|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 29,383
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 29,383 |
Dumber then a box of Rocks. Probably has to be dressed and spoon fed . Do you honestly believe this? Obviously you meant “than” but do you really believe that an incredibly dumb person somehow got himself elected governor of a US state and is pulling off an astonishing power grab that the people of the state are unwilling or unable to stop? He got elected with Voter fraud, very very thin margin. The "Bathroom Law" did in the former republican Governor . I don't think the protests are stopping, he will be a one term governor.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 28,172
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 28,172 |
Here's a hint: Rad the 14th Amendment, salient part quoted in my post above (privileges and immunities clause). That is the vehicle by which states were incorporated into certain restrictions in the Bill of Rights.
The Due Process clause still doesn't bar States from denying the privileges and immunities by due process within the State. States can enact laws and decrees that deny the privileges, etc. and enforce the procedures by due process.
Hunt with Class and Classics
Religion: A founder of The Church of Spray and Pray
Acquit v. t. To render a judgment in a murder case in San Francisco... EQUAL, adj. As bad as something else. Ambrose Bierce “The Devil's Dictionary”
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554 |
No,no. Due process is a different thing. It's all wrapped up in, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” (If you read in context it's clear that "the state" means any of the several states.)
The rights embodied within the Bill of Rights are generally found to be within the privileges and immunities" stated in the 14th Amendment (on a case by case basis, can't think of an exception). Second Amendment for example Hence the Court held that state lav cannot be violative of the right to keep and bear arms..
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Which explains a lot.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 28,172
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 28,172 |
No,no. Due process is a different thing. It's all wrapped up in, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” (If you read in context it's clear that "the state" means any of the several states.)
The rights embodied within the Bill of Rights are generally found to be within the privileges and immunities" stated in the 14th Amendment (on a case by case basis, can't think of an exception). Second Amendment for example Hence the Court held that state lav cannot be violative of the right to keep and bear arms.. Doesn't hold water. As to the Second Amendment, it IS a right enumerated and for all citizens by the Constitution, so using 2A as your argument is specious. It does state that States can deprive with due process. It also fails to define "privileges and immunities" "shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". 14A has been interpreted to go far beyond the script, and I'm not complaining.
Hunt with Class and Classics
Religion: A founder of The Church of Spray and Pray
Acquit v. t. To render a judgment in a murder case in San Francisco... EQUAL, adj. As bad as something else. Ambrose Bierce “The Devil's Dictionary”
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,506
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,506 |
No,no. Due process is a different thing. It's all wrapped up in, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” (If you read in context it's clear that "the state" means any of the several states.)
The rights embodied within the Bill of Rights are generally found to be within the privileges and immunities" stated in the 14th Amendment (on a case by case basis, can't think of an exception). Second Amendment for example Hence the Court held that state lav cannot be violative of the right to keep and bear arms.. Doesn't hold water. As to the Second Amendment, it IS a right enumerated and for all citizens by the Constitution, so using 2A as your argument is specious. It does state that States can deprive with due process. It also fails to define "privileges and immunities" "shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". 14A has been interpreted to go far beyond the script, and I'm not complaining. Jesus ph uck... are you lawyer?? Or just play one on 24 Hourcampfire?
Then STFU. The rest of your statement is superflous bullshit with no real bearing on this discussion other than to massage your own ego. Suckin' on my titties like you wanted me.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,506
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,506 |
Here's a hint: Rad the 14th Amendment, salient part quoted in my post above (privileges and immunities clause). That is the vehicle by which states were incorporated into certain restrictions in the Bill of Rights.
The Due Process clause still doesn't bar States from denying the privileges and immunities by due process within the State. States can enact laws and decrees that deny the privileges, etc. and enforce the procedures by due process. So a state can enact a law depriving a non resident due process?
Then STFU. The rest of your statement is superflous bullshit with no real bearing on this discussion other than to massage your own ego. Suckin' on my titties like you wanted me.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,506
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,506 |
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Yep It is completely silent on States doing the restricting, and the reserve clause in the 10th Amendment gives States the right to enact anything not specifically forbidden by the Constitution. Under this assumption the States can establish State religions, abridge freedom of speech and press, and deny free assembly within the States. Try it though...LOL. Where are you finding this chit? You gone off your rockers..
Last edited by 79S; 04/15/20.
Then STFU. The rest of your statement is superflous bullshit with no real bearing on this discussion other than to massage your own ego. Suckin' on my titties like you wanted me.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 28,172
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 28,172 |
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Yep It is completely silent on States doing the restricting, and the reserve clause in the 10th Amendment gives States the right to enact anything not specifically forbidden by the Constitution. Under this assumption the States can establish State religions, abridge freedom of speech and press, and deny free assembly within the States. Try it though...LOL. Where are you finding this chit? You gone off your rockers.. Have you ever read the whole Constitution? A truly strict reading might surprise you. It's been so hashed and re-hashed all to h ll over its life that what we think it says sometimes is a bit different. BTW, don't tell me when I have to pick up my marbles and leave. Everything I've said has been argued in the SCOTUS. Not all of my arguments have prevailed.
Hunt with Class and Classics
Religion: A founder of The Church of Spray and Pray
Acquit v. t. To render a judgment in a murder case in San Francisco... EQUAL, adj. As bad as something else. Ambrose Bierce “The Devil's Dictionary”
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 5,181 Likes: 6
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 5,181 Likes: 6 |
We most likely have the biggest POS governor in the entire country. Dumber then a box of Rocks. Probably has to be dressed and spoon fed .
A little more then 200 covid deaths in a state with 10 million population. 200 and counting...... One certainly has the right to protest, but need to stay 6'+ apart. as for re-opening the economy, until an effective vaccine is developed, tested, produced and widely distributed, the risk of re-ignition of Covid-19 is present (do we really want to repeat the past 2 months again?).This should be a joke. This country will not be able to sustain that long of a wait. You are talking minimum of a year to 18 months. That can't be in any SANE persons thought process. Clyde They're calling this virus SARS Cov2. SARS cov (the first one, from 2003) still doesn't have a vaccine.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 28,172
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 28,172 |
nighthawk, I have to tip my hat to you.
Hunt with Class and Classics
Religion: A founder of The Church of Spray and Pray
Acquit v. t. To render a judgment in a murder case in San Francisco... EQUAL, adj. As bad as something else. Ambrose Bierce “The Devil's Dictionary”
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076 |
We most likely have the biggest POS governor in the entire country. Dumber then a box of Rocks. Probably has to be dressed and spoon fed .
A little more then 200 covid deaths in a state with 10 million population. 200 and counting...... One certainly has the right to protest, but need to stay 6'+ apart. as for re-opening the economy, until an effective vaccine is developed, tested, produced and widely distributed, the risk of re-ignition of Covid-19 is present (do we really want to repeat the past 2 months again?). You can’t possibly be this stupid. Do you really think we will be able to do this for the next 18 months and still function as a society. Most people cannot fathom the amount of damage that is currently being done to our culture and economy. We have fought wars and lost hundreds of thousands of souls that had we not fought would be far less damaging than what we are currently experiencing. Get a fugging brain and perhaps your first clue.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,509
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,509 |
I'd send Ernest T. Bass up to Raleigh and git it settled right now.
Old guy, old guns.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554 |
So to cases. Gitlow v. New York was a seminal case on incorporation. Here's a good article: The First Amendment EncyclopediFrom the article: In doing so, however, the Court identified free speech and press as “among the fundamental personal rights and ‘liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States.” The Gitlow decision marks the beginning of the incorporation doctrine, which extended the scope of speech rights and, later, most of the Bill of Rights." So apparently they did use due process but first they would have had to find free speech, et al. to be a fundamental. personal right and apply the privileges and immunity clause to bring it within the ambit of the due process clause Or so I would argue. (In my defense it's been well over 25 years since I've read Gitlow And incorporation was blackletter law even then.)
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Which explains a lot.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,506
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,506 |
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Yep It is completely silent on States doing the restricting, and the reserve clause in the 10th Amendment gives States the right to enact anything not specifically forbidden by the Constitution. Under this assumption the States can establish State religions, abridge freedom of speech and press, and deny free assembly within the States. Try it though...LOL. Where are you finding this chit? You gone off your rockers.. Have you ever read the whole Constitution? A truly strict reading might surprise you. It's been so hashed and re-hashed all to h ll over its life that what we think it says sometimes is a bit different. BTW, don't tell me when I have to pick up my marbles and leave. Everything I've said has been argued in the SCOTUS. Not all of my arguments have prevailed. Ask Colorado what happened when they told that baker he had to bake that cake for same sex marriage.. I’m pretty sure states don’t have as much authority/power as you think. Start [bleep] with the 1st amendment you are asking for trouble.. just because you read the constitution doesn’t make you a constitution lawyer.. hell ted bundy studied law for a few semesters look where that got him..
Then STFU. The rest of your statement is superflous bullshit with no real bearing on this discussion other than to massage your own ego. Suckin' on my titties like you wanted me.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554 |
Colorado didn't proceed within their own guidelines. From the Justia syllabus:" The State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed." JustiaDifferent result if they had followed their own rules? Your crystal ball is as good as mine. (crystal ball - always sounded like a prosthetic device in a bad joke to me.)
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Which explains a lot.
|
|
|
|
571 members (16penny, 16gage, 160user, 06hunter59, 10gaugeman, 1beaver_shooter, 62 invisible),
2,796
guests, and
1,232
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,622
Posts18,492,791
Members73,977
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|