Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!69.80.99.26.MISMATCH!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 20:30:00 +0000 From: BTR1701 Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Ketanji Jackson Worried That the 1st Amendment is Hamstringing Government Censorship References: <17bede76861e0687$3579$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> <17bf7c673026efe8$1900$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com> <17bf9340d541bf3f$40$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> <17bfc13b72bae17c$104$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 13:37:32 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 81 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-kQ8pOxQ12jBdW4AEf3XWoFht07JFuYk2S6aoHoeWQPW/unnuA5w/Gx1zX3h2CmoTosFFCmBIMdGNsry!iE4SX7GMv7r6tKLrtelrav6pqRxiyUFhG8yFn1i6gwRlKcoz28qDu0Z3ameJyxbwihTXSixRnIr/!Yy4naDrc3iKU9VyufTDlt9Au X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 5691 X-Original-Bytes: 5413 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... > >>>> > >>>> "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment > >>>> for *CAPITAL* 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." > >>>> > >>>> ...or, as the straw-man you might be hoping for, to... > >>>> > >>>> "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment > >>>> for *NEGRO ANCESTRY* 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." > >>> > >>> 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.