aquapub
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2005
- Messages
- 7,317
- Reaction score
- 344
- Location
- America (A.K.A., a red state)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Do you think flag burning, cross burning, or pornaography should be illegal?
If not, do you think they should be legal because they are protected under the 1st Amendment?
**NOTE: I started a thread like this earlier and it got hijacked by one person who had issues with both literacy and anger management. So in case we have anyone in here who doesn't see the need to finish reading what a person says before hurling juvenile smears at them, I will THIS TIME spell out my position in as few words as possible to lessen the chances of a repeat.**
1) None of these things should be illegal. They take nothing from anyone; they violate no rights; all they require is a little self-control and tolerance from those who are offended by them. The solution is to expect the easily offended to control themselves, not to stop ignorant degenerates from burning their own property or taking nudy pictures just because other ignorant degenerates decide to get angry about it.
2) Having said that, I must also say that none of these things are protected by the 1st Amendment.
a) Burning things might be misconstrued by some as political or religious speech (the two types of speech protected by the 1st Amendment) by some, but punching a wall is clearly not what the founders considered speech, and neither is any other form of assault on property. And pornography cannot even be seriously construed as political or religious speech.
b) Even if these things were political or religious speech, the federal courts have no jurisdiction over what Larry Flint can or cannot publish in Cincinnati, for example. That is a local/state matter. The Constitution could not be clearer about that.
I know it has become commonplace for people to unwittingly repeat the fallacies about the Courts' jurisdiction invented by Chief Justice Earl Warren, but they run contrary to the Constitution and the unmistakable intent of the founding fathers.
The federal courts' jurisdiction covers military matters, interstate problems, embassador issues, treaties, and all other things federal. And in the section of the Constitution that creates the courts, it even clarifies that the federal courts are Congress's bitch. Their role overturning state laws and micro-managing local schools and such is a total usurpation.
On a side note: George Washington warned about Judicial usurpation causing major upheaval, and the first time the Supreme Court REALLY usurped its constitutional boundaries (Dredd Scott), he was proved right. In that case, the court didn't just rule that a slave didn't become free by crossing into free territory, but it outrageously asserted that slavery was forthwith binding and legal across the country. This was illegal and it caused a civil war. The law of the land is NOT whatever the Supreme Court says it is.
If not, do you think they should be legal because they are protected under the 1st Amendment?
**NOTE: I started a thread like this earlier and it got hijacked by one person who had issues with both literacy and anger management. So in case we have anyone in here who doesn't see the need to finish reading what a person says before hurling juvenile smears at them, I will THIS TIME spell out my position in as few words as possible to lessen the chances of a repeat.**
1) None of these things should be illegal. They take nothing from anyone; they violate no rights; all they require is a little self-control and tolerance from those who are offended by them. The solution is to expect the easily offended to control themselves, not to stop ignorant degenerates from burning their own property or taking nudy pictures just because other ignorant degenerates decide to get angry about it.
2) Having said that, I must also say that none of these things are protected by the 1st Amendment.
a) Burning things might be misconstrued by some as political or religious speech (the two types of speech protected by the 1st Amendment) by some, but punching a wall is clearly not what the founders considered speech, and neither is any other form of assault on property. And pornography cannot even be seriously construed as political or religious speech.
b) Even if these things were political or religious speech, the federal courts have no jurisdiction over what Larry Flint can or cannot publish in Cincinnati, for example. That is a local/state matter. The Constitution could not be clearer about that.
I know it has become commonplace for people to unwittingly repeat the fallacies about the Courts' jurisdiction invented by Chief Justice Earl Warren, but they run contrary to the Constitution and the unmistakable intent of the founding fathers.
The federal courts' jurisdiction covers military matters, interstate problems, embassador issues, treaties, and all other things federal. And in the section of the Constitution that creates the courts, it even clarifies that the federal courts are Congress's bitch. Their role overturning state laws and micro-managing local schools and such is a total usurpation.
On a side note: George Washington warned about Judicial usurpation causing major upheaval, and the first time the Supreme Court REALLY usurped its constitutional boundaries (Dredd Scott), he was proved right. In that case, the court didn't just rule that a slave didn't become free by crossing into free territory, but it outrageously asserted that slavery was forthwith binding and legal across the country. This was illegal and it caused a civil war. The law of the land is NOT whatever the Supreme Court says it is.