Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 12:07:56 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Ketanji Jackson Worried That the 1st Amendment is Hamstringing Government Censorship Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: <17bf7c673026efe8$1900$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com> <17bf9340d541bf3f$40$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> <17bfc13b72bae17c$104$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> <17bfcfe9ea63d6e9$41977$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com> <17bfd2ebcc6f342b$110$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> <17bfe17f860291f4$112$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> Content-Language: en-US From: moviePig In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 127 Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:07:56 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 7025 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17c00da8bb248c93$72540$1768716$4ad50060@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 7421 On 3/25/2024 1:10 AM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article <17bfe17f860291f4$112$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>, > moviePig wrote: > >> On 3/24/2024 6:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> In article <17bfd2ebcc6f342b$110$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>, >>> moviePig wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/24/2024 6:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>> In article <17bfcfe9ea63d6e9$41977$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 3/24/2024 4:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>> In article <17bfc13b72bae17c$104$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 11:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <17bf9340d541bf3f$40$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>, >>>>>>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 7:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 1:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article , FPP >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/24 4:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 2024 at 4:08:21 AM PDT, "FPP" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/24 4:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're comparing the text of an amendment to 200+ years of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Supreme Court jurisprudence interpreting an amendment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it was perfectly apt, and nothing you cited changed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SCALIA. Remember him? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because every time I bring him up to you about how no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amendment >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sacrosanct (not even the second), you fall into that coma >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. Every time you bring that up, I ask you whether >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think that it'd be okay for the government to make exceptions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amendment XIX and prohibit women from voting since "no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amendment >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is sacrosanct", after all. Or since "no amendment is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sacrosanct", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it'd be okay for the government to prohibit black people from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voting (Amendment XV) and allow people to be owned as slaves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Amendment XIII). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that's when *you* go into a coma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No amendment is above being regulated. Period. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So describe how the 13th Amendment might be regulated beyond the >>>>>>>>>>>>> plain text of the Constitution, Shit-Shoes. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thrill us with your acumen. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment >>>>>>>>>>>> for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall >>>>>>>>>>>> exist within the United States, or any place subject to their >>>>>>>>>>>> jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this >>>>>>>>>>>> article by appropriate legislation." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ...could be amended to... >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Any amendment can be amended or repealed completely. That's not >>>>>>>>>>> what we're talking about. The issue is how a Court could interpret >>>>>>>>>>> Amendment XIII in any way that wouldn't allow for the very thing it >>>>>>>>>>> proscribes. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, ANY amendment can be amended. What else are you imagining >>>>>>>>>> Scalia to be saying? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Scalia said regulation. He wasn't talking about the amendment >>>>>>>>> process, since that's self-explanatory and obvious and hardly needed >>>>>>>>> repeating. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The claim I've been supporting is "No amendment is sacrosanct". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Right. He meant no amendment is free from encroachment by congressional >>>>>>> or judicial regulation. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm loath to declare what someone else meant, or to think that I know. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regardless, it seems Scalia was talking specifically about the 2nd >>>>>> Amendment ... >>>>> >>>>> Yes, the subject was the 2nd, but as Effa loves to parrot, he >>>>> specifically said no amendment, no freedom or right, was immune from >>>>> such limitation. >>>>> >>>>> To which I say, give me an example of how the 13th Amendment can be >>>>> legitimately limited by the Judicial Branch. >>>>> >>>>> And that's when Effa goes radio silent and slips into one his comas. >>>> >>>> To interpret is to limit >>> >>> Nope. An amendment can easily be interpreted to give *more* freedom than >>> the plain text indicates, which is what the gun grabbers claim the Court >>> has done with the 2nd: that they've interpreted it to mean an individual >>> right of gun ownership rather than the limited right of militia members >>> to own guns. >> >> Relaxing a limit is still setting one. > > Nope. > > If I write a law that says, "Everyone's allowed to own guns except > moviePig" and the Court comes along and says that's an illegal bill of > attainder and strikes the last two words, the Court hasn't set a limit. > It has removed one. That's Zen word games. Is a limit of zero (or infinity) a limit? And, is an abrogation an interpretation?