Cruz asks Feinstein about constitutionality of her Bill

[HumblePie]

Bradley Manning says hello.

Contractual agreement says hello. Also, the leaking of classified information has measurable harm that is actionable.




As for Eskimospy...

Look, you are not getting the fine line distinction. Let me go back to the Child Pornography example I used above.

Congress has made it illegal. Although pictures of anything is a form of speech, the category of pornography of children is illegal. Noticed I said CATEGORY. The category refers not to the speech itself, but the actionable harm of the speech. The speech, which is a naked picture of a child is NOT illegal. Fine line difference. To reiterate, naked picture of a child = not illegal. Child Pornography = illegal.

What's the difference? They are BOTH images of naked children. They are both forms of speech. In this example, they could be the same image. It's the intent and HARM of the speech that make it fall into a category that makes it illegal. A fine line distinction that you seem to fail at comprehending. Congress can NOT ban or censor the taking of naked pictures of young children. Not at all. They can only punish the actionable harm which may result from such pictures, either intended or unintended. It's the combined bit of the type of speech, the content, the intention, and the harm. The last two pieces are what makes the actions of speech into illegal actions. This has been told to you over and over, and the links state the same thing over and over.

Speech itself is free. Government can never censor any speech. The government can not tell you what you can and can not say. Nor can the government specifically tell you how you can and can not say something. The government can say that if a type of speech, told in a specific way, with certain actionable harm does occur then it is illegal. Again FINE LINE distinction.

 

[ivwshane]

Contractual agreement says hello. Also, the leaking of classified information has measurable harm that is actionable.




As for Eskimospy...

Look, you are not getting the fine line distinction. Let me go back to the Child Pornography example I used above.

Congress has made it illegal. Although pictures of anything is a form of speech, the category of pornography of children is illegal. Noticed I said CATEGORY. The category refers not to the speech itself, but the actionable harm of the speech. The speech, which is a naked picture of a child is NOT illegal. Fine line difference. To reiterate, naked picture of a child = not illegal. Child Pornography = illegal.

What's the difference? They are BOTH images of naked children. They are both forms of speech. In this example, they could be the same image. It's the intent and HARM of the speech that make it fall into a category that makes it illegal. A fine line distinction that you seem to fail at comprehending. Congress can NOT ban or censor the taking of naked pictures of young children. Not at all. They can only punish the actionable harm which may result from such pictures, either intended or unintended. It's the combined bit of the type of speech, the content, the intention, and the harm. The last two pieces are what makes the actions of speech into illegal actions. This has been told to you over and over, and the links state the same thing over and over.

Speech itself is free. Government can never censor any speech. The government can not tell you what you can and can not say. Nor can the government specifically tell you how you can and can not say something. The government can say that if a type of speech, told in a specific way, with certain actionable harm does occur then it is illegal. Again FINE LINE distinction.

Isn't that how all laws work? Short of having a government agent with you at all times the government can't force you to do anything but they can penalize you when you do something.

I don't understand your point.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

You must have missed the first couple pages my friend.

Oh no. If SCOTUS rules in direct opposition to the Constitution, then by who's authority do they wield their claim? Its not the Constitution obviously, so where does it come from? How do you get around an oath that you are to defend it when your decision (SCOTUS or politicians for that matter) is in direct contrast to the plain meaning. Again this is why literal interpretation is required. Otherwise you might as well through all the restrictions on government out (as if it isnt happening now) because there is going to be one lawyer, one supreme court justice at some point in time that will do exactly that.

You can't literaly interpret a vague amendment ergo it will always be subject to SCOTUS interpretation.

You are trying to wish for an impossible reality where laws are never interpreted and always cover all cases, both existing and future unkown ones.

If constitutions were filled with "1 + 1 = 2" statements then yes you might have a point.

 

[NoStateofMind]

You can't literaly interpret a vague amendment ergo it will always be subject to SCOTUS interpretation.

You are trying to wish for an impossible reality where laws are never interpreted and always cover all cases, both existing and future unkown ones.

If constitutions were filled with "1 + 1 = 2" statements then yes you might have a point.

With respect I disagree and theres proof in American Jurisprudence quote ""Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property".

Look, I get it, it doesn't jive with your view of our Constitution but the very literal translation was meant to be plain language, meaning that anyone who read it understood easily what was meant. Some may never understand.

There are reasons, as I have shown, that literal interpretation is the only way to understand the Constitution or else it becomes suggestions open to whatever whim or fad happens to inhibit a courtroom.

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.

James Madison

Gotta love that quote!

EDIT; and you're right, it is pretty much a pipe dream for anything in the Constitution to be read literally anymore. It seems everything is open to interpretation/bastardization to "change with the times".