|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 13, 2020 13:21:56 GMT -6
OK.
Peaceful assembly is now limited. But hardly prohibited. Small groups can assemble. Social distance (which isn't really enforced very much) is still assembly.
No right is absolute. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, all of them have Constitutional limits.
Attempting to keep assembly safe and preventing the assembly causing danger to others is justified.
You say it's not prohibited, and then qualify it by saying small groups can assemble. Any other freedoms you're willing to give up? Limited and prohibited are different. That you don't like something it doesn't make it fascist or wrong.
We live in a society where freedom is not absolute, so yes I give up freedom. Often I don't like a law. It's the best system we have to choose from.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 13, 2020 13:50:43 GMT -6
Constitutionally speaking, these freedoms ARE absolute. We've just allowed them to be chipped away. Limited and abridged are the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 13, 2020 15:21:55 GMT -6
Constitutionally speaking, these freedoms ARE absolute. We've just allowed them to be chipped away. Limited and abridged are the same thing. Isn't that decided by the Supreme Court? Wait. They have decided... |
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Apr 13, 2020 18:06:03 GMT -6
You guys are playing nicely in here.. No one has even called anyone a fucktard yet
|
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Apr 13, 2020 18:08:07 GMT -6
You guys are playing nicely in here.. No one has even called anyone a fucktard yet Dammit Rob, now you’ve opened the can of worms. (I Respect everyone on here. Its all good) |
|
|
|
Post by chirpchirpcards on Apr 14, 2020 6:04:58 GMT -6
You guys are playing nicely in here.. No one has even called anyone a fucktard yet You're always such a fucktard, coming in here stirring the pot! |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 14, 2020 6:24:40 GMT -6
You guys are playing nicely in here.. No one has even called anyone a fucktard yet That would be... uncivilized. |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 14, 2020 6:29:11 GMT -6
Constitutionally speaking, these freedoms ARE absolute. We've just allowed them to be chipped away. Limited and abridged are the same thing. Isn't that decided by the Supreme Court? Wait. They have decided... And they have decided incorrectly, if you're talking about the limitations to free speech (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater example). They're human, and still make mistakes. That's why we allow amendments to the Constitution, to correct them. At least the Founding Fathers were smart enough to recognize their own ability to make mistakes, and allow a way to correct them. But strictly speaking, Constitutional rights are being infringed if you disallow the people to peaceably assemble in any numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 14, 2020 7:36:18 GMT -6
Isn't that decided by the Supreme Court? Wait. They have decided... And they have decided incorrectly, if you're talking about the limitations to free speech (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater example). They're human, and still make mistakes. That's why we allow amendments to the Constitution, to correct them. At least the Founding Fathers were smart enough to recognize their own ability to make mistakes, and allow a way to correct them. But strictly speaking, Constitutional rights are being infringed if you disallow the people to peaceably assemble in any numbers. Strictly speaking you are being ridiculous.
The Supreme Court created precedent and the rest of the Court system has applied it in a long string of cases where danger to public safety allows the law to limit gatherings. Did I miss the news flash about how we amended the Constitution after these "errors" that you allege were made?
It is the Supreme Court opinion on these matters that counts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 14, 2020 7:40:44 GMT -6
Are you saying the SC is correct on every ruling?
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 14, 2020 10:29:09 GMT -6
Are you saying the SC is correct on every ruling? No. I do admire the Constitution and also the part which creates a Court system which allows interpretation by the Supreme Court and creates a strong mechanism to self correct errors by the Court.
When I see a long history of consistent case law here, I am about as sure as I can be they are right on this question. Unless I missed that Constitutional Amendment you referred to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 14, 2020 11:25:52 GMT -6
I didn't say there was an amendment, only that overriding bad SC decisions is what they're for. They're fairly rare for a reason, because they're very hard to get passed, needing 2/3 of states to agree.
The SC rarely reverses itself. It considers previous decisions as precedent, which should not be altered. I disagree, but they don't ask me.
Regardless, I believe the First Amendment is very clear. So is the Second, but that's a different argument. Just because the SC has diluted it, doesn't mean that they're correct, it just means that there hasn't been an egregious enough decision for the states to take up the fight.
That can always change.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Apr 14, 2020 11:40:56 GMT -6
You guys are playing nicely in here.. No one has even called anyone a fucktard yet You're always such a fucktard, coming in here stirring the pot! I like it if things become heated just direct your aggression towards me... |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 14, 2020 11:51:36 GMT -6
You're always such a fucktard, coming in here stirring the pot! I like it if things become heated just direct your aggression towards me... Shut your dick holster! |
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Apr 14, 2020 12:35:07 GMT -6
I like it if things become heated just direct your aggression towards me... Shut your dick holster! That’s awesome. Rob is gonna start using that one. |
|
