View Poll Results: 1st Amendment Needs Change?

Voters
20. You may not vote on this poll
  • WBC protesters should be in a re-education gulag as we spoeck, learning some fucking manners.

    1 5.00%
  • It was a funeral! That's so outrageous, it should not have been protected.

    0 0%
  • WBC should have been forced by the cops to move 1 mile away. Easy. now everyone's happy.

    1 5.00%
  • WBC is so horrible, who gives a fuck what their rights are?

    0 0%
  • WBC porotesters are Americans, and they had the right to do exactly what they did.

    17 85.00%
  • I hate rude people.

    1 5.00%
Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112
Results 111 to 118 of 118
Thanks Tree98Thanks

Thread: Do You Think The First Amendment Goes Too Far?

  1. #111
    Senior Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    11,353
    Thanks
    1983

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    The House would have to impeach; or the VP would have to call a cabinet meeting and get a majority on board, and ultimately 2/3 of Congress.
    Right, but how and why are they going to make that vote?

    Or how do you propose to convince pence to take over... and

    WHY IS THIS PREFERABLE?

  2. #112
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    45,341
    Thanks
    21175

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Right, but how and why are they going to make that vote?

    Or how do you propose to convince pence to take over... and
    How and why? Are you looking for the political reasoning, or the mechanism?

    As to how to convince Pence ... it is not time yet, if it ever becomes time.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    WHY IS THIS PREFERABLE?
    I believe I answered that in post #108. As it is, I am not sure Trump has the ability to perform the tasks of his office. But it will probably take blatantly endangering the nation before the Congress would consider and impeachment or upholding a 25th Amendment removal, if either is even possible.

  3. #113
    Senior Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    11,353
    Thanks
    1983

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    How and why? Are you looking for the political reasoning, or the mechanism?

    As to how to convince Pence ... it is not time yet, if it ever becomes time.


    I believe I answered that in post #108. As it is, I am not sure Trump has the ability to perform the tasks of his office. But it will probably take blatantly endangering the nation before the Congress would consider and impeachment or upholding a 25th Amendment removal, if either is even possible.
    I was meaning how you would convince those to go for that...

    Either way, you've clearly thought this through at least two layers deeper than I'm used to... it's kinda sad that that is props worthy.

    BTW, even though I have even less say in the matter than you do, if trump DID flagrantly endanger your country (which impacts mine believe it or not), I would fully endorse the push to drag him out by his heels. (People like to assume that because I have favorites means that I give up thinking objectively)

    I remember one article literally going through the list of people that would have to be removed before a liberal took over, I'm actually glad that you aren't that far gone.

    Ps - apologies for any dickotry, I made false assumptions.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  4. #114
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    12,037
    Thanks
    9961

    From
    Here
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post


    There's a movement afoot to convince Americans that the First Amendment "goes too far". (Apparently, except when it protects the free expression of bigotry against GLBT people by self-professed "religious" people.

    But I digress......}

    And many highly-respected people NOT on PH, liberals and conservatives, seem to agree.



    https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2017...s-free-speech/

    The SCOTUS has ruled that the Westboro Baptist Church protesters have a First Amendment right to say what they like at a time and place cruelly calculated to inflict terrible emotional pain on that soldier's loved ones -- his funeral.

    So kindly read this very brief decision, and show me where you feel the SCOTUS got it wrong.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZS.html

    Also, if you are a citizen of a "better" system of government than the U.S.'s, as to this point, please explain how your government would have dealt with the WBC protesters.

    @galatin, @Leo2, @Dangermouse, @Dr.Knuckles, @The Man

    Let the games begin!
    It's an interesting conversation, considering the current POTUS seems to want to ban/bar free speech that criticizes him and run any news about himself, through his "unbiased" personal TWEET channel so he can control the message, like every despot and dictator in history. While he doesn't specifically say he wants to block the free press, he calls any media outlet that does not constantly flatter and schmooz him, "the enemy of the American People". That's not exactly an endorsement of a or the, free press or the reason for maintaining a right for a free press (free speech) At the same time, the same man, wants his unflattering speech about others, heard far and wide. The majority of Americans see his hypocrisy, however that majority is not enough to reverse the election of DJT, using just barely enough people who buy his BS and hypocrisy to elect him.

    Quite a dichotomy, when the POTUS demostrates exactly WHY, freedom of the press (speech) is vital to a free society and the WBC, while it also demonstrates the importance of the right of a free press, it at the same time, demonstrates an abuse of that right and privilege, by using the speech to bear false witness. Still, they should be not be denied a right to expose themselves for what they are, as we all do. Both the unfortunate AND fortunate thing is that a right of a free press (free speech) does not allow truthful speech to be subdued or suppress and in the same process, does not allow the determination, by those that do not like what the free speech says, to bar it, when it says something truthful, unflattering and/or incriminating about someone. The sad thing is, in order to allow this right to exist and not be tempted to bar it, for the very reasons it should not be barred, telling ourselves we know the truth, we know what is flattering and we know when someone is innocent. It is in some ways, like the death penalty in reverse and how some of us have talked ourselves into believing murdering a murderer is an absurd way to teach that murder is wrong. What it does, is license us, to become murderers, because we believe we have a better reason to avenge someone's murder than the reason the murderer, murdered, in the first place.

    In the case of the free press (speech) we tend to be subjective and another problem with speech is that two people saying the same thing can be total opposites in their knowledge of whether what they are saying is true or not.

    For example, suppose a politician, OR a CEO of a corporation is doing underhanded, unethical things and lying about others. It would seem important to have the freedom to expose what they have done without being imprisoned or censored for telling the truth. On the other hand, if the same people (those who someone is claiming to expose) were said to be doing underhanded, unethical things and lying about others, but were truly and honestly doing no such thing and much of the opposite of what the free speech accuses them of, freedom of the press (free speech) is at the same time, aiding the distribution of not just a lie, but potentially hateful and inflammatory speech which could cause true harm to someone.

    It's a double edged sword at times and a bit like check or checkmate in a chess game. No matter where you move to try to hide the problem of being taken, you either expose another piece to be taken or what piece it is, that takes you.

    I think the key to the importance of a free press (free speech) is to think of it in this way. In order to suppress or bar speech, we would subject our own speech to others having the same capacity to suppress or bar our own, thus comes the ultimate in mutual agreement, even if people still abuse it. That's why we have libel laws, but proving libel is not easy and it is after the fact, when it comes to releasing harmful and false words about someone, that cannot really be recalled, even if they are found to be libelous and caused someone harm.
    Thanks from Blueneck

  5. #115
    Wrinkly Member Dangermouse's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    19,767
    Thanks
    17312

    From
    Sunny Bournemouth, Dorset
    England (Scotland and N. Ireland have different systems with some overlap) has generally agreed over the years that there are some things nobody needs to hear or read. things that are so beyond the pale of civil discourse that sanctions are needed for the transgressor. WBC in attacking homosexuality so openly would probably fall foul of the UK's hate speech laws, and of hate crime legislation too. Public order law is quite wideranging. In the first instance, they are "disturbing the peace" doing what they do, so would most likely be dealt with under that law. If they were doing so while proclaiming, chanting or leafleting using hate speech while doing so, that would be a hate crime multiplier of any sentence laid down.
    Outside of slander/libel, hate speech/crime is strictly limited to stuff that most people would agree is plain nasty.

    " The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states:
    (1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
    A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.[7] ..." WIKI

    People are always nibbling away at the edges of what's permitted or not, (in both directions!) but that's about where the law has evolved for some time now.
    Thanks from Leo2 and Ian Jeffrey

  6. #116
    Precious Addiction Solitaire Champion, Double Deuce Champion, Queen Jewels Champion, Ray Ray Shuffle Champion, Twins Champion, Blow Up: Arcade Champion, Bunch - Time Trial Champion, Znax Champion, Zoo Keeper Champion, Sobics School Champion, Swap a Smiley Champion, Makos Champion, Dino Drop Champion, Flower Frenzy Champion, Some Puzzle Champion, Funny Bubbles Champion, CubeZ Champion, Dinky Smash Champion, Fun Fun Animals Champion, Fruit Fabriek Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Rainbow Monkey RunDown Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Crime Puzzle Champion Blueneck's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    44,680
    Thanks
    21060

    From
    Ohio


    Does anyone else wonder what the reaction to this photo would be if it were a Muslim man holding those signs?
    Thanks from Babba and Dangermouse

  7. #117
    nic
    nic is offline
    Nattering naybob nic's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    132

    From
    Arizona
    Quote Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
    The first amendment isn't there to protect speech I like or you like or what snowflakes like.

    Now. If I saw this person, I would give them a few moments of my Free Speech rights very loudly very clearly, that is my right.


    Griffin had the right to post the beheaded Trump. that was her right, no one stopped her.. Now people are giving her their reaction via their free speech rights.

    If someone told Griffin she could not make the video, I would defend her right to do so... but I would also have the same reaction I have today to the video, that is MY free speech right.

    Now you see crap like this, It is your right to give them a dose of your free speech.
    Leave your snowflakes outside the door please.

    Thanks

  8. #118
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,070
    Thanks
    226

    From
    U.S.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    I think it is difficult to analyze the Constitution from this perspective, because many of the linguistic conventions in the English language that are now etched in stone were much more fluid in those days, right down to spelling.


    The 1st Congress spent much time determining whether to interpolate amendments, or to list them as separate articles, and the ultimate decision - and this was before discussing the substance of the amendments - was to attach them as separate articles.


    But this does not make a lot of sense, considering that amendments - including but not limited to the Bill of Rights - alter the Constitution. Furthermore, it was and remains a common law rule that the later article overrides the former in cases of conflict. Thus, any amendment from 11 to 27 would alter something in the Bill of Rights if a conflict existed. In that event, the Supreme Court would have no choice but to rule on the issue. In any event, however, there is no basis for this limitation on the courts' Article III power, because no such limitation exists in the Constitution except for the 11th Amendment's alteration, and even then it does not affect the substance of what the courts may hear.


    Note that Barron was effectively overruled by the Supreme Court's subsequent interpretation of the 14th Amendment (which did not exist at the time of Barron). The essential holding in Barron was that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, and was not quite the limitation you say.


    Well, true, insofar as the U.S. Const. amend. XIV, 1, is a restriction on the states and not the federal government (except for U.S. citizenship). But it does not need to; there is a due process clause in the 5th Amendment with the same meaning as in the 14th Amendment, and the Supreme Court IIRC has read into it an implication of equal protection. (I cannot, however, recall the case in which this was done.)


    We will have to agree to disagree on this one, apparently.


    If you are asserting the federal courts have no jurisdiction to decide 1st Amendment cases, this seems to me to be patently absurd, as it would not allow them to override unconstitutional restrictions on speech made by either the legislative or executive branches (or, through incorporation - which is the law - the states).

    I think it is difficult to analyze the Constitution from this perspective, because many of the linguistic conventions in the English language that are now etched in stone were much more fluid in those days, right down to spelling.
    The grammatical structures of the Constitution are consistent throughout as an inordinate amount of time was spent on the working, phrasing, and final versions. The word usage throughout the Constitution and the language of that era are integral to textualism and originalism. This method is part of the historiography process.

    The spelling of words varied, but were well known and accepted such as the spelling of the words “Pensylvania” and “Pennsylvania” in the Constitution. The one “n” in Pensylvania was accepted as that is how it is spelled on the Liberty Bell.

    The 1st Congress spent much time determining whether to interpolate amendments, or to list them as separate articles, and the ultimate decision - and this was before discussing the substance of the amendments - was to attach them as separate articles.
    The House in the First Congress spent most of the first session arguing with Madison about whether or not to take up the Bill of Rights in the first session. It became quite acrimonious during the debates and the personal letters of the members of the House. Regarding the inserting, the Bill of Rights into the articles of the Constitution was pretty much a one day task on August 13, 1789. The Senate was not involved. The House voted to send the proposed amendments as supplementals rather than actual amendments to the articles.

    But this does not make a lot of sense, considering that amendments - including but not limited to the Bill of Rights - alter the Constitution. Furthermore, it was and remains a common law rule that the later article overrides the former in cases of conflict. Thus, any amendment from 11 to 27 would alter something in the Bill of Rights if a conflict existed. In that event, the Supreme Court would have no choice but to rule on the issue. In any event, however, there is no basis for this limitation on the courts' Article III power, because no such limitation exists in the Constitution except for the 11th Amendment's alteration, and even then it does not affect the substance of what the courts may hear.
    This is where it is sticky. The Bill of Rights were not actually amendments to the Constitution. The term “amendment” as understood by the Founders and as defined in the eighteenth century was used for corrections. There was no correction in the Bill of Rights. The Eleventh and Twelfth Amendments were corrections that altered an article of the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights: the Eleventh Amendment corrected judicial overreach by the Supreme Court in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which aligned with the legal maxim the Founders adhered to of in dubiis, non praesumitur pro potentia, the presumption is not in favor of a power, or the presumption is always in favor of less power. The Twelfth Amendment corrected the Electoral College method after a flaw manifested in the election of 1800.

    Article III’s power and jurisdiction was intended for federal legislation, the history of judicial review was consistent from Sir Coke Sir Coke in the Court of Common Pleas with the Thomas Bonham v College of Physicians in 1610, in the post-Revolutionary War states of New Jersey with Holmes v. Watson (1780), New Jersey and the Ten Pound Act Cases of 1786-1787, and in New Hampshire’s Trevett v. Weeden of 1786:

    The true distinction lies in this, that the Legislature have the uncontrollable power of making laws not repugnant to the Constitution: the Judiciary have the sole power of judging those laws, and are bound to execute them; but cannot admit any act of the Legislature as law which is against the Constitution.

    Note where Marshall got the term "repugnant to the Constitution."

    Each state had a Bill of Rights, and judicial review was limited to legislation. Nothing changed nor was there any expectation that the federal judiciary would have jurisdiction over the Bill of Rights. The concept was never mentioned.

    For a federal court to make any type of ruling that affects individuals or a state outside of the jurisdiction of Article III or a conflict between a state and federal law that violates one of the enumerated powers of Article I via Article VI’s supremacy clause is an explicit violation of the separation of powers and a representative form of government as the Supreme Court is not elected and serve for life. If there were the remotest possibility that the Supreme Court would wield the power it does today over individuals and the states, Article III would have been more explicit regarding jurisdiction or federal judges would have been elected.

    One other simple method of the Supreme Court not having jurisdiction over the Bill of Rights is the preamble to the Bill of Rights:

    THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

    The Government that was restricted was the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judiciary branch. The Bill of Rights was understood by everyone in 1791 that the Bill of Rights precluded any federal government action regarding the Bill of Rights.

    Note that Barron was effectively overruled by the Supreme Court's subsequent interpretation of the 14th Amendment (which did not exist at the time of Barron). The essential holding in Barron was that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, and was not quite the limitation you say.
    The Fourteenth Amendment did not overrule Barron. A twentieth century Supreme Court’s version of the Fourteenth Amendment overruled Barron. There is a difference between the Fourteenth Amendment and what a twentieth-century Supreme Court decided it meant.

    The holding in Barron mirrors the reason that Madison’s application of the rights of conscience being applied to the states was rejected, and this was the Supreme Court’s precedent after the ratification of the Bill of Rights until the twentieth century.

    Well, true, insofar as the U.S. Const. amend. XIV, 1, is a restriction on the states and not the federal government (except for U.S. citizenship). But it does not need to; there is a due process clause in the 5th Amendment with the same meaning as in the 14th Amendment, and the Supreme Court IIRC has read into it an implication of equal protection. (I cannot, however, recall the case in which this was done.)
    The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment was procedural, and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is procedural. The Supreme Court had to invent the substantive due process doctrine to incorporate the Bill of Rights after the Slaughter House cases shot down the privileges and immunities basis, and the court did not invent substantive due process until Lochner in 1905, and it was only used for economic opinions.

    We will have to agree to disagree on this one, apparently.
    Indeed. This is lengthy and complex argument.

    If you are asserting the federal courts have no jurisdiction to decide 1st Amendment cases, this seems to me to be patently absurd, as it would not allow them to override unconstitutional restrictions on speech made by either the legislative or executive branches (or, through incorporation - which is the law - the states).
    I was not very clear. The federal courts have the jurisdiction to rule against the federal government when it makes any law regarding the Bill of Rights, but no jurisdiction over a state law regarding the Bill of Rights.
    Last edited by Tennyson; 8th June 2017 at 10:30 AM.

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112

Similar Threads

  1. Second Amendment
    By MaryAnne in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 196
    Last Post: 5th October 2015, 01:44 PM
  2. 2nd amendment
    By IronFist in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 1st June 2015, 06:43 PM
  3. First Amendment
    By MaryAnne in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 6th August 2014, 10:50 AM
  4. What of the first amendment?
    By Cicero in forum Opinion Polls
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 7th September 2013, 08:40 AM
  5. The First Amendment is Gone
    By michaelr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 6th July 2010, 05:05 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed