| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<17bfc13b72bae17c$104$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:47:20 -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> <17bf9340d541bf3f$40$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-129D63.20130423032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net> Content-Language: en-US From: moviePig <never@nothere.com> In-Reply-To: <atropos-129D63.20130423032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 78 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 16:47:24 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 4569 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17bfc13b72bae17c$104$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 4948 On 3/23/2024 11:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article <17bf9340d541bf3f$40$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>, > moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote: > >> 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? > > 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".