Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 22:44:46 -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: <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> <17bf7c673026efe8$1900$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com> <WN-dnU5rfr8M_mL4nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: moviePig <never@nothere.com>
In-Reply-To: <WN-dnU5rfr8M_mL4nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 72
Path: ...!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: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 02:44:50 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 4289
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17bf9340d541bf3f$40$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 4667

On 3/23/2024 7:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>> 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."
> 
> 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?  Surely not that he'd carefully examined every one of the 
existing amendments and found each to be eminently mutable...

But, perhaps you're presenting XIII as the rare specimen of legislation 
worded so tightly that no detail of it may be altered lest its entire 
edifice of intended purpose disintegrate.  I, otoh, would bet that 
anyone reading this can build you examples with ease...