• 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!

First Amendment; What's yor take on it?

Stealers Wheel said:
No provision for the needs of society ate large? I beg to differ. It's right there in the preamble: "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, ..."

So you would prefer that anyone be allowed to blow up planes at will? That would in your mind fulfill the intent of the Constitution? To you it is all about personal freedom and it matters not how many innocents die as long as you don't have to open your bag at the airport? Spare me the 'slippery slope' crap.

The fact is aircraft and WMD did not exist at the time of the Founding Fathers. If they did, you would suggest the FF would have ignored the realities.
Click to expand...
A preamble is nothing more than a summary of the following document. There is no such thing as a General Welfare Clause. The Supreme Court threw out that leftist nonsense 83 years ago in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) when the government attempted to use the imaginary General Welfare Clause in support of an agricultural tax Congress wanted to impose.

If the novel view of the General Welfare Clause now advanced in support of the tax were accepted, that clause would not only enable Congress to supplant the States in the regulation of agriculture and of all other industries as well, but would furnish the means whereby all of the other provisions of the Constitution, sedulously framed to define and limit the power of the United States and preserve the powers of the States, could be broken down, the independence of the individual States obliterated, and the United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the Union superseding all local control over local concerns.
Click to expand...

Even the Supreme Court acknowledged that your precious General Welfare Clause is the very first step towards leftist totalitarianism.

If you are afraid of people blowing up planes, don't fly. The federal government is specifically prohibited from searches and seizures without probable cause. There are no exceptions for acts of terrorism, or because you are afraid. If you are that concerned with security, get the private sector to continue to provide airport security like they did prior to 09/11/2001. The private sector cannot violate the Fourth Amendment or any of the Bill of Rights since those prohibitions were placed upon government only.

As long as the TSA exists they continue to violate the rights of every American.
 
The Supreme Court in 1985 (which tended to go conservative), New Jersey vs. TLO, found that there is a category called special needs exception: "exceptional circumstances . . . beyond the need for normal law enforcement [that] make the warrant and probable cause requirement impractical.”

Basically, the Supreme Court realized that in some "exceptional circumstances", law enforcement cannot get a warrant in timely manner to provide security or to solve certain crimes. The TSA falls under this category. Since 1985, the Supreme Court rules on it case by case...and they ruled that getting your bag searched at the airport by the TSA falls under this category.

So, it's legal.
 
MeThePeople said:
So lets hear some opinions on what the words mean to Americans in the 21st century

I feel as written it does the job. Congress ,either Federal or State, cant make a law to tell me what religion, if any, I can exercise and they can't make me observe a national religion to qualify as a citizen
I can speak my opinions responsibly and do so alone or as a peaceful demonstrator on any publicly owned property or my own
I can print what I have to say and display it or distibute it to others
I can tell the elected that I am either happy with their work and to continue or that I am dissatisfied and they need to do what the majority directs them to do or get out.
Click to expand...

So, government can't tell me what religion I can exercise.

So, if I make my religion that has as its central premise that black people are evil, therefore I can refuse service to any black people, I can kill them whenever I like and there's nothing the US government can do about it, right?
 
Bullseye said:
The issue of "hate speech" is complicated. What exactly defines it?
Click to expand...

1. Specific target.
2. Specific audience.
3. Call to violence.
4. A very real possibility of the call being acted on.

All four requirements must be satisfied.
 
Glitch said:
A preamble is nothing more than a summary of the following document. There is no such thing as a General Welfare Clause. The Supreme Court threw out that leftist nonsense 83 years ago in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) when the government attempted to use the imaginary General Welfare Clause in support of an agricultural tax Congress wanted to impose.



Even the Supreme Court acknowledged that your precious General Welfare Clause is the very first step towards leftist totalitarianism.

If you are afraid of people blowing up planes, don't fly. The federal government is specifically prohibited from searches and seizures without probable cause. There are no exceptions for acts of terrorism, or because you are afraid. If you are that concerned with security, get the private sector to continue to provide airport security like they did prior to 09/11/2001. The private sector cannot violate the Fourth Amendment or any of the Bill of Rights since those prohibitions were placed upon government only.

As long as the TSA exists they continue to violate the rights of every American.
Click to expand...

Would you object to my providing a definition for 'preamble' found in a dictionary? Or are you one of those who likes to have 'discussions' using your own definitions?

Here is Webster's definition of preamble, and it makes much more sense than you silly claim that it is a summary of a document.

"A preliminary statement, especially the introduction to a formal document that explains its purpose."

It appears those who wrote the document understood English and legal concepts far better than you do.

Conservatives prefer to ignore the meaning of the Preamble in question because it is too much in favor of blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
 
Glitch said:
If you are afraid of people blowing up planes, don't fly. The federal government is specifically prohibited from searches and seizures without probable cause. There are no exceptions for acts of terrorism, ...
As long as the TSA exists they continue to violate the rights of every American.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the people in the twin towers. Tell it to the first responders.

The TSA confiscates thousands of guns and knives and dangerous contraband every year. That is the crime, in your opinion. It is an outrage that the government would even look for those weapons, let alone take them. Those fine individuals should have been allowed to carry their weapons aboard any plane they wanted. Because ... the Constitution says so?
 
ecofarm said:
1. Specific target.
2. Specific audience.
3. Call to violence.
4. A very real possibility of the call being acted on.

All four requirements must be satisfied.
Click to expand...
Not bad. A little nebulous, but not bad.
 
People these days believe the first amendment grants one a right to a platform. That isnt the case. Nor does it free anyone from social consequences.
 
Bullseye said:
You mentioned responsibility which is an important factor in the exercise of every right. Some people seem to think the Constitution gives them the absolute right to do any thing they want, whenever and wherever they want. Not true. From the beginning the understanding has been the an individual is free to exercise his rights unless they infringe on the rights of another. Libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater are often-cited examples of restrictions on First Amendment Rights. As are threats to the President, inciting riots or insurrections, or advocating the overthrow of the government.

The issue of "hate speech" is complicated. What exactly defines it? And at what level or under what circumstances should it be prohibited. Those of you who know me know I like to espouse Bullseye's Zeroeth Amendment "Congress shall make no law infringing on the people's right to be shocked, insulted, outraged, embarrassed or ridiculed". Kinda of a spin on the "I may hate what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" slogan. .


IMHO we need to hear what the fringe groups are saying (the above restrictions applying, of course). White supremacists, radical socialists , Hillboro Baptist Churchers, etc. Yeah, I KNOW that runs the risk of aiding recruitment but I believe the MORE people that hear the **** they peddle the more resistant society will be to their influences.
Click to expand...

I find in theory the whole last point makes sense, but in practice the real world doesnt quite work that way. The alt-right began gaining followers through youtube pipelines, hiding dead seriousness behind “its just a meme bruh”, and mixing in their messages into more innocent terminology. This has been a pretty effective strategy for a while. Most of their recruitment happens online. This is why i dont believe those that blame the left for the rise of white nationalism. Other example would be the creationist movement which several atheists have utterly destroyed. All of those videos might have broadened the name recognition of the ken hams or kent hovinds of the world but they have also provided much needed education to debunk them.
 
Last edited:
Glitch said:
Probably not. Market forces don't usually work that fast unless it is something particularly egregious. The 2016 election was pretty much a catalyst for people leaving Facebook, Twitter, and Google. People are finding other alternatives, but Facebook, Twitter, and Google will always have a base, a core group of people are satisfied with the services being provided, regardless of the cost to their rights. Just like people today think nothing about allowing the federal government to violate their Fourth Amendment rights every time they board a plane.
Click to expand...

What cost to their rights?
 
Rexedgar said:
My history is a bit fuzzy, but the peoples that Britain colonized weren’t offered the same freedoms, were they?
Click to expand...

Substantially less.
 
DH Kirkwood said:
My problem with large social media platforms like FB de-platforming anyone is the simple fact that they have a near-monopoly on this sort of thing. There are a handful of social media outlets like Twitter that are comparable in size, and I don't think YouTube has any competition at all. If there were thousands, or even hundreds of competing FaceBook-like entities, then I would have no problem with FB exercising their right to deny service, and I certainly don't think the first amendment applies to Mark Zuckerberg in the same manner that it applies to the government.

Long-story-short, FB is legally allowed to de-platform anyone they want. but I don't think that doing so is actually a good thing.
Click to expand...

That can be solved by breaking them up but i dont take the freeze peach panic very seriously when it comes to social media. It tends to come from a lot of people that have an unrealistic expectation of there being 4chan levels of laxness.
 
CommunityStanda said:
The way liberals use free speech to vilify President Trump is an abuse of free speech and they should be punished for doing it.
Click to expand...

Very revealing post. Putin agrees.
 
Last edited:
TheParser said:
The fact that "bold" and "aggressive" comments are determined by censors is proof that there is NO genuine "freedom of speech."


As you know, every day we read about certain Internet platforms forbidding the discussion of certain topics and banning certain posters.

There IS, of course, "freedom of speech" for politically correct speech. That is the same as saying that China has freedom of speech because any Chinese person can get on the Chinese Internet and say that the Communist government is the best thing that has ever happened to China and that President Xi should hold that position for life.


IMHO, we Americans should admit that we do NOT have freedom of speech. At least we would be honest.



Have a nice weekend!
Click to expand...

Oh bother another one who doesnt understand the concept...
 
Jason Warfield said:
The Supreme Court in 1985 (which tended to go conservative), New Jersey vs. TLO, found that there is a category called special needs exception: "exceptional circumstances . . . beyond the need for normal law enforcement [that] make the warrant and probable cause requirement impractical.”

Basically, the Supreme Court realized that in some "exceptional circumstances", law enforcement cannot get a warrant in timely manner to provide security or to solve certain crimes. The TSA falls under this category. Since 1985, the Supreme Court rules on it case by case...and they ruled that getting your bag searched at the airport by the TSA falls under this category.

So, it's legal.
Click to expand...

That is not what the Supreme Court held in New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985). The 6-3 decision was that the search was not unreasonable, and therefore did not violate the claimant's Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment specifically prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures, it does not prohibit reasonable searches or seizures.

The TSA conducts unreasonable searches because no criminal act has even been suspected. They are conducting their searches and seizures based upon the mode of transportation you decide to use, and that is unreasonable. Government cannot simply demand to search or seize your property unless they have good reason to believe you are a threat or have committed some crime. Or in legalese, the government must have a Reasonable Articulable Suspicion that you have committed, will have committed, or are in the process of committing a criminal act.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
So, government can't tell me what religion I can exercise.

So, if I make my religion that has as its central premise that black people are evil, therefore I can refuse service to any black people, I can kill them whenever I like and there's nothing the US government can do about it, right?
Click to expand...

Government cannot tell you what to believe, but they can prohibit you from exercising those beliefs. Some Mormons may believe in polygamy, for example, but it is still illegal to practice that belief.
 
Glitch said:
Government cannot tell you what to believe, but they can prohibit you from exercising those beliefs. Some Mormons may believe in polygamy, for example, but it is still illegal to practice that belief.
Click to expand...

Of course. But here's the problem. Where is the line at which a government can and can't prohibit you exercising those beliefs?

How about banning the going to church/mosque/synagogue/temple?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Would you object to my providing a definition for 'preamble' found in a dictionary? Or are you one of those who likes to have 'discussions' using your own definitions?

Here is Webster's definition of preamble, and it makes much more sense than you silly claim that it is a summary of a document.

"A preliminary statement, especially the introduction to a formal document that explains its purpose."

It appears those who wrote the document understood English and legal concepts far better than you do.

Conservatives prefer to ignore the meaning of the Preamble in question because it is too much in favor of blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Click to expand...

What part of "A preamble is nothing more than a summary of the following document" were you not able to comprehend? It is exactly the same thing as your so-called Webster definition. A preamble still means nothing legally. If you are going to cite the US Constitution cite a specific Article, Section, and Clause or an Amendment, not a meaningless summary of the document.

Everyone who has even a basic comprehension of the law knows to ignore preambles because they have no legal meaning whatsoever. Obviously that excludes you.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Of course. But here's the problem. Where is the line at which a government can and can't prohibit you exercising those beliefs?

How about banning the going to church/mosque/synagogue/temple?
Click to expand...

It isn't a problem. That line has been well-defined for a very long time. Your right ends at my nose. In other words, rights can be used freely, but not to cause harm. Whether it is financial or physical harm, the line is drawn there. Which is why you are free to say whatever you like, but can be sued if you libel or slander someone because you would have then crossed that line and caused harm.
 
Glitch said:
It isn't a problem. That line has been well-defined for a very long time. Your right ends at my nose. In other words, rights can be used freely, but not to cause harm. Whether it is financial or physical harm, the line is drawn there. Which is why you are free to say whatever you like, but can be sued if you libel or slander someone because you would have then crossed that line and caused harm.
Click to expand...

So, polygamy. Who does this cause harm to?

Limits of Religious Freedom | Harvard Political Review

"She argued that the government can only infringe on religious liberty when a compelling interest exists to do so."

"compelling interest", what a phrase.

"The hence-named “Sherbert Test” requires that an individual must prove sincere religious beliefs and substantial burden through government action."

So, it's up to you to prove your sincere religion beliefs. Sounds like a bit of acting can deal with that. And then you have to prove a burden through government action.

"If these are established, the law is unconstitutional unless the government proves a “compelling state interest” and that the interest was pursued in the least intrusive way possible."


So, let's go to polygamy.

The Mormons, for example, are probably sincere about their religious belief and clearly their ability to practice polygamy is burdened by government action.

So, the govt then has to prove a "compelling state interest". I'm not sure how they could actually do this.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
So, polygamy. Who does this cause harm to?

Limits of Religious Freedom | Harvard Political Review

"She argued that the government can only infringe on religious liberty when a compelling interest exists to do so."

"compelling interest", what a phrase.

"The hence-named “Sherbert Test” requires that an individual must prove sincere religious beliefs and substantial burden through government action."

So, it's up to you to prove your sincere religion beliefs. Sounds like a bit of acting can deal with that. And then you have to prove a burden through government action.

"If these are established, the law is unconstitutional unless the government proves a “compelling state interest” and that the interest was pursued in the least intrusive way possible."


So, let's go to polygamy.

The Mormons, for example, are probably sincere about their religious belief and clearly their ability to practice polygamy is burdened by government action.

So, the govt then has to prove a "compelling state interest". I'm not sure how they could actually do this.
Click to expand...

A guy can legally live with multiple women, or visa versa, they just cannot be legally married. The US, and the State of Utah, only recognize two person marriages. The reason bigamy is a crime is because it is typically a deceptive act, one party doesn't know the other party is already married. Frankly, as long as all parties involved are fully aware of each other and consent, I don't see a problem with polygamy. If everyone can legally live together now, providing they are either all unmarried or married to only one other person, then the only difference between that and polygamy is the marriage certificate.
 
Glitch said:
A guy can legally live with multiple women, or visa versa, they just cannot be legally married. The US, and the State of Utah, only recognize two person marriages. The reason bigamy is a crime is because it is typically a deceptive act, one party doesn't know the other party is already married. Frankly, as long as all parties involved are fully aware of each other and consent, I don't see a problem with polygamy. If everyone can legally live together now, providing they are either all unmarried or married to only one other person, then the only difference between that and polygamy is the marriage certificate.
Click to expand...

The fact that there's a marriage certificate is the whole issue here.

The government may not prevent people from exercising their religion.

If polygamy, not living together, is part of their religion, then how can the US or Utah government reasonably restrict this? They're literally making a law that imposes itself on these people's lives.

Now, if there's deception, that's one thing, but the Morons aren't trying to deceive people at all.

So, under the First Amendment religious polygamy should be protected. Why isn't it? Where is that line now?
 
Frigidweirdo said:
The fact that there's a marriage certificate is the whole issue here.

The government may not prevent people from exercising their religion.

If polygamy, not living together, is part of their religion, then how can the US or Utah government reasonably restrict this? They're literally making a law that imposes itself on these people's lives.

Now, if there's deception, that's one thing, but the Morons aren't trying to deceive people at all.

So, under the First Amendment religious polygamy should be protected. Why isn't it? Where is that line now?
Click to expand...

You are mistaken. The government CAN prevent people from exercising their religion, and does all the time. What the government cannot do is prevent people from believing whatever they want to believe. To prevent polygamy all government need do is issue marriage licenses to couples only. If you want to live with a bunch of people, that's fine government only has a problem when it comes to you claiming to being married to everyone else. I can't say I blame government either. Can you imagine the nightmare of a multiple divorce proceedings in a polygamy case? Who gets what property, alimony, and what about the children? It is difficult enough with just couples.
 
Glitch said:
You are mistaken. The government CAN prevent people from exercising their religion, and does all the time. What the government cannot do is prevent people from believing whatever they want to believe. To prevent polygamy all government need do is issue marriage licenses to couples only. If you want to live with a bunch of people, that's fine government only has a problem when it comes to you claiming to being married to everyone else. I can't say I blame government either. Can you imagine the nightmare of a multiple divorce proceedings in a polygamy case? Who gets what property, alimony, and what about the children? It is difficult enough with just couples.
Click to expand...

Well, that much is pretty clear.

The point I'm making is where is this line between what the government can do and can't do.

I pointed to the "sherbet test" and that seems lacking, seeing how the US government has gone with it, then not gone with it, then gone back to it, all while kind of ignoring it in convenient cases.

However I disagree that it's about preventing govt stopping people believing things. It says "free exercise of religion", that is not believing, that is carrying out religious actions.

I very much doubt the US govt prevents bigamy because it's concerned about difficult divorce cases. It's done from a "moral" stand point where one religion (or section of that religion) imposes its "morality" upon others. In other words, it's doing the very thing it banned itself from doing.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
So, polygamy. Who does this cause harm to?

Limits of Religious Freedom | Harvard Political Review

"She argued that the government can only infringe on religious liberty when a compelling interest exists to do so."

"compelling interest", what a phrase.

"The hence-named “Sherbert Test” requires that an individual must prove sincere religious beliefs and substantial burden through government action."

So, it's up to you to prove your sincere religion beliefs. Sounds like a bit of acting can deal with that. And then you have to prove a burden through government action.

"If these are established, the law is unconstitutional unless the government proves a “compelling state interest” and that the interest was pursued in the least intrusive way possible."


So, let's go to polygamy.

The Mormons, for example, are probably sincere about their religious belief and clearly their ability to practice polygamy is burdened by government action.

So, the govt then has to prove a "compelling state interest". I'm not sure how they could actually do this.
Click to expand...

Outlawing human sacrifice is a pretty obvious one that is totally reasonable. I think stopping people from stirring up genocidal movements is another
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom