View Poll Results: Should you need a license to be a journalist?

Voters
79. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    7 8.86%
  • no

    69 87.34%
  • maybe/other

    3 3.80%
Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 121

Thread: Should you need a license to be a journalist?

  1. #111
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Should you need a license to be a journalist?

    How much do you understand about law? Its all about interpretation. Look at the 14th Amendment for example, specifically the equal protection clause in section 1. It states:
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which 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; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    That last phrase, equal protection of the laws has changed meanings since its creation and addition to the Constitution. For example one could make an argument that women should have been giving the right to vote under that clause, as all persons are granted equal protection. Yet we needed the 19th amendment to grant women the right to vote. Today there are cases working there way up to the Supreme Court and other high courts which state that laws prohibiting gay marriages are unconstitutional under equal protection, and one could make an argument for that. Quite clearly the homosexual community sees laws which stand in the face of their pursuit of happiness and their opinion of what equal protection is, that is based on the fact that in most states they cannot marry but others can, they see that as an inequality.

    Whether thats a correct interpretation I can't say but what I can tell you is just like in the past where segregation was once Constitutional under the 14th Amendment and now is not, interpretation defines Constitutional law. Hell just recently the Court overturned a campaign finance law under a NEW interpretation of the 1st Amendment, that wasnt the first time that law was brought before the Court but it was upheld one time and denied another time. Why? The 1st amendment didnt change, but the interpretation did.

    Even your all encompassing view that what the Constitution says applies equally and samely everywhere is wrong, it NEVER has. Gun laws, religious laws, alcohol consumption and sales laws, have always been different for each state and county. Never in all of US history have the same laws which regulate items addressed in the Constitution been the same throughout all the states. Massachusetts had an official state religion for decades where individuals were required to pay a special tax if they were not members of the Anglican church, it was considered fair partly because church members would be paying a tithe. You think that would fly today in any court? Hell no, but the first amendment hasnt changed. And why is that? Because people want to live differently.

    Lastly, look at Article 3 of the Constitution which defines the role of the Supreme Court.
    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

    The Constitution itself vests the power of its own interpretation to the Supreme Court, in my opinion. This interpretation was also reached in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, establishing Judicial review, and hasn't changed in the 200 years since. So under the Constitution the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means, which means the current gun laws for example as they exist in certain states are Constitutional until the Supreme Court says they are not. And if the Supreme Court thought there was a need to redefine or re-enforce its viewpoint on the Constitution it would take a case relating specifically to one of the Amendments of of Constitution. For example in 2008 they felt this need to re-enforce its viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment in District of Columbia vs. Heller, in which they decided with a 5-4 vote that, among other things,
    1) Handguns were defined as arms, which had NOT been defined by the Supreme Court until now.
    2) DC's law banning handguns was therefore unconstitutional.
    3) Reaffirmed the right to own a firearm in all federal enclaves.
    4) Owing a firearm without connection to a militia was Constitutional
    5) Declared parts of the Firearms Act of 1975 unconstitutional
    It also Held that: The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.

    You'll notice they didn't declare a strict literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that you advocate when they had all opportunity to do so after taking a 2nd Amendment case. But under the Constitution their interpretation has reinterpretation the Constitution, even though it quite clearly does not follow the strict literal meaning. What you need to understand is that law is NOT about literal meaning its about legal meaning and about precedence. We might consider an arm to be all sorts of things that under its literal definition would clearly be an arm, but under its legal definition may not be. The Supreme Court here had to redefine an handgun as an arm in their own decision, if that doesn't show you the difference between legal and literal definition nothing will.

    And as a final note, the purpose of the Court is NOT to match literal and legal definition, that isn't how law works again. For example the literal definitions of contract and agreement may be very similar and for all practical purposes in everyday language may have the same meaning, but legally they have separate and distinct meanings. If the two were merged to match literal definition it would destroy the meaning of the law.

  2. #112
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,596
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should you need a license to be a journalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    If the government can require a license to exercise one right, then it can require a license to exercise them all.
    This is not a bad thing at all. Over the years man has abused his rights, so rules and regulations are necessary.
    This applies to journalists, but the control must be done very carefully; also, most on TV and radio are "entertainers", NOT journalists - to this word must be carefully defined.

  3. #113
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Should you need a license to be a journalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    This is not a bad thing at all. Over the years man has abused his rights, so rules and regulations are necessary.
    This applies to journalists, but the control must be done very carefully; also, most on TV and radio are "entertainers", NOT journalists - to this word must be carefully defined.
    I am sure that as soon as you sugest people get a license to have an abortion, almost every person who supports the idea that you should have to have a licnese to get a gun will squal like a stuck pig.

  4. #114
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should you need a license to be a journalist?

    Forcing the press to be licensed is little more than a means of covertly censoring the press. This is a bad idea and must not happen. We do not need to give any political group an type of control over the press. The press, speech, and religious belief, must remain free and unregulated by any governing authority.

  5. #115
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Should you need a license to be a journalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    The government's job is NOT to adhere to the Constitution its to adhere to the will of the people
    You are incorrect.

    First, every elected official at the federal level and every member of the United States military takes some variation of an oath to protect and defend the Constitution first, and to discharge the duties of their office or rank second. They do not taken an oath to do what John and Jane Doe tell them to do.

    Second, the United States is (at least in thoery) a nation of law, not a nation of man. The government is supposed to conduct itself according to the law first, and the will of the masses second. That's how the rights of the minority (and I don't mean skin color) are protected -- by making the will of the majority a secondary concern.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    The Constitution needs to be interpreted and perhaps limited through normal law
    The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is interpreted by judges, not through the execution of any other law, and no other law can limit the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    If one group tries to enforce their interpretation of the Constitution on others the nation itself might fall apart as those it is being forced on might not appreciate the removal of their ability to shape their society as they see fit and the new "freedoms" forced on them. At the very least it would cause a lot of unrest, social problems, and resentment.
    You mean, what we have right now, and have had for the past several decades?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    Now of course many parts of the Constitution which are currently restricted in some form or another, such as the 2nd amendment, are very clear in their lack of any room for restriction. But whether or not you can make an extremely convincing argument that your interpretation is the correct one, at least as the word of the document goes, it still is your interpretation which you would be forcing upon someone else. You risk turning the Constitution not into a document which enshrines liberties but rather is used to deny people the ability and freedom to construct the laws and regulation of their society, and their society as a whole, the way they wish it to be constructed.
    Interpreting the Constitution as a document which guarantees certain freedoms and prohibits the government from taking those freedoms away does not in any way strip anyone of freedom.

    Amendments Nine and Ten are pretty clear on this subject.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  6. #116
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Should you need a license to be a journalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    The government's job is NOT to adhere to the Constitution its to adhere to the will of the people,
    Interesting then that everyone that serves in goverment takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the will of the people, and that the will of the people is OFTEN ignored by the constitution. Given this, your statement is unsupportable, as is anything that reslies on said statemet for support.

  7. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Should you need a license to be a journalist?

    You two are correct the gov't is meant to adhere to the Constitution I shouldnt have said that. What I was trying to do was point out the difference between different states and judicial jurisdiction and the impractically of enforcing one version of interpretation of the Constitution throughout the country. And that NEVER since the signing of the Constitution the entire country in all jurisdictions adhered to the same laws for issues addressed in the Constitution.

    Besides what interpretation would be enforced nationally? Clearly many of you do not agree with the SCOTUS' interpretation, which allows for abortion and an interpretation of the 2nd amendment which allows for restrictions on the ownership of arms for example. And I've pointed out that the Constitution itself defines its interpreter as the SCOTUS. You may believe your interpretation is correct but it has no precedent and correct and incorrect are relative terms, what you believe is correct others may believe in incorrect.

    But many of you want to ignore precedent and ignore the established interpretation of the Constitution, ie that the SCOTUS interprets it and therefore its decisions that you disagree with are somehow unconstitutional which defies Article 3. You instead what to force what you believe is the correct interpretation upon the rest of the country without a full understanding of how to read law and precedent, and cannot see how that would limit the freedom of others. Many people, in many places the majority of places, want to live in a society not possible under your exact and literal interpretation of the Constitution. If for example you forced your interpretation of the Constitution on California, you may be giving them additional freedoms regarding firearms but you are taking away a much greater and more important freedom which is their right to create a government and society which they live in.

  8. #118
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Should you need a license to be a journalist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    And that NEVER since the signing of the Constitution the entire country in all jurisdictions adhered to the same laws for issues addressed in the Constitution.
    Maybe not at the State level, but most definitely at the Federal level. Is that what you meant?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    Besides what interpretation would be enforced nationally?
    The interpretation of the Supreme Court.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    Clearly many of you do not agree with the SCOTUS' interpretation, which allows for abortion and an interpretation of the 2nd amendment which allows for restrictions on the ownership of arms for example.
    True, but their interpretation is what reigns. They are the highest court of appeal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    And I've pointed out that the Constitution itself defines its interpreter as the SCOTUS. You may believe your interpretation is correct but it has no precedent and correct and incorrect are relative terms, what you believe is correct others may believe in incorrect.
    In the legal sense, you are 100% correct. That doesn't mean that alternate interpretations aren't worthy of discussion.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  9. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Should you need a license to be a journalist?

    I meant below the Federal level yes, although I realize the Federal gov't doesn't always follow the Constitution as defined by the SCOTUS, I believe it should. I agree with what you said otherwise however.

  10. #120
    Professor
    Travelsonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:40 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,376

    Re: Should you need a license to be a journalist?

    [QUOTE=earthworm;1058780976]This is not a bad thing at all. Over the years man has abused his rights, so rules and regulations are necessary.[QUOTE]

    Do we put an entire town under marial law because a couple of teens drive drunk and vandalize property?

    If somebody abuses their rights, deal with them since we already have laws dealing with what they do, but don't use the fact that some people push the boundaries, even abuse outright their freedoms, to try and justify infringing upon mine. I don't need protection from myself.
    Nationalism in high dosages may be hazardous to your health. Please consult a psychiatrist before beginning a regular regimen, and if feelings of elitism and douchbaggery continue, discontinue immediately before you become unable to do so on your own.

Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •