Conservative Hypocrisy
-
How would yall libs feel to see a display celebrates Hitler, in taxpayer funded-protected space at Iowa Capitol?
Oh wait - as with satan you'd feel thrill to see your secret hero & master. Let's try something else.
Ummm.... How would yall libs feel to see display that blasphemed & mocked Mohammed in Iowa Capitol? Or celebrated President Trump?
There it is!
USA authorities would CRASH DOWN on such displays - and you'd cheer - or make hero of Antifa-BLM person who trashed it.
Be honest now.
You @hubrys @jaroonn hate free speech, want censorship.
"Preambles don't have legal effect." - wrong as usual!
USA preamble quoted in legal arguments all the time. Even Statue of Liberty poem on occasion.
Just don't pretend to love free speech - in a "hypocrisy" thread. Already we know you don't.
-
Said shorter: The ONE time yall libs defend Free Speech, is when it's satan. Know what that makes you - in practice?
Where were you on Julian Assange?
Or Biden Regime efforts to 1) jail top opponent, 2) have him under speech gags?
Or peaceful abortion protestors who respect lines - then get full FBI raids anyway?
Journalist James OKeefe got FBI raid - over Ashley Biden diary that 1) he was entitled to acquire, 2) decided anyway not to publish?
Many conservative campus speakers stopped - with arson if necessary?
In Canada UK Ireland / EU, ordinary people get police visits - if they fly nation's flag, or say immigrants shouldn't stab children, or point out women can't have penis. Do you care at all?
Where were you when government & Big Tech colluded to suppress 100% TRUE, important stories?
(covid vaxx dangers, Hunter Biden laptop)
Or Twitter bans, cancel culture - all directed, we now know, by USA government since at least 2018?
Douglass Mackey - imprisoned for a years-old satire meme, that libs had also done.
Where were you satanic libs, on peaceful J6 protestors?
Owen Shroyer - imprisoned for showing up on the outskirts. Hundreds of grandmas & other harmless protestors - still in Biden Regime prisons.
Here is Alex Jones at J6 - literally calling for peace & people to go home.
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1735535196383084599
Yup. "We need to NOT have a confrontation".
Doesn't make a bit of difference to yall satanic libs, does it?
-
@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:
"Preambles don't have legal effect." - wrong as usual!
USA preamble quoted in legal arguments all the time. Even Statue of Liberty poem on occasion.I love how the non-lawyers on this board consistently try to lecture an actual attorney on how the law works. As explained by the United States Supreme Court:
Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States, unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom.
Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22, 25 S. Ct. 358, 359–60, 49 L. Ed. 643 (1905)
And @blablarg18 save me from having to read some rambling, incoherent and irrelevant non sequitur response from you wherein you desperately try to distract from the fact that you were just proven wrong and had your ass handed to you. Instead, just take your "L" and move on.
-
"I love how the non-lawyers...." - Sorry, your dumbshit authority games don't work here. You cited one decision where Preamble was rejected - which in NO way proves you are, or ever have been, a lawyer. Meanwhile, at many other points, Preambles are indeed cited by actual lawyers & legal commentators - as they find convenient at the time.
And spare rest of us, your pretense of caring about Free Speech.
You don't.
Except of course when satan, or, pornographic children's books - your only times. Know what that makes you @hubrys ?
No honest answer eh? You'd rather not admit it?
My only 'L' would be that, until now, I had forgotten to mention your apparent support for pornographic children's books along with (we now see) the other.
PS. Coincidental RFK quote: "“Trusting the experts is not a feature of science. It’s not a feature of democracy. It’s a feature of religion and totalitarianism.”
And again - hubrys I have zero reason to believe you even are one. You sure don't argue well, or with any intelligence. I don't believe your self-claims, and you're further stupid for trying to set up your self-claims in anonymous forum where NO ONE should believe ANYONE's self-claims.
-
@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:
You cited one decision where Preamble was rejected - which in NO way proves you are, or ever have been, a lawyer. Meanwhile, at many other points, Preambles are indeed cited by actual lawyers & legal commentators - as they find convenient at the time.
I didn't cite a case...I cited THE case. The case which set the SCOTUS's precedent for how it treats the Preamble.
I'll let the Supreme Court of Ohio explain:
The brief of plaintiff in error exhibits unusual research of cases and authorities to sustain his contention, but we are unable to find a single citation or authority which would authorize any court to declare any statute or provision of any state Constitution invalid because the same was held contrary and repugnant to the preamble of the federal Constitution. The preamble of the federal Constitution merely states the great cardinal purposes of government. It has been held again and again that it is not a grant or delegation of power, but merely a generic statement of the great aims and ends of our national government.
Chief Justice Fuller in Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. Co. v. Thomas, 132 U. S. 174, 188, 10 Sup. Ct. 68, 73 (33 L. Ed. 302) says:
‘The preamble is no part of the act, and cannot enlarge or confer powers, nor control the words of the act, unless they are doubtful or ambiguous.’
Judge Story, in his work on the Constitution (5th Ed., vol. 1, section 462), uses this language:
‘The preamble never can be resorted to to enlarge the powers confided to the general government or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se; it can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. * * * Its true office is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them.’
Watson, in his excellent work on the Constitution (volume 1, page 92 and following), exhaustively discusses this phase of the subject, and the authorities are collected to sustain this doctrine. We quote one more (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 22, 25 Sup. Ct. 358, 359, 49 L. Ed. 643, 3 Ann. Cas. 765):
‘Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power or in some power to be properly implied therefrom.’
Hockett v. State Liquor Licensing Bd., 91 Ohio St. 176, 191–93, 110 N.E. 485, 489 (1915)
Or:
Neither the preamble to the Constitution (see Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) 197 U.S. 11, 25 S.Ct. 358, 359, 49 L.Ed. 643, 648) nor the General Welfare Clause (Art. I, § 8 ) gives substantive power to the federal government.
[§ 1] Source of Federal Powers., 7 Witkin, Summary 11th Const Law § 1 (2023)
Or:
In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, Justice Holmes, for the Court, rejected the argument that a state law requiring vaccinations violated rights secured by the Preamble of the Constitution:
Although [the Constitution's] preamble indicates the general purpose for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States, unless apart from the preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom.
The case law and the commentators are generally in agreement regarding the use of the preamble in Constitutional interpretation...
§ 23.13(b) The Role of the Preamble to the Constitution, 6 Treatise on Const. L. § 23.13(b)
Or:
The enumerationist way of dealing with the Preamble is simply to treat it as having no legal or interpretive significance. This view was stated by the Supreme Court at the turn of the twentieth century and is the dominant view in contemporary legal doctrine.
David S. Schwartz, A Question Perpetually Arising: Implied Powers, Capable Federalism, and the Limits of Enumerationism, 59 Ariz. L. Rev. 573, 594–95 (2017)
Dude, you're just wrong. Take the "L." Preambles do not have legal effect. Their only use is clarification or legislative history/intent to interpret actual Clauses or statutes which do have legal effect.
Maps tell you where to go; map keys don't. Statutes and Clauses enumerate powers, rights, or restrictions; at best, preambles merely aid interpretation.
God, you are so fucking stupid. Your legal analysis is so childlike it should be written in crayon.
-
Oh I get it. You @hubrys are so retarded, you thought I said judges enforce Preambles.
No. Not what I said. You have responded to................... nothing. Way off my actual point.
Once again: Congratulations, hubrys dumbass retard who hallucinates.
-
Also, it should be pointed out, since @blablarg18 is too fucking stupid to actually know what the The Satanic Temple believes, that the TST does not believe or worship Satan, the Christian one or otherwise.
In their own words:
DO YOU WORSHIP SATAN?
No, nor do we believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural. The Satanic Temple believes that religion can, and should, be divorced from superstition. As such, we do not promote a belief in a personal Satan. To embrace the name Satan is to embrace rational inquiry removed from supernaturalism and archaic tradition-based superstitions. Satanists should actively work to hone critical thinking and exercise reasonable agnosticism in all things. Our beliefs must be malleable to the best current scientific understandings of the material world — never the reverse.
-
@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:
Oh I get it. You @hubrys are so retarded, you thought I said judges enforce Preambles.
No. Not what I said. You have responded to................... nothing. Way off my actual point.Dude, just take the "L." You're embarrassing yourself now. There's nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong. Don't try some "moving the goalposts" bullshit to soft-shoe away from your fucking wrong opinion.
-
"the TST does not believe or worship Satan" - in which case, they have no business making a "religious" "holiday" display in Iowa State Capitol.
DUMBASS.
Their entire point was only to mock & blaspheme religion.
NOT, as you yourself have now been maneuvered (by me) into admitting, to express or celebrate religion.
Go back to what I said earlier:
How would yall libs feel to see a display celebrates Hitler, in taxpayer funded-protected space at Iowa Capitol?
Oh wait - as with satan you'd feel thrill to see your secret hero & master. Let's try something else.
Ummm.... How would yall libs feel to see display that blasphemed & mocked Mohammed in Iowa Capitol? ... USA authorities would CRASH DOWN on such displays - and you'd cheer
Stop pretending you care about Free Speech.
No one believes you @hubrys
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaa - you clown
This is you:
![1702654678480-death-to-satan2[1].png](/assets/uploads/files/1702718229476-1702654678480-death-to-satan2-1.png)
And this is proper answer to you:
![1702655135687-death-to-satan3[1].jpg](/assets/uploads/files/1702718296322-1702655135687-death-to-satan3-1.jpg)
-
@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:
Their entire point was only to mock & blaspheme religion.
NOT, as you yourself have now been maneuvered (by me) into admitting, to express or celebrate religion.Their point, as I surmise it, was to protest public religious displays by using the Establishment Clause loophole against the pro-Christians who adhere to it.
As you should know, but don't because you're a fucking idiot, the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause have been interpreted as mandating government viewpoint neutrality vis a vis religion or the lack thereof. In other words, Americans are free to worship any gods or no gods as they see fit. Atheism is as protected by the First Amendment as Theism is.
The Iowa government, in approving or disapproving permits to erect holiday displays, cannot discriminate based on the viewpoints of the applicants, meaning they can't allow theists and other supernatural believers permits, but deny them to atheists, humanists, or as is the case here, trolls.
@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:
they have no business making a "religious" "holiday" display in Iowa State Capitol.
Also, are you so stupid that you think "holidays" are religious per se? Or that religions have some kind of monopoly on fall/winter holidays?
Did you forget that non-religious holidays existed, e.g., Memorial Day, Arbor Day, or President's Day?
Also, on the topic of "religious" displays, you know that decorating holiday trees pre-dates Christianity, and that Christmas trees are prohibited in the Bible, right?
-
@hubrys "Their point, as I surmise it" - So you're hallucinating again?
You think you know?
Either you know..... in which case you need to come clean
Or you don't.
"protest public religious displays" - Nope. Either they made a religious display............ or they sought to mock & blaspheme & tear down. You yourself have conceded it was the latter. You, as a lib, believe yourself that expressions of hate are not protected.
-
@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:
"Their point, as I surmise it" - So you're hallucinating again?
You think you know?
Either you know..... in which case you need to come clean
Or you don't.I'm not a member of the TST, so I don't have any inside knowledge on what their ultimate motives are. Neither are you.
You're assuming their motives just as much as I am. Unless you're secretly a member of the TST and was at all their meetings. I bet you were.
-
@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:
they sought to mock & blaspheme & tear down.
Should displays that blaspheme be taken down?
-
"You're assuming their motives" - Nope. I repeat your assumption, your concession, back to you.
-
@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:
"You're assuming their motives" - Nope. I repeat your assumption, your concession, back to you.
You literally just fucking assumed their motives when you said:
@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:
Their entire point was only to mock & blaspheme religion.
You're so dumb. Why don't you go back to telling us how preambles have legal effect. I'm still waiting for your evidence there.
-
@hubrys Hey DUMBASS: I repeated your assumption, your concession, back to you.
Preceded by "In which case". You can read, right? Do you have basic literacy?
It's called "for sake of argument" - which you should know if you really were a lawyer.
As whether blasphemous displays should be taken down: It depends who owns the platform.
You get to put blasphemy & mockery - and of course you will - on your lawn.
You don't get to put it on mine.
In this case, platform owner is State of Iowa, whose Constitution reads:
Constitution of the State of Iowa, codified.
Preamble. WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings
hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings, do ordain and
establish a free and independent government....Satan is by definition, enemy of Supreme Being (God). Even its followers say so.
When followers put its bullcrap in Iowa State Capitol, by definition they commit insurrection against Iowa government.
Didn't libs say at one point, insurrection is bad?
Now, you can argue any tension of that vs. USA First Amendment. BUT, before it can get to USA Courts there must be injury - a question to decide.
So yes the display must be removed.
After removal, argument before court that Iowa constitution conflicts with USA.
To recap,
-
people who want removal, correctly follow Iowa Constitution
-
people who say that violates USA Constitution, jump the gun
Enough of your idiot circles, illiteracy & hallucinations.
Bottom line - You don't care about Free Speech. We all know.
-
-
@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:
"the TST does not believe or worship Satan" - in which case, they have no business making a "religious" "holiday" display in Iowa State Capitol.
DUMBASS.Their entire point was only to mock & blaspheme religion.
NOT, as you yourself have now been maneuvered (by me) into admitting, to express or celebrate religion.
Go back to what I said earlier:How would yall libs feel to see a display celebrates Hitler, in taxpayer funded-protected space at Iowa Capitol?
Oh wait - as with satan you'd feel thrill to see your secret hero & master. Let's try something else.
Ummm.... How would yall libs feel to see display that blasphemed & mocked Mohammed in Iowa Capitol? ... USA authorities would CRASH DOWN on such displays - and you'd cheerStop pretending you care about Free Speech.
No one believes you @hubrys
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaa - you clown
This is you:And this is proper answer to you:
Go back and read what you said, dumbass.
-
@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:
In this case, platform owner is State of Iowa, whose Constitution reads:
Constitution of the State of Iowa, codified.
Preamble. WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings
hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings, do ordain and
establish a free and independent government....Again, the preamble to the Iowa Constitution has no legal effect. Nothing within it grants the State of Iowa with the power to discriminate between religions or no religion. It doesn't empower the State of Iowa to punish, criminally or otherwise, anyone espousing loyalty to Satan.
The part of the Iowa Constitution that does have legal effect, as I have already pointed out to you, is Section 3 of Iowa's Constitution, which reads:
The general assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing places of worship, or the maintenance of any minister, or ministry.
Iowa Const. art. I, § 3
@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:
Now, you can argue any tension of that vs. USA First Amendment.
We don't even need to turn to the Federal Constitution. As quoted above, the Iowa Constitution also contains equivalent Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.
@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:
BUT, before it can get to USA Courts there must be injury - a question to decide.
You're talking about the injury-in-fact requirement for Standing, part of a case's justiciability. Unfortunately for you, your ignorance is again showing, since it has been well established by the SCOTUS that intangible or psychic injury is sufficient injury-in-fact to bring an Establishment Clause suit.
It seems to me that you think that because the State of Iowa's preamble invokes a "Supreme Being," that the State of Iowa should be allowed, carte blanche, to erect Christian monuments and displays. Thankfully, you are incorrect once again.
-
@hubrys I literally quote YOU and say "In which case". You can't even read, can you? Much less argue.
If you were a lawyer, you'd know people explore arguments - prefaced once by "For sake of argument" or "In which case" or "If that were so" - Once & then it's assumed.
Your behavior lame even by Shady Lawyer standards. I don't think you are one.
I do sit & watch your hallucinations manifest - or should I say your demons?
You don't care about Free Speech - until it's pedo, or hatefully anti-Christian.
Which at minimum supports inference: You don't care about Free Speech. Maybe worse??
But anyway YOU have said display was not real religious faith - only blasphemy. aka hate speech
And, as lib, YOU think hate speech (so-called) should be censored or at least removed to non-government platform. Check - mate.
(not quite my view - but more than worth a look)
-
@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:
I literally quote YOU and say "In which case". You can't even read, can you? Much less argue.
The words "In which case" do not appear in the post I'm quoting. Can't you read? Here it is again for you:
Stop being fucking stupid and trying to deflect to a different post.
@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:
But anyway YOU have said display was not real religious faith - only blasphemy. aka hate speech
I don't say that at all. It's a HOLIDAY display, and my assumption is that their point was to troll Christian legal hypocrisy.
But I go back to my question, should blasphemous displays be taken down?
@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:
And, as lib, YOU think hate speech (so-called) should be censored or at least removed to non-government platform. Check - mate.
Tilting at windmills, Mr. Quixote?
Do you think blasphemy should be illegal?