Is it Constitutional?

[Ockham]

1. Watch the clip.



2. Take the poll.


P.S. I know it's a hypothetical question and I know Kagan said she doesn't think the court should strike down laws because they're senseless confused. That's not the question.

 

[Josie]

She also claims it's okay to have a law on banning books because it will never really be enforced.

 

[Ockham]

She also claims it's okay to have a law on banning books because it will never really be enforced.

A truly confusing person and with equally confusing views...

 

[Psychoclown]

Interesting clip. Did Kagan ever answer the question? I know a 1 minute clip can sometimes be taken out of context. And did she seriously say it was OK to ban books? I didn't expect that I'd agree with Kagan on questions of the scope of federal authority, but now I'm wondering if she believes there should be ANY limits to federal authority.

 

[Your Star]

She also claims it's okay to have a law on banning books because it will never really be enforced.

I would like to see the quote. Because if she did say something like that, I'm surprised she has made it this far. That type of language is quite scary.

 

[Josie]

A truly confusing person and with equally confusing views...

Yep. She also can't seem to (or refuses to) pinpoint her political views as "progressive". She clearly is one, but she just won't admit it.

 

[Groucho]

Does anyone have a link to an article giving the entire exchange in context?

 

[Ockham]

I would like to see the quote. Because if she did say something like that, I'm surprised she has made it this far. That type of language is quite scary.

It's not just a quote - it was a review in front of the SCOTUS, and it's about as clear as mud. What I could tell from all of this is, Kagan said "yes", books could be banned but never have been... and they haven't been because clear advocacy is not common as a "whole" in books. I got this issue to be more of a attorney excercise in how laws are applied and the scope, rather than operationally are applied. The issue with this is, there's always a loophole opening.

Here's the actual SCOTUS exchange verbatim (NY Sun)
Would Kagan Ban Books? - May 14, 2010 - The New York Sun

Here's WND take on it
Kagan: Yes, government <i>can</i> ban books

 

[Josie]

I would like to see the quote. Because if she did say something like that, I'm surprised she has made it this far. That type of language is quite scary.

NAKED EMPEROR NEWS

 

[fredmertz]

Interesting clip. Did Kagan ever answer the question? I know a 1 minute clip can sometimes be taken out of context. And did she seriously say it was OK to ban books? I didn't expect that I'd agree with Kagan on questions of the scope of federal authority, but now I'm wondering if she believes there should be ANY limits to federal authority.

it sounds like she did... sort of - she had said that: it's a dumb law, but we can't strike down the law based on the fact that it's dumb. This makes it sound like she would consider such a law dumb, but constitutional. That's unfortunate. It'd be like the national government regulating how much salt companies could put in their food... (though I'm all for full disclosure of how much salt is in food and its affect on the consumer, but if a person is selling a product and everyone is fully informed and there is a buyer for said product - that's between the consumer and producer).

 

[Groucho]

Ah, I see now. There are two points to make:

1. It was said in the context of her being an advocate, arguing in favor of a law for her employer (the government) and does not necessarily represent her personal views. (For instance, I have argued and debated laws while in court that I disagree with completely -- but it's my job to be an advocate for my client).

2. It was in the context of unregulated political advertising since that was the case being argued. She was arguing that all political ads (including pamphlets and books) should state who paid for them, and if they do not then they would violate the law and thus be "banned" -- not for the content of what they say but because they did not follow the law. After all, if the government can require all food products to have (for instance) health information on the label and can prohibit those that do not, that does not mean it is a violation of the 1st amendment.

So yeah, in context I understand the quote. Taken out of context it sounds pretty bad.

 

[Groucho]

it sounds like she did... sort of - she had said that: it's a dumb law, but we can't strike down the law based on the fact that it's dumb. This makes it sound like she would consider such a law dumb, but constitutional. That's unfortunate. It'd be like the national government regulating how much salt companies could put in their food... (though I'm all for full disclosure of how much salt is in food and its affect on the consumer, but if a person is selling a product and everyone is fully informed and there is a buyer for said product - that's between the consumer and producer).

Right, but we don't want the Supreme Court knocking down stupid laws -- only unconstitutional ones.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Welcome to the world of government-run healthcare.

 

[Josie]

Right, but we don't want the Supreme Court knocking down stupid laws -- only unconstitutional ones.

What's the difference?

 

[Psychoclown]

it sounds like she did... sort of - she had said that: it's a dumb law, but we can't strike down the law based on the fact that it's dumb. This makes it sound like she would consider such a law dumb, but constitutional. That's unfortunate. It'd be like the national government regulating how much salt companies could put in their food... (though I'm all for full disclosure of how much salt is in food and its affect on the consumer, but if a person is selling a product and everyone is fully informed and there is a buyer for said product - that's between the consumer and producer).

That's my take on it too, but I didn't want to put words in her mouth based on a one minute clip. And also agree about requiring full disclosure of what's in a product and then letting an informed consumer make a decision.

 

[Psychoclown]

Ah, I see now. There are two points to make:

1. It was said in the context of her being an advocate, arguing in favor of a law for her employer (the government) and does not necessarily represent her personal views. (For instance, I have argued and debated laws while in court that I disagree with completely -- but it's my job to be an advocate for my client).

2. It was in the context of unregulated political advertising since that was the case being argued. She was arguing that all political ads (including pamphlets and books) should state who paid for them, and if they do not then they would violate the law and thus be "banned" -- not for the content of what they say but because they did not follow the law. After all, if the government can require all food products to have (for instance) health information on the label and can prohibit those that do not, that does not mean it is a violation of the 1st amendment.

So yeah, in context I understand the quote. Taken out of context it sounds pretty bad.

Ah, when taken in that context, it makes a lot more sense. I'm not sure I'm 100% on board with the constitutionality of a law requiring politcal adds state who paid for them, but its far less troubling than an outright endorsement of book banning.

 

[Barbbtx]

Ok, here's what scares me. Kagan would not say that forcing people by law to eat 3 fruits and 3 vegetables daily was unconstitutional. Try as he might Coburn couldn't get her to say it. She seemed to think that something like that could be covered even though it would be a "stupid" law. That's the problem! Stupid laws are passed all the time.

 

[Your Star]

Ah, when taken in that context, it makes a lot more sense. I'm not sure I'm 100% on board with the constitutionality of a law requiring politcal adds state who paid for them, but its far less troubling than an outright endorsement of book banning.

Agree, this eases my concern.

 

[Ockham]

What's the difference?

Well, there is a difference. I'd suggest that a large amount of our laws are stupid laws, many are unenforced or totally ignored. That doesn't mean their un-Constitutional. They may be irrelevant, out of touch, or stupid --- but still within the confines of Constitutionality as it's being interpreted by the SCOTUS. Let's put this in a big picture: If Congress could only pass relevent, intelligent and applicable laws - they'd be off on vacation for 48 weeks of the year. Congress has to pass irrelevant and inconsequential legislation so they can show their constituents they should be re-elected and are "doing the people's work". The reality is, Congress has been and should be a part-time job only. I wish we could enforce that... but that's just me daydreaming.

 

[Ockham]

Ok, here's what scares me. Kagan would not say that forcing people by law to eat 3 fruits and 3 vegetables daily was unconstitutional. Try as he might Coburn couldn't get her to say it. She seemed to think that something like that could be covered even though it would be a "stupid" law. That's the problem! Stupid laws are passed all the time.

I think anyone speaking to Congress takes an "avoid answering" course - as they don't want to go on record with a clear direct answer.

 

[Psychoclown]

What's the difference?

There's a huge difference. Laws can be stupid and still constitutional and laws can be sensible (in a subjective sense) and still be unconstitutional. If a township passed a law setting the speed limit on their roads at 5 MPH, that would be constitutional, but it would also be incredibly stupid. SCOTUS has no business striking down a law simply because its poor policy. It's the job of elected officials to make policy and for the people to hold them accountable for the policies they enact. The court's job is merely to examine if laws are allowable according to the Constitution.

 

[Jucon]

The government can "control what we eat" in a sense by limiting what businesses can offer us. For instance limiting salt, sugar, fat, and other harmful things that can be found in the foods we can buy.

However the government would never be able to tell people "you need to eat 3 fruits and 3 vegetables a day". There would be no way to enforce that and it would be impossible to pass. I'm not sure if it would even be constitutional... though I assume it wouldn't be.

 

[peepnklown]

The US Constitution grants the national government very limited powers and this is not one of them.

 

[ronpaulvoter]

1. Watch the clip.



2. Take the poll.


P.S. I know it's a hypothetical question and I know Kagan said she doesn't think the court should strike down laws because they're senseless confused. That's not the question.

Is it Constitutional?

Why are so many people, including Supreme Court Justices, SO STUPID?

It's so simple. Just ask two questions:

1. Is it specifically permitted in the Constitution? If it is omitted, it is NOT Constitutional.

2. Does it violate people's individual rights? If it does, it is NOT Constitutional.


About 90% of what the government does is unconstitutional. Ditto for state and local governments.

 

[Groucho]

Is it Constitutional?

Why are so many people, including Supreme Court Justices, SO STUPID?

It's so simple. Just ask two questions:

1. Is it specifically permitted in the Constitution? If it is omitted, it is NOT Constitutional.

2. Does it violate people's individual rights? If it does, it is NOT Constitutional.


About 90% of what the government does is unconstitutional. Ditto for state and local governments.

Amazing. I never knew that you were smarter than every single lawyer and judge that has ever existed. Who knew? Guess we should just replace the Supreme Court with you, since you apparently are the world's leading legal expert.