Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 12:07:56 -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> <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> <17bfc13b72bae17c$104$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-5778AB.13373224032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net> <17bfcfe9ea63d6e9$41977$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-719576.15075324032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net> <17bfd2ebcc6f342b$110$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-F68996.15504824032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net> <17bfe17f860291f4$112$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-8DF83A.22100824032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net>
Content-Language: en-US
From: moviePig <never@nothere.com>
In-Reply-To: <atropos-8DF83A.22100824032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 127
Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:07:56 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 7025
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17c00da8bb248c93$72540$1768716$4ad50060@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 7421

On 3/25/2024 1:10 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <17bfe17f860291f4$112$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
>   moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/24/2024 6:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <17bfd2ebcc6f342b$110$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>    moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/24/2024 6:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <17bfcfe9ea63d6e9$41977$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>>>     moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/24/2024 4:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <17bfc13b72bae17c$104$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>>>>>      moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Relaxing a limit is still setting one.
> 
> Nope.
> 
> If I write a law that says, "Everyone's allowed to own guns except
> moviePig" and the Court comes along and says that's an illegal bill of
> attainder and strikes the last two words, the Court hasn't set a limit.
> It has removed one.

That's Zen word games.  Is a limit of zero (or infinity) a limit?  And, 
is an abrogation an interpretation?