middleagedgamer
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,363
- Reaction score
- 72
- Location
- Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Section 1: Definitions.
For the purposes of this statute,
---(a) “Federal funding” means any financial assistance given to an entity for the purpose of supporting or advancing their business, including, but not limited to...
------(1) Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, Work Study Funds, or any other form of federal student financial aid.
------(2) Affirmative Action in employment.
------(3) The Housing Choice Voucher Program
------(4) Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program
---(b) “recipient of federal funding” means any business entity that receives federal funding for whatever purpose, including, but not limited to...
---(1) Colleges that participating in the Free Application for Federal Student Aid Program in order to assist students in paying tuition.
------(2) Any employer that participates in affirmative action policies.
------(3) Any landlord or homeowner that participates in the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
------(4) Any grocery store or other store that accepts benefits from the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program.
---(c) “Government” means
------(1) any state, local, or federal government entity, or
------(2) any entity that is owned by at least a majority by any of the above.
---(d) “Beneficiary” means any entity (business or individual) that receives the benefits of any federal funding, including, but not limited to
------(1) Students at colleges that participates in the Free Application for Federal Student Aid Program.
------(2) Any employee of an employer that participates in affirmative action.
------(3) Any tenant or leaser of real estate that receives benefits in accordance with the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
------(4) Any customer of a store who is using, or intending to use, benefits from the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program.
Section 2: General first amendment rights in private sector.
---(a) With the exceptions outlined below, any privately-owned recipient of federal funding for whatever purpose must give the beneficiaries shall give the beneficiaries of said funding the same rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution that the government is required to provide.
---(b) A private entity may still infringe on first amendment rights if their rule could pass intermediate scrutiny, had that rule been passed by a government within the United States.
---(c) Nothing in this section shall give governments the right to have any infringement of first amendment rights held to intermediate scrutiny, if such violations would otherwise be held to strict scrutiny. This entire section applies only to the private sector.
Can you find for me the delegation of power in the Constitution to spend money on this?
Commerce clause.
EDIT: Here, here's an article on the Commerce Clause.
Commerce Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Stay in school, kids!
Ok, fine, you want the power to spend money?Funny, but I don't see a delegation to spend money there.
Oh, I still think this is constitutional.Now to further punch holes into your legislation there is the bit about the First Amendment that says, "Congress shall pass no law." This means that any law that retricts or removes the right of assembly, free speech, the press, and religion is null and void since Congress cannot pass one. You were saying about staying in school?
Ok, fine, you want the power to spend money?
How about, the Taxing and Spending Clause?
Oh, I still think this is constitutional.
Virtually any right can be waived if the party waiving the right explicitly consents to it.
For example, the police can gain admissible evidence by searching your home without a warrant if you allow them to.
You can be denied a trial if you plead guilty. You can be denied a public defender if you explicitly state that you don't want one.
No one is forcing the recipients to receive the federal funding; they do that completely on their own accord. Therefore, they accept the waiver of their rights.
"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison
James Madison's view of the General Welfare Clause of Article 1. Section 8. This response is from a letter written to Edmund Pendleton on January 21, 1792;
“Having not yet succeeded in hitting on an opportunity, I send you a part of it in a newspaper, which broaches a new Constitutional doctrine of vast consequence, and demanding the serious attention of the public. I consider it myself as subverting the fundamental and characteristic principle of the Government; as contrary to the true and fair, as well as the received construction, and as bidding defiance to the sense in which the Constitution is known to have been proposed, advocated, and adopted. If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated is copied from the old Articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers."
Prove it.There is no taxing and spending clause. There is a clause that says that Congress can levy taxes and spend the money on the common defense and provide the general welfare with a list of 16 things that Congress can spend money.
Let me put it this way:I don't see where Congress can spend money on this.
And, how does James Madison's opinion have the force of law?Also, James Madison had this to say about general welfare.
And, how is it illegal to forfeit your first amendment rights?Yes, you can waive rights, but only when it is legal to do so.
That waiver would be invalid because they were under duress.Beating a suspect with a telephone book to extract a confession is not legal even though a person can waive their Fifth Amendment protection against being a witness against themselves.
Such as?There are plenty more examples out there.
I stand by what I said.You were saying about schooling?
Prove it.
Let me put it this way:
Because this is not a suspect class, it won't be held to strict scrutiny. Because it is not a quasi suspect class, it won't be held to intermediate scrutiny, either.
Therefore, it will only be held to rational basis review. To pass rational basis review, all the government needs to show is that it has a legitimate interest in doing something, and the challenged law is rationally (hence the name) related to that interest.
The federal government has a legitimate interest in forwarding fundamental freedoms, especially considering that we lead the free world. Encouraging private entities to give people those same first amendment rights by enticing them with federal money is rationally related to that interest.
And, how does James Madison's opinion have the force of law?
Particularly over two hundred years after he died.
And, how is it illegal to forfeit your first amendment rights?
That waiver would be invalid because they were under duress.
Such as?
I stand by what I said.
No, you didn't!I already did prove it
You damned liar!and James Madison has a lot to say on it since he was the one that wrote the Constitution.
Well, we don't USE the strict reading, anymore!Thus, under the strict reading of the Constitution, you cannot spend money on this.
Oh, so, I guess, defamation is constitutionally protected?Since the First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing a law that abridges a person's rights to assembly, press, speech, and religion your law would be unConstitutional.
I don't suppose you could provide CITATION for that!there are more things illegal and more people imprisoned than China.
My idea does not FORCE anyone to waive their rights!I gave you an example of how you can be forced to waive your rights.
No, you didn't!
You damned liar!
So, it wasn't George Washington? It was John Adams? No one helped Madison write the Constitution? It was just James Madison all by his lonesome?
Well, we don't USE the strict reading, anymore!
Oh, so, I guess, defamation is constitutionally protected?
I guess death threats are constitutionally protected!
I guess putting a naked woman on the front page of a newspaper that is visible to the public is protected by freedom of press.
No right is absolute, genius.
I don't suppose you could provide CITATION for that!
My idea does not FORCE anyone to waive their rights!
No, you didn't!
You damned liar!
So, it wasn't George Washington? It was John Adams? No one helped Madison write the Constitution? It was just James Madison all by his lonesome?
Q. Who was called the "Father of the Constitution"?
A. James Madison, of Virginia, because in point of erudition and actual contributions to the formation of the Constitution he was preeminent.
Well, we don't USE the strict reading, anymore!
Oh, so, I guess, defamation is constitutionally protected?
I guess death threats are constitutionally protected!
I guess putting a naked woman on the front page of a newspaper that is visible to the public is protected by freedom of press.
No right is absolute, genius.
I don't suppose you could provide CITATION for that!
My idea does not FORCE anyone to waive their rights!
Give up, you can't debate with this guy. He doesn't know anything.I provided facts and you replied with rhetoric. Facts>rhetoric.
From the National Archives and Records Administration.
Yes, that's why we're up to our eyeballs in debt. Maybe we should use a strict reading.
Hyperbole
# 1 United States: 2,019,234 prisoners
# 2 China: 1,549,000 prisoners
Source
Your idea violates the First Amendment's statement that Congress shall pass no law. It also violates the Constitution because the delegated power to spend money on this isn't there. Can you actually provide sources for your statements?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?