• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge finds NC "Choose Life" plate unconstitutioonal

JayDubya said:
Again, there is nothing in the Constitution that says that any particular political slogan or turn of phrase must be issued on custom state license plates.

But one should never be surprised by the potential of activist judges - AKA morons - to hallucinate what they want into the text.
Click to expand...

You really need to stop weighing in on constitutional topics because you clearly have no earthly idea what you're talking about. The issue here is whether or not the government may discriminate based on viewpoint in providing access to a public forum in their control. Since they cannot do so, their refusal to allow a pro-choice message on that forum, while allowing an anti-choice message on that forum, is unconstitutional.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Bigfoot, Illuminati, C'Thulu, UFOs.
How many more times do I need to bring these up before they become relevant? What is the number?
Click to expand...

I think Chthulhu should be relevant to every topic, but maybe that's just me. :)
 
Aderleth said:
I think Chthulhu should be relevant to every topic, but maybe that's just me. :)
Click to expand...

That's twice now that one of the following have been brought up in regard to this thread: Bigfoot, Illuminati, C'Thulu, UFOs.

How many more times until they're relevant? I wonder.
 
Aderleth said:
You really need to stop weighing in on constitutional topics because you clearly have no earthly idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do.

Can you read the First Amendment? Probably. Have you / will you? Probably not.

I can and have. I'm also lacking the abject retardation required to type the nonsense term "anti-choice."
 
Aderleth said:
1) Government funding for PP specifically excludes abortion funding.

2) The constitutionality issue has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the organization sponsoring the plate funds anti-abortion activities. The only reason that's relevant at all is because it undercuts your earlier contention that the message on the plate could be interpreted to not be anti-abortion.

3) Since abortion funding is not the topic of this thread, you are changing the subject.
Click to expand...

1) Planned Parenthood does use appropriated public funds for abortions.

2) It seems the issue people have is that the baby killers have a problem spending on alternative solutions to baby killing - as if preventing abortions is somehow wrong?

3) My argument is very relative considering the fact that the counterargument is that states shouldn't be allowed to spend revenue collected via license plate sales to prevent abortions.

Like I said in a previous post - people are saying its OK for Planned Parenthood to receive state funds to abort babies, yet it is wrong for a pro-life organization to receive funds in order to offer an alternative solution.
 
JayDubya said:
Yes, I do.

Can you read the First Amendment? Probably. Have you / will you? Probably not.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right. I probablly won't be reading the first amendment again anytime soon. What with having studied it for the California bar exam, the two semesters of ConLaw I had in law school, and the third semester I had just on first amendment law I've got it pretty well memorized.

The fact that you think simply reading the amendment is enough to understand how it operates tells me everything I need to know about your knowledge (or rather lack thereof) on the subject.
 
JayDubya said:
I can and have. I'm also lacking the abject retardation required to type the nonsense term "anti-choice."
Click to expand...
Why do you want to bust on your fellow DP members like Mr Nick that way?
Calling people names reflects on you more than on the person you're calling names, imho.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I'm not changing the subject... I'm simply wondering why it is ok that government can fund abortions, yet it is wrong that government funds abortion alternatives via the revenue from license plates?

If anything the question is absolutely relevant considering it has been brought up on numerous occasions in this thread, not to mention the hypocrisy involved given by those who object.

You may as well say it's logical for the government to fund abortions but illogical and illegal for the government to fund abortion prevention and intervention or alternative solutions.
Click to expand...

The government does not fund abortions. If you think that this is true then certainly you can show me the exact figures that came directly from the government and went directly to even one abortion patient in PP.
 
Mr.Nick said:
3) My argument is very relative considering the fact that the counterargument is that states shouldn't be allowed to spend revenue collected via license plate sales to prevent abortions.
Click to expand...
the fact that your irrelevant argument has a counter argument doesn't actually make your irrelevant argument relevant.

Mr.Nick said:
Like I said in a previous post - people are saying its OK for Planned Parenthood to receive state funds to abort babies, yet it is wrong for a pro-life organization to receive funds in order to offer an alternative solution.
Click to expand...
I am sure there are people saying that somewhere.
But, it's not at all what the thread is about nor is it what the court decision says.
 
Mr.Nick said:
1) Planned Parenthood does use appropriated public funds for abortions.
Click to expand...

That is quite simply false, unless by "public funds" you mean "private donations by members of the public."

Mr.Nick said:
2) It seems the issue people have is that the baby killers have a problem spending on alternative solutions to baby killing - as if preventing abortions is somehow wrong?
Click to expand...

That isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not the government may engage in viewpoint discrimination on a public forum under their control. They cannot.

Mr.Nick said:
3) My argument is very relative considering the fact that the counterargument is that states shouldn't be allowed to spend revenue collected via license plate sales to prevent abortions.
Click to expand...

Either you're not reading, or you're not understanding what I've been writing, because that's not at all the counterargument; and in fact, has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

Mr.Nick said:
Like I said in a previous post - people are saying its OK for Planned Parenthood to receive state funds to abort babies, yet it is wrong for a pro-life organization to receive funds in order to offer an alternative solution.
Click to expand...

And like I said before, you're both factually wrong and off topiic. :shrug:
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Given that "government funds abortion alternatives via the revenue from license plates" is not the issue at hand, you are indeed talking about another issue.
the issue is still about who is allowed access to govt controlled venues for political speech.
It's really not about abortion. It could have been any political issue afaict.

Bigfoot, Illuminati, C'Thulu, UFOs.
How many more times do I need to bring these up before they become relevant? What is the number?

Some people may say all sorts of things. But many of those things, like the snippet of yours quoted above, are different from the issue addressed in this court case.
Click to expand...

"Pro-life" is not political speech, not to mention there is nothing in the constitution that says government cant endorse "political speech."

"Implications" hold zero water in court.

Judges have no right to legally define a slogan either.
 
Mr.Nick said:
"Pro-life" is not political speech...
Click to expand...
In some abstract sense which is far removed from the world we live in, you're right.

Mr.Nick said:
not to mention there is nothing in the constitution that says government cant endorse "political speech."
Click to expand...
Again, the issue isn't about the gov "endorsing political speech." The issue us that govt controlled venues for public political speech must be available to all of the citizens.
Though you're getting warmer.
Mr.Nick said:
"Implications" hold zero water in court.
Click to expand...
But buckets do as long as they're upright and don't have holes in them.
Non-sequitur for a non-sequitur.

Mr.Nick said:
Judges have no right to legally define a slogan either.
Click to expand...
There's no indication that this happened in this case.
 
Aderleth said:
Yeah, you're right. I probablly won't be reading the first amendment again anytime soon. What with having studied it for the California bar exam, the two semesters of ConLaw I had in law school, and the third semester I had just on first amendment law I've got it pretty well memorized.

The fact that you think simply reading the amendment is enough to understand how it operates tells me everything I need to know about your knowledge (or rather lack thereof) on the subject.
Click to expand...

I will neither be feigning shock that a person on an internet debate site claims to be of a profession relevant to the topic at hand, nor at the possibility of veritable legions of clueless lawyers who took Constitutional Law from professors that despise the document, such as our current president.

And I say again that in no way was the legislature of North Carolina abridging the freedom of speech of its citizens... Which is the only way it would actually run afoul of the text of the First Amendment.

So regardless of your claim you might need a refresher.
 
Mr.Nick said:
"Pro-life" is not political speech, not to mention there is nothing in the constitution that says government cant endorse "political speech."
Click to expand...

If it is not political then why are there so many laws being enacted by politicians regarding abortion?

As for Constitutional law...Sorry but if I need Constitutional law defended I sure wouldn't go to you. You've already shown that you know nothing about it.

Mr.Nick said:
Judges have no right to legally define a slogan either.
Click to expand...

Show me where the judge in the OP did this.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The government does not fund abortions. If you think that this is true then certainly you can show me the exact figures that came directly from the government and went directly to even one abortion patient in PP.
Click to expand...

No the tax payers fund the government, the government funds Planned Parenthood and planned parenthood keeps their books sealed.

Considering PP offers abortions, and they are funded by the government they are IN FACT using tax dollars for abortions.

Do you really believe that planned parenthood "separates" their funds? because in order for you to be correct that would have to be the case.

Please don't insult my intelligence...

Can I prove they're using taxpayer dollars for abortions? no, however I'm not an idiot, and I know government is funding the organization.

Can you prove 2+2+4??

Can you show me air?
 
JayDubya said:
I will neither be feigning shock that a person an internet debate site claims to be of a profession relevant to the topic at hand, nor at the possibility of veritable legions of clueless lawyers who took Constitutional Law from professors that despise the document, such as our current president.

And I say again that in no way was the legislature of North Carolina abridging the freedom of speech of its citizens... Which is the only way it would actually run afoul of the text of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

By providing a public forum to which certain people were allowed to express thier speech and then denying that same venue to another group to express thier speech then yes...the 1st amendment was broken.

Where would this country be if black people were never allowed to hold protests? Where would this country be if MLK was not allowed to speak in a public forum?
 
Kal'Stang said:
If it is not political then why are there so many laws being enacted by politicians regarding abortion?

As for Constitutional law...Sorry but if I need Constitutional law defended I sure wouldn't go to you. You've already shown that you know nothing about it.



Show me where the judge in the OP did this.
Click to expand...

You do realize abortion is murder? I don't understand why progressives don't comprehend that!

In short - me killing you would be no different than a woman having an abortion.
 
JayDubya said:
And I say again that in no way was the legislature of North Carolina abridging the freedom of speech of its citizens... Which is the only way it would actually run afoul of the text of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
so the first amendment only deal with freedom of speech you say?
Perhaps you should heed the advice of the following poster:
JayDubya said:
...you might need a refresher.
Click to expand...
 
Mr.Nick said:
No the tax payers fund the government, the government funds Planned Parenthood and planned parenthood keeps their books sealed.

Considering PP offers abortions, and they are funded by the government they are IN FACT using tax dollars for abortions.

Do you really believe that planned parenthood "separates" their funds? because in order for you to be correct that would have to be the case.

Please don't insult my intelligence...

Can I prove they're using taxpayer dollars for abortions? no, however I'm not an idiot, and I know government is funding the organization.

Can you prove 2+2+4??

Can you show me air?
Click to expand...

Then you know nothing of how those funds are allocated. In case you didn't know it but PP is required by law to show to the government where each and every single penny goes.
 
Mr.Nick said:
You do realize abortion is murder? I don't understand why progressives don't comprehend that!

In short - me killing you would be no different than a woman having an abortion.
Click to expand...

Abortion is not murder. In order for there to be murder then the killing of a PERSON must happen. A ZEF is not a PERSON. The judges have already ruled on this.
 
Mr.Nick said:
You do realize abortion is murder? I don't understand why progressives don't comprehend that!
In short - me killing you would be no different than a woman having an abortion.
Click to expand...
We're drifting into your pet issue?
Is that why you have trouble staying on topic of govt controlled public venues for political expression?
 
JayDubya said:
I will neither be feigning shock that a person on an internet debate site claims to be of a profession relevant to the topic at hand, nor at the possibility of veritable legions of clueless lawyers who took Constitutional Law from professors that despise the document, such as our current president.

And I say again that in no way was the legislature of North Carolina abridging the freedom of speech of its citizens... Which is the only way it would actually run afoul of the text of the First Amendment.

So regardless of your claim you might need a refresher.
Click to expand...

Again: you have no earthly idea what you're talking about. You'd obviously prefer to remain ignorant of the topic, so you go ahead and run with that.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
In some abstract sense which is far removed from the world we live in, you're right.

Again, the issue isn't about the gov "endorsing political speech." The issue us that govt controlled venues for public political speech must be available to all of the citizens.
Though you're getting warmer.
But buckets do as long as they're upright and don't have holes in them.
Non-sequitur for a non-sequitur.

There's no indication that this happened in this case.
Click to expand...

I could care less if a pro-choice group wanted a plate that said "pro-choice." Apparently that has already happened, and they were (wrongly) shot down.

The government has no right to interpret slogans - we don't need the government defining language for us.

Furthermore this is so goddamn stupid considering bumper stickers are available that read: "pro-life" and "pro-choice."
 
Kal'Stang said:
Abortion is not murder. In order for there to be murder then the killing of a PERSON must happen. A ZEF is not a PERSON. The judges have already ruled on this.
Click to expand...
Murder is actually a subset of homicide which is illegal and not manslaughter or otherwise.

I suspect that Mr. Nick actually means that abortion is homicide. But saying that is not as sexy as saying murder.

But I am wrong all the time. So Mr. Nick may actually think that abortion is illegal. idk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom