Path: Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:43:17 +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> <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>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 15:50:48 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-F68996.15504824032024@69.muaa.rchm.washdctt.dsl.att.net>
Lines: 100
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-mOHG0ZlkWF+IHbYaq2zpi8p7ce6zOAsb2qMbm7LDM0DKKC2vuYmeQ+mGWy1VAtMR0cmjJPq7D+OiJe/!vycXphwY840gFYNBMcxjy34plYbtF3Fe8NgXmN9vawMkXhlXyZAEIXg4Czca1gA9Pn8Spqz0Kq08!+agKXSi02wxMcVzAoLi1a/qx
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: 6412

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.