And what country are we living in?

[fisheerman]

Word Ban in NYC


constitution much..................

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: fisheerman
Word Ban in NYC


constitution much..................

So someone introduced a resolution. Resolutions are introduced every day - that doesn't mean they will pass.

The resolution, introduced on July 25, was first reported by The Daily News. It is being considered by the Council?s Civil Rights Committee and is expected to be discussed next month.

 

[fisheerman]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: fisheerman
Word Ban in NYC


constitution much..................

So someone introduced a resolution. Resolutions are introduced every day - that doesn't mean they will pass.

The resolution, introduced on July 25, was first reported by The Daily News. It is being considered by the Council?s Civil Rights Committee and is expected to be discussed next month.

yeah but the resolution is being presented by the same people that introduced the N word ban and it already passed.

 

[Xavier434]

This is how your state taxes are being spent New Yorkers....time spent trying to create laws that will be buried in dust only days after they lose their media spotlight.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: fisheerman

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: fisheerman
Word Ban in NYC


constitution much..................

So someone introduced a resolution. Resolutions are introduced every day - that doesn't mean they will pass.

The resolution, introduced on July 25, was first reported by The Daily News. It is being considered by the Council?s Civil Rights Committee and is expected to be discussed next month.

yeah but the resolution is being presented by the same people that introduced the N word ban and it already passed.

So you think this one will definitely pass too? Wait... you've already started a thread with an opening post leading everyone to believe it's a done deal.

Even if "passed" this would only be symbolic and would be unenforceable. 😕

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
This is how your state taxes are being spent New Yorkers....time spent trying to create laws that will be buried in dust only days after they lose their media spotlight.

How do you know if they are arresting people for breaking the law for saying Nigeria or not?

Depending on the municipality determines how much money they make on arresting , booking and running through the courts.

Strictly a money making machine.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
How do you know if they are arresting people for breaking the law for saying Nigeria or not?

Depending on the municipality determines how much money they make on arresting , booking and running through the courts.

Strictly a money making machine.

From the article:

Ms. Mealy acknowledged that the measure was unenforceable, but she argued that it would carry symbolic power against the pejorative uses of the word.

I am assuming that if they don't expect to be able to enforce this law then they probably are not able to enforce the previous ones either. These people get paid a lot of money to sit in those chairs and talk about what is best for the city and create meaningful laws for the greater good of its people. They are supposed to be the experts at spending the time and money it takes to make that happen. This sort of discussion would make anyone believe otherwise...

 

[torpid]

These acts, while worthless, are marginally more useful than the ones where they have people vote on a referendum that cannot be enforced, like a referendum to end the war in iraq in one city's ballot.

 

[jjones]

And the New York City Council has nothing better to do?

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
How do you know if they are arresting people for breaking the law for saying Nigeria or not?

Depending on the municipality determines how much money they make on arresting , booking and running through the courts.

Strictly a money making machine.

That's right. It's always about the man sticking it to you. Red light cameras are also just a money making machine too, right?

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: torpid
These acts, while worthless, are marginally more useful than the ones where they have people vote on a referendum that cannot be enforced, like a referendum to end the war in iraq in one city's ballot.

Actually I would argue that all they do is contribute to a general disregard for the law in general. It is highly irresponsible for lawmakers to pass a law they know is unenforceable and in direct violation of the US Constitution.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: torpid
These acts, while worthless, are marginally more useful than the ones where they have people vote on a referendum that cannot be enforced, like a referendum to end the war in iraq in one city's ballot.

Actually I would argue that all they do is contribute to a general disregard for the law in general. It is highly irresponsible for lawmakers to pass a law they know is unenforceable and in direct violation of the US Constitution.

It's not a violation of the US constitution. The constitution forbids Congress from making laws, but says nothing of local provinces.

 

[purbeast0]

so does this mean that all the rappers from NYC couldn't make songs talkin about their n*ggers and bitches?

 

[jdini76]

Hehe I wonder if she is trying to get the word "bitch" banned just so she won't hear it said towards her anymore.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: torpid
It's not a violation of the US constitution. The constitution forbids Congress from making laws, but says nothing of local provinces.

While this may be true, it's just a bunch of politically correct crap. I believe in the constitution, but I realize that it is just another piece of paper signed by people with power. The idea of the constitution is what's important. Not the exact wording of it. It would be better if people stopped taking advantage of loop holes and exploits in general when it comes to stuff like this.


Linflas hit the nail on the head with the first part of his post:

Originally posted by: Linflas
Actually I would argue that all they do is contribute to a general disregard for the law in general. It is highly irresponsible for lawmakers to pass a law they know is unenforceable and in direct violation of the US Constitution.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: torpid
These acts, while worthless, are marginally more useful than the ones where they have people vote on a referendum that cannot be enforced, like a referendum to end the war in iraq in one city's ballot.

Actually I would argue that all they do is contribute to a general disregard for the law in general. It is highly irresponsible for lawmakers to pass a law they know is unenforceable and in direct violation of the US Constitution.

It's not a violation of the US constitution. The constitution forbids Congress from making laws, but says nothing of local provinces.

You may want to read up on the 14th amendment and edit that post.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: torpid
These acts, while worthless, are marginally more useful than the ones where they have people vote on a referendum that cannot be enforced, like a referendum to end the war in iraq in one city's ballot.

Actually I would argue that all they do is contribute to a general disregard for the law in general. It is highly irresponsible for lawmakers to pass a law they know is unenforceable and in direct violation of the US Constitution.

It's not a violation of the US constitution. The constitution forbids Congress from making laws, but says nothing of local provinces.

You may want to read up on the 14th amendment and edit that post.

No, you may want to. State powers and city powers are not the same thing. A city can do a lot of things a state can't, such as ban firearms in the entire town.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: torpid
These acts, while worthless, are marginally more useful than the ones where they have people vote on a referendum that cannot be enforced, like a referendum to end the war in iraq in one city's ballot.

Actually I would argue that all they do is contribute to a general disregard for the law in general. It is highly irresponsible for lawmakers to pass a law they know is unenforceable and in direct violation of the US Constitution.

It's not a violation of the US constitution. The constitution forbids Congress from making laws, but says nothing of local provinces.

You may want to read up on the 14th amendment and edit that post.

No, you may want to. State powers and city powers are not the same thing. A city can do a lot of things a state can't, such as ban firearms in the entire town.

Sorry you are flat out wrong. They can pass whatever laws they want and as soon as someone runs them up through the courts they will have to pass the same constitutional tests as laws passed by a county, state, or the US Congress. Washington DC's firearms ban was just declared unconstitutional this year and may very well end up in front of the Supreme Court if DC decides to appeal the ruling.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: torpid
These acts, while worthless, are marginally more useful than the ones where they have people vote on a referendum that cannot be enforced, like a referendum to end the war in iraq in one city's ballot.

Actually I would argue that all they do is contribute to a general disregard for the law in general. It is highly irresponsible for lawmakers to pass a law they know is unenforceable and in direct violation of the US Constitution.

I agree 110%. This is absurd and dangerous.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Linflas
Sorry you are flat out wrong. They can pass whatever laws they want and as soon as someone runs them up through the courts they will have to pass the same constitutional tests as laws passed by a county, state, or the US Congress. Washington DC's firearms ban was just declared unconstitutional this year and may very well end up in front of the Supreme Court if DC decides to appeal the ruling.

Welp, I stand corrected then. It seems that cities do a lot of unconstitutional things then. I mean A LOT. Shouldn't it be against state or federal law for a city to enact a law knowing full well that it violates citizens' rights? That seems like abuse of power.

 

[Gneisenau]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Linflas
Sorry you are flat out wrong. They can pass whatever laws they want and as soon as someone runs them up through the courts they will have to pass the same constitutional tests as laws passed by a county, state, or the US Congress. Washington DC's firearms ban was just declared unconstitutional this year and may very well end up in front of the Supreme Court if DC decides to appeal the ruling.

Welp, I stand corrected then. It seems that cities do a lot of unconstitutional things then. I mean A LOT. Shouldn't it be against state or federal law for a city to enact a law knowing full well that it violates citizens' rights? That seems like abuse of power.

If they past a law making it illegal to pass bad laws, every politician would be in prison...HUM... Ok, maybe that's not such a bad idea after all.....🙂

 

[fisheerman]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Linflas
Sorry you are flat out wrong. They can pass whatever laws they want and as soon as someone runs them up through the courts they will have to pass the same constitutional tests as laws passed by a county, state, or the US Congress. Washington DC's firearms ban was just declared unconstitutional this year and may very well end up in front of the Supreme Court if DC decides to appeal the ruling.

Welp, I stand corrected then. It seems that cities do a lot of unconstitutional things then. I mean A LOT. Shouldn't it be against state or federal law for a city to enact a law knowing full well that it violates citizens' rights? That seems like abuse of power.

One of our fair cities in hampton roads tried and ended up on the wrong end of a lawsuit🙂

Norfolk rights issue

I'm not really sure what people are thinking when they are sworn into office.

Don't they normally "swear to uphold the constitution"? or is that just the prez?

 

[nakedfrog]

The term is hateful and deeply sexist, said Councilwoman Darlene Mealy of Brooklyn, who has introduced a measure against the word, saying it creates ?a paradigm of shame and indignity? for all women.

I'm curious as to just how many people will read this sentence and then think "Man, what a bitch!"

 

[OutHouse]

The New York City Council, which drew national headlines when it passed a symbolic citywide ban earlier this year on the use of the so-called n-word, has turned its linguistic (and legislative) lance toward a different slur: bitch.


humm i thought that c*nt would be at the top of the list.....

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Citrix
The New York City Council, which drew national headlines when it passed a symbolic citywide ban earlier this year on the use of the so-called n-word, has turned its linguistic (and legislative) lance toward a different slur: bitch.


humm i thought that c*nt would be at the top of the list.....

Reminds me of an episode of Rescue Me. C*nt at the top, then tw*t, etc. Then the combination of the two to a super word of cw*t and twunt. Ahh, the glory of words and slang.