Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!69.80.99.26.MISMATCH!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 20:30:00 +0000
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Ketanji Jackson Worried That the 1st Amendment is Hamstringing Government Censorship
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> <17bfc13b72bae17c$104$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 13:37:32 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-5778AB.13373224032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net>
Lines: 81
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-kQ8pOxQ12jBdW4AEf3XWoFht07JFuYk2S6aoHoeWQPW/unnuA5w/Gx1zX3h2CmoTosFFCmBIMdGNsry!iE4SX7GMv7r6tKLrtelrav6pqRxiyUFhG8yFn1i6gwRlKcoz28qDu0Z3ameJyxbwihTXSixRnIr/!Yy4naDrc3iKU9VyufTDlt9Au
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: 5691
X-Original-Bytes: 5413

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...
> >>>>
> >>>>      "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".

Right. He meant no amendment is free from encroachment by congressional 
or judicial regulation.