on cartoons than facts and logic.
I noticed you dummied up when I schooled you on your blatherings about socialism....and Damo pretty much did the same dumb thing you did in trying to excuse and detract from a historical fact. Both of you are guilty of being hypocrits.
You're such a preposterous figure, Bravo....carry on.
Last edited:
It didn't take "over a year", the first of the protests (the one y'all made fun of because supposedly they were small when well over a million showed up across the US) happened on April 15th the next year. At that time I said that it was a decent start and hoped it would grow.
Bottom line, Bush and CO gave people back money they paid in taxes. If you hadn't paid you didn't get the money back (that was part of what y'all complained about, some people who were poor got no checks at all). Getting your own money back isn't "bad" or "socialism" even in the mind of the left.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
How ironic.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
What's truly sad is that YOU cannot logically or factually refute or disprove what I schooled that idiot Bravo on, or how I took the wind out of Damo's sails while factually pointing out the rhetoric he parrots yet claims he abhors.
Blather on, my intellectually bankrupt clown.