there is no constitutional authority available (to anyone at the federal level, including the judiciary) to abridge (curtail, shorten) the freedom to speak in any form or fashion
Assume you interpret the First Amendment strictly. Does "speech" incorporate only verbal communication of sounds recognized as language, or does it also mean non-verbal expression? Then it also means that either (1) deaf-mute people have no First Amendment rights (because they cannot verbally communicate) or (2) murder is protected by the First Amendment as a non-verbal expression of "I want you to die."
Both are clearly really, really fucking ridiculous conclusions. And therein lies the problem with literalism--it leads to really stupidly obviously wrong conclusions with a modicum of reasoning.
Oh, and a literalistic reading of the First Amendment also means that diaries are not protected by the First Amendment (because they are not verbal communication and they are also not "the press").
Oh, and silent film is also not protected, as it is neither verbal expression nor "the press."
Oh, and here's another really good one. One of the tip-top most important canons of interpreting any legislative or constitutional document is that a court is not to assume any provision is a superfluity. This rule has existed since before the United States Constitution was drafted. So the authors of the Constitution were aware of this. Art. I, sec. 9 places limits on the Congress. It enumerates things Congress cannot do. Now the 10th Amendment says that all powers not given to the Congress belong to the states.
Now why would Art. I, sec. 9 even exist in the first place then? If the 10th Amendment says Congress doesn't have any powers the Constitution doesn't give it, then why have a section saying "Oh, by the way, Congress can't do these things THAT WE HAVEN'T GIVEN THEM PERMISSION TO DO ANYWHERE ELSE ANYWAY"? This demonstrates the framers did not author a self-consistent document. Originalism dies there, too.
Oh, and let's not forget that the Constitution is, in effect, a contract. When terms are ambiguous (as I hope I've demonstrated by this point in my post), one turns to what the parties intended to effectuate. This is another rule of legal interpretation that has existed since before the US existed. The problem is that the framers told different states that the Constitution meant different things. So when each state ratified the Constitution, they were, in effect, ratifying a different document than their neighboring states were. This also gives leeway in constitutional construction, no?
Hopefully I've demonstrated the inherent flaws in originalism and strict constructionism. If not, I could go one with more flaws in the document you read so strictly. Anyone with a semester of constitutional law under their belt in law school could do the same.
And the greatest strict constructionist, Scalia? Well, why don't you read his opinion this summer in Heller, the gun control case. He conveniently ignores that the original meaning of "arms" in the Second Amendment means "weapons used at the time of ratification of the Constitution."
If you're going to be so strict in your reading of the Constitution, then you'd better be prepared for every gun in the US that is not a musket based on 18th century technology to be subject to illegalization.
I wouldn't necessarily say he's just trying to win to further his career. Or, at least, I wouldn't say it's a bad thing.
The very job of the solicitor general is to defend the United States at the SCOTUS. That's his job. His. Job.
Should I look down on a coder somewhere programming to an ugly spec (that he didn't design) because "he's just trying to program to further his own career"?
Also that there's a difference between Fox and Fox News.
One is a 24/7 news network with a stated goal of pushing the conservative agenda. The other is a set of television shows produced by independent groups that are then paid by Fox and are delivered to content-independent groups (a/k/a "Fox affiliates") for rebroadcasting. Highly inaccurate description I acknowledge, but fairly explanatory of the difference between Fox and Fox News it is, I think.
You forgot: 1600s-present time: wealthy whites persecute poor whites and convince poor whites to persecute black (slaves) to distract the poor whites from the fact that (1) the poor whites and poor blacks together vastly outnumber the wealthy whites and (2) the wealthy are royally screwing them.
That's sort of a strawman characterization of the incident. He didn't all of a sudden realize his pastor is a racist. He realized that it was no longer possible for him to differentiate his views from his pastor's views. He thus broke off their relationship.
After the tapes came out, he repudiated what Wright said and pointed out that he doesn't agree with everything that comes out of Wright's mouth in the same way that TheoMurpse does not believe the papacy is the antichrist while his church's stated position is that the papacy is the antichrist. (Interestingly enough, many protestant denominations believe this, which means that Obama cannot be the antichrist, thus meaning that any relevant protestant who makes that assertion is either a moron, a liar, or doesn't actually know what his church believes.)
Only after Wright went on national TV singing racist songs about how white people clap a certain way and dancing around, and in general making a racist ass out of himself.
Now, you may view Obama's actions in a few ways.
1. Obama chose this church and converted to Christianity purely for political reasons in the hope that he may run for public office one day (from what I understand, Obama converted while a community organizer). Then, recently, he said, "Oh crap, I really want to be President. There's no way I can with this baggage. I'd better destroy this." I don't think this works because Obama first distanced himself rather than immediately taking the most politically expedient course, which would be to "throw Wright under the bus."
2. He tried to preserve his relationship with his church leader (whom he was not required to agree with 100% of the time), but realized it was futile because his preacher was acting like an inconsiderate asshole on national TV. Being a pragmatist, Obama realized that he would not be able to do good things for America if he allowed himself to be connected to such intolerant, bigoted, and stupid acts. Obama thus acted. I think this is what happened, and I think this demonstrates Obama's true quality: pragmatism. I know people who know him, and he's supposedly a strong pragmatist, not a blind idealogue.
I'm sure there are others but it's 2am and I need to go to bed. Feel free to talk amongst yourselves. Also, how is "God damn America!" a racist statement? The racist statements made by Wright were not pre-recorded sermons. He made borderline anti-American statements (which I don't think are anti-American in spirit, but rather were high-flying rhetoric that white America simply doesn't understand is a very good method of inspiration to work for the betterment of the community--recall that black worship in this country was an integral part of slave life a couple centuries ago, and the modern black church is often a direct descendant of that atmosphere).
You've apparently not seen any SNL this year. Say what you will about other years, but there's no rational denying that SNL has been consistently funny this year. Excluding the Michael Phelps season opener (because athletes rarely have comedic timing), this season has been one of the highlights of US TV. That's not saying much, but it's definitely a LOT higher than your stated evaluation of SNL.
The only thing I'm worried about is the loss of Amy Poehler since she just gave birth. She was one of the best on the show and was an anchor on Weekend Update.
Also, every generation says SNL isn't as good as it was. You should have heard my parents complain back in the early 90s about how crappy SNL was. Yes, SNL with Phil Hartman, Dana Carvey, Mike Myers, Adam Sandler, Chris Farley, Norm Macdonald, Tim Meadows, Chris Rock, Dennis Miller, and Kevin Nealon were "not as funny [as the 70s cast."
And I know people who think Chevy Chase, John Belushi, Dan Aykroyd, Gilda Radner, et al. were "not funny."
And I know people who think Will Ferrell, Molly Shannon, Tina Fey, etc. were "not as funny as the 90s cast [or 70s]."
And now there are people saying Kristin Wiig, Bill Hader, Seth Myers, etc. are "not funny [or as funny as the 70s cast]."
Technically many protestant Christians cannot (correctly) claim an atheistic presidential candidate is the antichrist. This is because anyone strictly following Lutheran, Adventist, Presbyterian, etc. ideology would agree the papacy is the antichrist. Disclaimer: I am Lutheran and I do not care one way or the other the identity of the antichrist, assuming it wasn't some dream John had.
If you're going to claim immigration laws negate the existence of a free market economy, then you must also agree that a mountain range negates the existence of a free market economy. They have the exact same effect on the free flow of individuals (well, actually, a mountain range arguably has more of an effect, making a mountain range MORE of an enemy to the free market). It is, after all, natural force affecting the marketplace.
And then when we piss off the world again and they stop selling us food, we all starve to death. Outsourcing the food supply is really, really idiotic, no?
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: ``I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.
Because rap and hip-hop are only for black people, and we should segregate colored music and white music. Sheesh. Sounds like someone's got a high horse stuck up their ass.
How long did it take you to learn to do all that to your car? There are educational costs there as well.
He's paying the money to not have to do it himself--boredom is another reason.
Also, there are opportunity costs involved. Suppose the man is a lawyer who makes $200/hr. 15 minutes of time (ignoring time to change clothes, clean up, etc.) is a $50 opportunity cost.
And you're ignoring that if the $700 thing in his car breaks, he gets it fixed for free (as he said and you so conveniently ignored).
Slashdot Mirror
Assume you interpret the First Amendment strictly. Does "speech" incorporate only verbal communication of sounds recognized as language, or does it also mean non-verbal expression? Then it also means that either (1) deaf-mute people have no First Amendment rights (because they cannot verbally communicate) or (2) murder is protected by the First Amendment as a non-verbal expression of "I want you to die."
Both are clearly really, really fucking ridiculous conclusions. And therein lies the problem with literalism--it leads to really stupidly obviously wrong conclusions with a modicum of reasoning.
Oh, and a literalistic reading of the First Amendment also means that diaries are not protected by the First Amendment (because they are not verbal communication and they are also not "the press").
Oh, and silent film is also not protected, as it is neither verbal expression nor "the press."
Oh, and here's another really good one. One of the tip-top most important canons of interpreting any legislative or constitutional document is that a court is not to assume any provision is a superfluity. This rule has existed since before the United States Constitution was drafted. So the authors of the Constitution were aware of this. Art. I, sec. 9 places limits on the Congress. It enumerates things Congress cannot do. Now the 10th Amendment says that all powers not given to the Congress belong to the states.
Now why would Art. I, sec. 9 even exist in the first place then? If the 10th Amendment says Congress doesn't have any powers the Constitution doesn't give it, then why have a section saying "Oh, by the way, Congress can't do these things THAT WE HAVEN'T GIVEN THEM PERMISSION TO DO ANYWHERE ELSE ANYWAY"? This demonstrates the framers did not author a self-consistent document. Originalism dies there, too.
Oh, and let's not forget that the Constitution is, in effect, a contract. When terms are ambiguous (as I hope I've demonstrated by this point in my post), one turns to what the parties intended to effectuate. This is another rule of legal interpretation that has existed since before the US existed. The problem is that the framers told different states that the Constitution meant different things. So when each state ratified the Constitution, they were, in effect, ratifying a different document than their neighboring states were. This also gives leeway in constitutional construction, no?
Hopefully I've demonstrated the inherent flaws in originalism and strict constructionism. If not, I could go one with more flaws in the document you read so strictly. Anyone with a semester of constitutional law under their belt in law school could do the same.
And the greatest strict constructionist, Scalia? Well, why don't you read his opinion this summer in Heller, the gun control case. He conveniently ignores that the original meaning of "arms" in the Second Amendment means "weapons used at the time of ratification of the Constitution."
If you're going to be so strict in your reading of the Constitution, then you'd better be prepared for every gun in the US that is not a musket based on 18th century technology to be subject to illegalization.
I wouldn't necessarily say he's just trying to win to further his career. Or, at least, I wouldn't say it's a bad thing.
The very job of the solicitor general is to defend the United States at the SCOTUS. That's his job. His. Job.
Should I look down on a coder somewhere programming to an ugly spec (that he didn't design) because "he's just trying to program to further his own career"?
Isn't it interesting that narrow-minded people use broad strokes?
Also that there's a difference between Fox and Fox News.
One is a 24/7 news network with a stated goal of pushing the conservative agenda. The other is a set of television shows produced by independent groups that are then paid by Fox and are delivered to content-independent groups (a/k/a "Fox affiliates") for rebroadcasting. Highly inaccurate description I acknowledge, but fairly explanatory of the difference between Fox and Fox News it is, I think.
You forgot: 1600s-present time: wealthy whites persecute poor whites and convince poor whites to persecute black (slaves) to distract the poor whites from the fact that (1) the poor whites and poor blacks together vastly outnumber the wealthy whites and (2) the wealthy are royally screwing them.
That's sort of a strawman characterization of the incident. He didn't all of a sudden realize his pastor is a racist. He realized that it was no longer possible for him to differentiate his views from his pastor's views. He thus broke off their relationship.
After the tapes came out, he repudiated what Wright said and pointed out that he doesn't agree with everything that comes out of Wright's mouth in the same way that TheoMurpse does not believe the papacy is the antichrist while his church's stated position is that the papacy is the antichrist. (Interestingly enough, many protestant denominations believe this, which means that Obama cannot be the antichrist, thus meaning that any relevant protestant who makes that assertion is either a moron, a liar, or doesn't actually know what his church believes.)
Only after Wright went on national TV singing racist songs about how white people clap a certain way and dancing around, and in general making a racist ass out of himself.
Now, you may view Obama's actions in a few ways.
1. Obama chose this church and converted to Christianity purely for political reasons in the hope that he may run for public office one day (from what I understand, Obama converted while a community organizer). Then, recently, he said, "Oh crap, I really want to be President. There's no way I can with this baggage. I'd better destroy this." I don't think this works because Obama first distanced himself rather than immediately taking the most politically expedient course, which would be to "throw Wright under the bus."
2. He tried to preserve his relationship with his church leader (whom he was not required to agree with 100% of the time), but realized it was futile because his preacher was acting like an inconsiderate asshole on national TV. Being a pragmatist, Obama realized that he would not be able to do good things for America if he allowed himself to be connected to such intolerant, bigoted, and stupid acts. Obama thus acted. I think this is what happened, and I think this demonstrates Obama's true quality: pragmatism. I know people who know him, and he's supposedly a strong pragmatist, not a blind idealogue.
I'm sure there are others but it's 2am and I need to go to bed. Feel free to talk amongst yourselves. Also, how is "God damn America!" a racist statement? The racist statements made by Wright were not pre-recorded sermons. He made borderline anti-American statements (which I don't think are anti-American in spirit, but rather were high-flying rhetoric that white America simply doesn't understand is a very good method of inspiration to work for the betterment of the community--recall that black worship in this country was an integral part of slave life a couple centuries ago, and the modern black church is often a direct descendant of that atmosphere).
You realize Bush applied to Texas Law and got rejected and then went to Harvard Business School instead, right? No law degree doth that man possess.
We sort of already do. It's called "customary international law," and it's been in existence for a long time.
Office building != Wal-Mart. Or didn't you realize different companies have different policies?
I went to a store with no security cameras. That doesn't mean your office has no security cameras.
No, the settlers left Soviet Russia because bering straits you.
If nothing is capped, then everything is unmetered, right? So your statement seems tautological: I have no problem with A as long as it is A.
You've apparently not seen any SNL this year. Say what you will about other years, but there's no rational denying that SNL has been consistently funny this year. Excluding the Michael Phelps season opener (because athletes rarely have comedic timing), this season has been one of the highlights of US TV. That's not saying much, but it's definitely a LOT higher than your stated evaluation of SNL.
The only thing I'm worried about is the loss of Amy Poehler since she just gave birth. She was one of the best on the show and was an anchor on Weekend Update.
Also, every generation says SNL isn't as good as it was. You should have heard my parents complain back in the early 90s about how crappy SNL was. Yes, SNL with Phil Hartman, Dana Carvey, Mike Myers, Adam Sandler, Chris Farley, Norm Macdonald, Tim Meadows, Chris Rock, Dennis Miller, and Kevin Nealon were "not as funny [as the 70s cast."
And I know people who think Chevy Chase, John Belushi, Dan Aykroyd, Gilda Radner, et al. were "not funny."
And I know people who think Will Ferrell, Molly Shannon, Tina Fey, etc. were "not as funny as the 90s cast [or 70s]."
And now there are people saying Kristin Wiig, Bill Hader, Seth Myers, etc. are "not funny [or as funny as the 70s cast]."
Fixed.
Technically many protestant Christians cannot (correctly) claim an atheistic presidential candidate is the antichrist. This is because anyone strictly following Lutheran, Adventist, Presbyterian, etc. ideology would agree the papacy is the antichrist. Disclaimer: I am Lutheran and I do not care one way or the other the identity of the antichrist, assuming it wasn't some dream John had.
If you're going to claim immigration laws negate the existence of a free market economy, then you must also agree that a mountain range negates the existence of a free market economy. They have the exact same effect on the free flow of individuals (well, actually, a mountain range arguably has more of an effect, making a mountain range MORE of an enemy to the free market). It is, after all, natural force affecting the marketplace.
No?
And then when we piss off the world again and they stop selling us food, we all starve to death. Outsourcing the food supply is really, really idiotic, no?
Erm...the Vatican?
Flag Code. US law. 4 U.S.C. Section 4:
You must have missed the "especially . . . African Americans and hispanics" part of his comment.
The DMCA was passed in 1998 under Clinton. Your point still stands, though, regardless of the perpetrators.
Incidentally, the Copyright Term Extension Act was also enacted in 1998.
Actually he didn't mean to infer anything. He meant to imply. The addressee infers. The addressor implies.
You think that's bad? I live in Japan. Every page I visit just redirects to a picture of a giant gaping cornhole, rimmed with hair. Looking at me.
There's no need to beat around the bush, Darby. We all know which you're talking about. Murder, right?
Because rap and hip-hop are only for black people, and we should segregate colored music and white music. Sheesh. Sounds like someone's got a high horse stuck up their ass.
How long did it take you to learn to do all that to your car? There are educational costs there as well.
He's paying the money to not have to do it himself--boredom is another reason.
Also, there are opportunity costs involved. Suppose the man is a lawyer who makes $200/hr. 15 minutes of time (ignoring time to change clothes, clean up, etc.) is a $50 opportunity cost.
And you're ignoring that if the $700 thing in his car breaks, he gets it fixed for free (as he said and you so conveniently ignored).