Cruz asks Feinstein about constitutionality of her Bill

[cybrsage]

Its not really technology, that would be banning all advancement. There has to be a purpose.

Banning DU ammo is because you could use it for assassinations, so you can't let the general public buy it. There is a purpose behind restricting it.

You can't just make restrictions for the sake of restrictions and cite technology.

You are absolutely right, I was simply saying our technology has advanced to the point where we create things that require restrictions...things that did not exist a few hundred years ago.

Think about how fast our warmaking technology has increased recently. For thousands of years wars were fought with spears, swords, and bows. The materials changed, but the weapons were all basically the same. Then, in the last few hundred years, we went from swords to space based lasers and planet killing bombs. Amazing.

 

[HumblePie]

Okay eski, I read that link and it basically backs up what I said about Exercise as the original intent of what the definition of that word meant. That there has been some bickering back and forth, but there are precedents in regards to the the drafting of the 2nd Amendment, the original reasons many left Europe following religious persecution in the first place (in terms of the religious practice was to do bad things to people that didn't agree with their view on the religion), and the secondary works of the Founding Fathers such as the quotes I posted previously. That Exercise as a definition was for belief and not practices. Which has been the literal interpretation since inception and has been held that way mostly since then. So umm thanks for proving me right once again I guess.

As for the second part of the argument about freedom of speech. Holy shit balls. Government has no censor ability what so ever in this country. They can not make any law about the content of any speech made. Ever. Period. Nor does it guarantee the right of free speech being delivered, but that's a bit of a tangent to this argument.

I never stated all effects of speech were actionable either. Stop playing that argument. I said the only thing that CAN be acted upon by government is certain repercussions of speech, but never the speech itself. Even with the repercussions, as I said that even then it may or may not be actionable. No matter what I say, regardless of my intent, how heinous or vile it may be, the government can not stop it. For example I say some vile things with the intent to start a riot. Saying it is not illegal. Having the intent is not illegal. The riot itself may or may not be illegal based upon the actions of those individuals incited by your words.

For example if I say to a group of people, "This company we are standing before today has done X bad things. Let's show them who's boss and kill everyone in that building!" If I turn around walk off and so does everyone else I broke no law. But if that speech was made and I looked to have the intent to act upon my words as well as the others I spoke with, then I would be federally guilty of inciting a riot. It's not just the words. It's not just the intent. It's both and the actions directly afterwards. The fine line of the law is not to outlaw the speech, but what comes after. Hence the clear and present danger bit to the law. Again, you fail the distinction test again.

 

[HumblePie]

LOL so it is 100% reliable in that if you miss your target you know you can hit someone else and that you are guaranteed to miss your target on occasion. If we use that definition, then anyone well trained with an anthrax dispenser simply has to know the results of not hitting just his intended target, since he knows he is guaranteed to not only hit his target on occasion.

Wow being obtuse on purpose of trolling? That is all I have to say. A gun is 100% reliable and controllable in the hands of a well trained person. A well trained person takes into account that why can and will miss. They take into account what happens when they miss. They know what happens when a miss occurs and knows the outcome of that miss. If a miss would result in the harm of another, YOU DO NOT FIRE. A missed round that hits the dirt behind the target will have zero chance of inflicting harm upon someone else anymore by just being there. Are you purposefully not being logical here? If you are still confused here it is for dummies.

1) A firearm does not have to be used. An un-used firearm has zero potential harm.
2) A firearm that is used may miss. However, the possible ramifications of a missed shot CAN be accounted for before the shot is fired. ALL possible ramifications can be accounted for prior to shooting.
3) Since all possible scenarios involving a shot fired from a gun can be accounted for before a firearm is shot, then a firearm is 100% controllable and reliable.

The anthrax dispenser is 100% reliable and is just as easily controlled by a well trained person. It is simply not 100% accurate.

No. Anthrax is NOT 100% controllable. The moment you spray anthrax spores you have no idea of the entire dispersal pattern. A general estimate can be made of where the spores will go, but not every spore can be accounted for once sprayed. Thus a dispersal be completely controlled by the person employing the weapon. Finally, there is no way to control the possible affects from anthrax spores that may remain in the area after dispersal. All it takes is 1 spore in the area to remain and for a passerby years later to breath it in to get sick from it. As such it is not 100% controllable.

Thus your argument sucks.

 

[TechBoyJK]

LOL so it is 100% reliable in that if you miss your target you know you can hit someone else and that you are guaranteed to miss your target on occasion. If we use that definition, then anyone well trained with an anthrax dispenser simply has to know the results of not hitting just his intended target, since he knows he is guaranteed to not only hit his target on occasion.

The anthrax dispenser is 100% reliable and is just as easily controlled by a well trained person. It is simply not 100% accurate.

HUH?

 

[fskimospy]

Okay eski, I read that link and it basically backs up what I said about Exercise as the original intent of what the definition of that word meant. That there has been some bickering back and forth, but there are precedents in regards to the the drafting of the 2nd Amendment, the original reasons many left Europe following religious persecution in the first place (in terms of the religious practice was to do bad things to people that didn't agree with their view on the religion), and the secondary works of the Founding Fathers such as the quotes I posted previously. That Exercise as a definition was for belief and not practices. Which has been the literal interpretation since inception and has been held that way mostly since then. So umm thanks for proving me right once again I guess.

It actually didn't say that at all. Not only did they not say that the literal definition was only belief, the entire discussion was predicated on the fact that 'exercise' did NOT simply mean belief. The discussion was about to what level exercise was protected.

Long story short, the article presumes (as do all competent legal theorists) that the Constitution is not to be taken literally. I was just using it to show you that the discussion centers on to what extent expression is protected... ie: that expression doesn't simply cover belief. It in no way backed you up.

As for the second part of the argument about freedom of speech. Holy shit balls. Government has no censor ability what so ever in this country. They can not make any law about the content of any speech made. Ever. Period. Nor does it guarantee the right of free speech being delivered, but that's a bit of a tangent to this argument.

This is flatly untrue, as directly shown by the part of the federal code I cited. There are also quite a few other parts of speech that are not protected, such as speech meant to incite imminent violence regardless of whether or not violence actually occurs. There are in fact lots of laws that are currently on the books, have been enforced, and have been upheld that directly refute your point.

Long story short: holy shit balls are you wrong.

I never stated all effects of speech were actionable either. Stop playing that argument. I said the only thing that CAN be acted upon by government is certain repercussions of speech, but never the speech itself. Even with the repercussions, as I said that even then it may or may not be actionable. No matter what I say, regardless of my intent, how heinous or vile it may be, the government can not stop it. For example I say some vile things with the intent to start a riot. Saying it is not illegal. Having the intent is not illegal. The riot itself may or may not be illegal based upon the actions of those individuals incited by your words.

For example if I say to a group of people, "This company we are standing before today has done X bad things. Let's show them who's boss and kill everyone in that building!" If I turn around walk off and so does everyone else I broke no law. But if that speech was made and I looked to have the intent to act upon my words as well as the others I spoke with, then I would be federally guilty of inciting a riot. It's not just the words. It's not just the intent. It's both and the actions directly afterwards. The fine line of the law is not to outlaw the speech, but what comes after. Hence the clear and present danger bit to the law. Again, you fail the distinction test again.

This is actually also just false.

Current jurisprudence on this is known as the imminent lawless action test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action. You will note that there is ABSOLUTELY NO REQUIREMENT for any action to occur afterwards, only that your words pose the significant potential to create imminent lawless action.

I hope this has been informative.

 

[fskimospy]

Dp

 

[ivwshane]

So very typical, have noting to counter the points made, so you take a cheap and immature personal shot at the OP.

You will be best served when you have nothing to offer in response to simply STFU, vs. demonstrating your willful ignorance in such an effective manner. Your silence will cause less people to see you as an idiot.

Your comment was on par to his except you used more words.
We are 10 pages deep and your only comment so far has been something that was said on the first page?


Oh the irony.

 

[NoStateofMind]

It actually didn't say that at all. Not only did they not say that the literal definition was only belief, the entire discussion was predicated on the fact that 'exercise' did NOT simply mean belief. The discussion was about to what level exercise was protected.

Long story short, the article presumes (as do all competent legal theorists) that the Constitution is not to be taken literally. I was just using it to show you that the discussion centers on to what extent expression is protected... ie: that expression doesn't simply cover belief. It in no way backed you up.



This is flatly untrue, as directly shown by the part of the federal code I cited. There are also quite a few other parts of speech that are not protected, such as speech meant to incite imminent violence regardless of whether or not violence actually occurs. There are in fact lots of laws that are currently on the books, have been enforced, and have been upheld that directly refute your point.

Long story short: holy shit balls are you wrong.



This is actually also just false.

Current jurisprudence on this is known as the imminent lawless action test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action. You will note that there is ABSOLUTELY NO REQUIREMENT for any action to occur afterwards, only that your words pose the significant potential to create imminent lawless action.

I hope this has been informative.

Yeah you don't want to see it as literal because it removes the big government hands AS IT WAS INTENDED TO DO. Sad you can't take those words for their meaning AS IT WAS INTENDED TO BE. The basic understanding is that someone must be harmed for their to be a case. You willfully ignore all the evidence placed before you and twist the argument. What else can be said that hasn't already been told to you? You cannot grasp it, its out of your realm, you may never understand and those are just the facts. Oh well.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I bet you would argue against a stop sign meaning stop wouldn't you?

 

[nextJin]

The only one I see posting actual legal documention and links as opposed to wiki entries or quotes from the founders is eski as much as I hate to say it. The bottom line is that the only thing that actually matters and will ever matter is the SCOTUS most recent rulings.

If Congress passed a liberals wet dream and banned every single firearm in America which then went to the SCOTUS and they said it was Constitutional that's pretty much it.

It scares the shit out of me that if Democrats win the House and keep the Senate along with the current President who will probably give us 1-2 more justices all conservativel meanings of the Constitution (original founding intent, regardless of modern day technology) are going to be a thing of the past.

 

[NoStateofMind]

The only one I see posting actual legal documention and links as opposed to wiki entries or quotes from the founders is eski as much as I hate to say it. The bottom line is that the only thing that actually matters and will ever matter is the SCOTUS most recent rulings.

If Congress passed a liberals wet dream and banned every single firearm in America which then went to the SCOTUS and they said it was Constitutional that's pretty much it.

It scares the shit out of me that if Democrats win the House and keep the Senate along with the current President who will probably give us 1-2 more justices all conservativel meanings of the Constitution (original founding intent, regardless of modern day technology) are going to be a thing of the past.

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.

 

[ivwshane]

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.

Just because you want something to be done a certain way doesn't mean thats how it's done.

You seem to be arguing for a strict reading of the constitution where everyone else is arguing how it actually is interpreted.

Do you remember what your thread was about?

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah you don't want to see it as literal because it removes the big government hands AS IT WAS INTENDED TO DO. Sad you can't take those words for their meaning AS IT WAS INTENDED TO BE. The basic understanding is that someone must be harmed for their to be a case. You willfully ignore all the evidence placed before you and twist the argument. What else can be said that hasn't already been told to you? You cannot grasp it, its out of your realm, you may never understand and those are just the facts. Oh well.

If you read the paper linked previously you will see that it was never intended to be literal.

Ever.

Why you insist on clinging to this is beyond me.

 

[dabuddha]

Gotta love how she avoids answering. Fucking cockroaches.

 

[exdeath]

Time to push back on the offensive. Repeal 922r, then '86, etc, GCA, NFA. Etc

Keep these assholes busy fighting against losing the status quo.

 

[HumblePie]

It actually didn't say that at all. Not only did they not say that the literal definition was only belief, the entire discussion was predicated on the fact that 'exercise' did NOT simply mean belief. The discussion was about to what level exercise was protected.

Actually it did say that. It stated how various SCOTUS and entities have tried to interpret the first amendment. How it was originally done, how a broader view came, and why it went back. ALL of which points to HOW a literal interpretation of the first amendment came about. It goes over the various case laws including the original free exercise challenge over polygamy to SCOTUS. Did you not even read the conclusion of that link?

Thus, the evidence available from the First Congress suggests that Justic Scalia's conclusion in Smith and Boerne - that the Free Exercise Clause does not include a right to religious exemptions - is the interpretation most consonant with the original meaning of the Free Exercise Clause as it was understood by the First Congress.


That whole fucking statement proves you claim wrong that there was never an original literal interpretation to the first amendment. That there was, has always been, and has almost always been followed. That Free Exercise HAD been originally meant to be free to believe, not free to practice. Exercise = believe in the literal definition of the word back then in regards to religions. Has ALWAYS been that way. That there is a substantial amount of precedents and history surrounding that. But one has to look for it beyond the mere reading of the first amendment to understand that.

Long story short, the article presumes (as do all competent legal theorists) that the Constitution is not to be taken literally. I was just using it to show you that the discussion centers on to what extent expression is protected... ie: that expression doesn't simply cover belief. It in no way backed you up.

Incorrect, your statement here in no way jives with the links you've provided. That there has always been a specific way to interpret the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That while definitions of words over the years may have changed which make people THINK the original words used reflect something else, that historically it is easy to prove the original intent and meaning. That is EXACTLY how SCOTUS works in determining a ruling upon a specific case. They look at the original and literal intent of the relevant section of the Constitution and apply that to the ruling at hand. That is exactly what they are suppose to do by law. USUALLY it gets done right. Every so often it has been done wrong because some boneheads get into position that try to apply their version of interpretation upon the historical precedents.



This is flatly untrue, as directly shown by the part of the federal code I cited. There are also quite a few other parts of speech that are not protected, such as speech meant to incite imminent violence regardless of whether or not violence actually occurs. There are in fact lots of laws that are currently on the books, have been enforced, and have been upheld that directly refute your point.

Long story short: holy shit balls are you wrong.



This is actually also just false.

Current jurisprudence on this is known as the imminent lawless action test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action. You will note that there is ABSOLUTELY NO REQUIREMENT for any action to occur afterwards, only that your words pose the significant potential to create imminent lawless action.

I hope this has been informative.

Very informative of how you post links without reading them. Or the fact you doggedly respond without reading the post you are quoting. Did you not read your wiki link and WHAT I had written regarding clear and present danger? I feel like I'm arguing with a 6 year when I am talking to you. I said specifically HOW speech may be actionable in terms of punishment. Your link REPEATED IT EXACTLY how I stated it. The speech itself CAN NOT BE CENSORED per your fucking link. It requires not only the speech, not only intent, but a clear and readily available present danger about to happen or HAS happened. That's why I used the literal federal definition of inciting a riot. Again you fail at the distinction part of this. The government can NEVER dictate what you can and can not say. EVER. Not according to the Constitution as it is currently written.

Replies in bold. I really am still amazed how dense you are on this subject. I say 1 thing, you say NO here is my prove with this link. I read your link which completely reiterates my claim and backs it up almost verbatim. Then I respond with how it backs it up. You respond like a 6 year old with, no it doesn't and then move on.

Okay, I'm glad you are trying to at least provide some backup information to your claims. But I seriously suggest you READ what I write first and READ what you are about to claim as support for your argument. Because thus far, like the quote I pulled right out of your link, you have been wrong in your argument.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't have time, but you just owned yourself.

Not only do my links explicitly back up what I said, but you just tried to say that government can never restrict speech unless it leads to something bad, only to follow it by saying that they can restrict speech before the fact if they think it will.

This is of course totally separate to all the other cases where they restrict speech on content (threatening the president, threats and harassment, etc.

It is quite odd how dense you are being on this subject, considering the reams of evidence to the contrary.

EDIT: I actually do have a little time. What my article was discussing was the applicability of the free exercise clause to exemptions from generally applicable laws. You appear to be arguing that the findings of that article (and consequently Scalia, et al) is that the 1st amendment is to be taken literally, but that free exercise does not include worship. That is not at all what it says. What it is saying is that generally applicable laws do not violate the free exercise clause. Only laws that specifically target a religious observance or ritual run afoul of it. This is far different than saying only belief was protected. The most important distinction being that one is right, and one is wrong.

For more details about the free exercise clause, check Employment Division v. Smith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

Money quote from Scalia, the person who you said supports your position:

"It would doubtless be unconstitutional, for example, to ban the casting of statues that are to be used for worship purposes or to prohibit bowing down before a golden calf."

ie: it would 'doubtless be unconstitutional' to ban the religious exercise of bowing down before your religious idols. That's not a belief, that's an exercise.

 

[fskimospy]

Also, I can't believe I didn't think of this sooner, but here is the wiki article on US freedom of speech. Restrictions galore, not dependent on outcomes.

I seriously cannot believe that this was even a topic of discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

 

[HumblePie]

Eskimo,

you just pwned yourself.

Read the prior restraint bit on it.

Prior restraint

If the government tries to restrain speech before it is spoken, as opposed to punishing it afterwards, it must: clearly define what's illegal, cover the minimum speech necessary, make a quick decision, be backed up by a court, bear the burden of suing and proving the speech is illegal, and show that allowing the speech would "surely result in direct, immediate and irreparable damage to our Nation and its people" (New York Times Co. v. United States). U.S. courts have not permitted most prior restraints since the case of Near v. Minnesota in 1931.

Prior restraint is telling people what they can and can not say before it is said and before the ramifications are acted upon. The government has tried to do "prior" restraint before and has since stopped that since it is in direct conflict of the first amendment. Again I can't believe I am having this argument with you.

You are stating the government can make illegal speech before it is made. I say it can not and have thus proved it several times over. Even where the content of a speech is deemed illegal, there is a litmus test to show this which has to show either damages done or a "clear and present danger" based not only the content but the intent as well.

That has been repeated OVER AND OVER again in those very links you keep posting.

The government has ZERO ability to tell you what you can and can not say before you say it.

But then you'll point to "child pornography" as being content restricted speech that is illegal before it is made. Look, my parents have naked pictures of me as a child in the tub with my brother. The mere image of a naked child, or the taking of it does NOT make it illegal automatically. There has to be an intent to make it into pornography as well as the harm that would be caused by it. There is a very specific litmus test. Otherwise half of America would be locked up as sex offenders when they took a picture of their naked or mostly naked children.

THAT is the whole point I am trying to get across to you. You fail to understand this very simple concept.

 

[NoStateofMind]

If you read the paper linked previously you will see that it was never intended to be literal.

Ever.

Why you insist on clinging to this is beyond me.

Why you insist on inane arguments that do not support your claim is beyond me.

Of course it's meant to be literal as I have said many times yet you cannot grasp, liberally interpreting what is plain language allows for perversions of the law. How you ignore this blows my mind. You are really ignorant or a willful participant in subversion of the constitution to further your own big government views.

 

[Lithium381]

The point of the 2nd is to have the ability to overthrow the government if need be. If we're restricted to muskets and single shot .22lr's, then there is NO way to overthrow the government. There can be a balance, but in the end I think we need to be just as well armed as GI and SWAT. No worries about nukes and tanks.

The intent is very well documented by letters between the framers and publications.

 

[NoStateofMind]

THAT is the whole point I am trying to get across to you. You fail to understand this very simple concept.

He can't acknowledge that. If he does it ruins his world view of government. You and I (you have done better IMO) have tried to explain but he refuses to accept. The old adage "you can lead a horse to water...." comes to mind.

 

[fskimospy]

Eskimo,

you just pwned yourself.

Read the prior restraint bit on it.

Prior restraint

If the government tries to restrain speech before it is spoken, as opposed to punishing it afterwards, it must: clearly define what's illegal, cover the minimum speech necessary, make a quick decision, be backed up by a court, bear the burden of suing and proving the speech is illegal, and show that allowing the speech would "surely result in direct, immediate and irreparable damage to our Nation and its people" (New York Times Co. v. United States). U.S. courts have not permitted most prior restraints since the case of Near v. Minnesota in 1931.

Prior restraint is telling people what they can and can not say before it is said and before the ramifications are acted upon. The government has tried to do "prior" restraint before and has since stopped that since it is in direct conflict of the first amendment. Again I can't believe I am having this argument with you.

You are stating the government can make illegal speech before it is made. I say it can not and have thus proved it several times over. Even where the content of a speech is deemed illegal, there is a litmus test to show this which has to show either damages done or a "clear and present danger" based not only the content but the intent as well.

That has been repeated OVER AND OVER again in those very links you keep posting.

The government has ZERO ability to tell you what you can and can not say before you say it.

But then you'll point to "child pornography" as being content restricted speech that is illegal before it is made. Look, my parents have naked pictures of me as a child in the tub with my brother. The mere image of a naked child, or the taking of it does NOT make it illegal automatically. There has to be an intent to make it into pornography as well as the harm that would be caused by it. There is a very specific litmus test. Otherwise half of America would be locked up as sex offenders when they took a picture of their naked or mostly naked children.

THAT is the whole point I am trying to get across to you. You fail to understand this very simple concept.

Okay, this is where I stop trying to educate you and just start rubbing your nose in it.

Your previous quote:

Government has no censor ability what so ever in this country. They can not make any law about the content of any speech made. Ever. Period.

Your quote from my link about EXACTLY HOW the government can make a law about the content of speeches, including mention of doing exactly that in the past:

If the government tries to restrain speech before it is spoken, as opposed to punishing it afterwards, it must: clearly define what's illegal, cover the minimum speech necessary, make a quick decision, be backed up by a court, bear the burden of suing and proving the speech is illegal, and show that allowing the speech would "surely result in direct, immediate and irreparable damage to our Nation and its people" (New York Times Co. v. United States). U.S. courts have not permitted most prior restraints since the case of Near v. Minnesota in 1931.

Odd to say that the government would have no ability to do something and then follow it up with the steps necessary to do exactly the thing you say it can't ever do. Did you stop to examine your posts for internal logical consistency?

Specific quote from Near v. Minnesota as to prior restraint:

...the protection even as to previous restraint is not absolutely unlimited...When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.' No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops. On similar grounds, the primary requirements of decency may be enforced against obscene publications. The security of the community life may be protected against incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow by force of orderly government."

Yeah. So there's that. Hopefully you abandon this nonsense now.

Furthermore, you've attempted repeatedly to move the goalposts and haven't been remotely consistent in your arguments.

Your previous quote:

For example I say some vile things with the intent to start a riot. Saying it is not illegal. Having the intent is not illegal.

Now in this post you specifically state how someone saying vile things with the intent to start a riot can be in fact illegal. This is of course without even going into all the other cases of prior restraint that I have told you about that you keep ignoring. (presidential threats, etc)

So, are you done yet?

On a happier note, it's good to that you appear to have abandoned your absurd free exercise of religion arguments.

If you want to continue this, please give me EXACTLY your position on the ability of government to regulate speech, religion, etc along with governing supreme court precedents that support your position and operative quotes from them if possible. Thanks!

 

[jackstar7]

The government has ZERO ability to tell you what you can and can not say before you say it.

Bradley Manning says hello.

 

[chucky2]