Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: moviePig Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 14:44:43 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 55 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 20:44:45 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="abddbbe2509c3aa1c6b780ec1f73f6e4"; logging-data="3646024"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+k3sNsTMFcZCSs2ng6sR0p1W+5SIVRqJg=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:o9qXdqCzV7WaxAqgleEHwdaugmA= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 3598 On 6/28/2024 1:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > On Jun 28, 2024 at 9:33:45 AM PDT, "moviePig" wrote: > >> On 6/28/2024 12:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> In article , FPP >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/22/24 11:52 AM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>> FPP wrote: >>>>>> On 6/22/24 11:30 AM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>> FPP wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> They decide law based on intent all the time. It's a staple of the >>>>>>>> system. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cool! Let's go with intent, then. Which means all those millions of >>>>>>> illegals pretending to be refugees and just reciting the magic words to >>>>>>> game the system can be summarily denied and deported because the intent >>>>>>> of the refugee law was never to allow millions of people who don't >>>>>>> qualify as refugees to game and overwhelm the system and flood >>>>>>> unchecked into the country. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regardless of what the law actually says, its intent was never to >>>>>>> create the current border crisis we're currently experiencing, so we >>>>>>> can ignore what's written and just go with intent. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm really starting to warm up to The Law According to Effa! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What do you think the Supreme Court uses to judge whether a law is >>>>>>>> constitutional? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Umm... the Constitution. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ummm... pass the border bill your side wrote. >>>>> >>>>> No need. We already have the intent of the Immigration and Naturalization >>>>> Act! >>>>> >>>> Then why hasn't anyone said that, besides you? >>> >>> Because deciding cases based on intent isn't really a thing. Something I >>> was trying to illustrate with sarcasm. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law >> >> Gosh, it *seems* to really be a thing... > > Gosh, then we're back to not needing to care about what the text of the > Immigration and Naturalization Act says, since it was unquestionably NOT the > intent of those who wrote it to erase the southern border allow the entire > Southern Hemisphere to flood into the country. But, back on the subject, it appears that intent *can* inform decisions.