Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:46:02 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Ketanji Jackson Worried That the 1st Amendment is Hamstringing Government Censorship
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <AbGcneZpLeuJ12f4nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> <17bede76861e0687$3579$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-6D853D.13234321032024@news.giganews.com> <utjor7$2snlm$1@dont-email.me> <sR2dnWhJhaAPdGD4nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <utmrq9$3n3jl$4@dont-email.me> <atropos-F14D81.10561923032024@news.giganews.com>
From: moviePig <never@nothere.com>
In-Reply-To: <atropos-F14D81.10561923032024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 57
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.hasname.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 19:46:06 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 3290
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17bf7c673026efe8$1900$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 3691

On 3/23/2024 1:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <utmrq9$3n3jl$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/22/24 4:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Mar 22, 2024 at 4:08:21 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> 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."