Path: Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:43:17 +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> <17bfcfe9ea63d6e9$41977$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com> <17bfd2ebcc6f342b$110$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 15:50:48 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 100 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-mOHG0ZlkWF+IHbYaq2zpi8p7ce6zOAsb2qMbm7LDM0DKKC2vuYmeQ+mGWy1VAtMR0cmjJPq7D+OiJe/!vycXphwY840gFYNBMcxjy34plYbtF3Fe8NgXmN9vawMkXhlXyZAEIXg4Czca1gA9Pn8Spqz0Kq08!+agKXSi02wxMcVzAoLi1a/qx 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: 6412 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.