@raphjd said in USSA watch: CO court rigs ballot to benefit Regime; Vivek protests:
Trump tried to get the National Guard in, but Pelosi refused.
LINK: Trump did not sign an order to deploy 20,000 troops on Jan. 6
Why do you keep repeating false, easily-debunked lies?
I love how anti-Trump forces use official processes within a legally established judicial system based on a federal constitutional amendment that has been the recognized law of the land for more than 100 years, to try to stop the reelection of the a president who verifiably intended to remain in power beyond the constitutional end of his presidency and who caused our country to have the first violent and disorderly transfer of power in our nation's history from George Washington to today....
...and it's the anti-Trump forces that are anti-democratic. The anti-Trump forces are using the tools established by the democratic process. Trump tried to break those democratic processes to remain in power.
At best, it's a pitch black pot calling a vaguely grey kettle black.
@raphjd said in USSA watch: CO court rigs ballot to benefit Regime; Vivek protests:
Which party started this shit show?!
The "Birther" Movement!
Have you forgotten the lawsuits in North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Connecticut, New Jersey, Texas, Washington, California, Indiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Mississippi, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Kansas, and New York challenging either Obama's qualifications to be president or his eligibility to be on the ballot.
Don't you remember that? Your buddy boy Trump was big into claiming Obama was born in Kenya. Did you forget about Trump being the loudest Birther?
Maybe to jog your memory:
LINK: 67 Times Donald Trump Tweeted About the 'Birther' Movement
@blablarg18 said in US Supreme Court upholds ban on LGBTQ+ ‘conversion therapy’ in Washington state:
I do hope you can cheer up, not be so wild-eyed & yet boring to others at same time.
Wow, you so perfectly described yourself. Projection; it's not just for high school film reels!
@blablarg18 said in True Journalism: Julian Assange:
PS. President Trump did nothing publicly to help Assange. A failing.
It was Trump's DOJ that requested Assange's arrest in London and indicted him. Trump went farther than merely not helping Assange; he actively prosecuted him.
Conservatives: "The State must not tell a conversion therapy doctor what he can and can't say to his patients!"
Also Conservatives: "The State must tell abortion services doctors what she can and can't say to her patients!"
@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:
Their entire point was only to mock & blaspheme religion.
LINK: Iowa lawmaker calls for Gov. Kim Reynolds to remove Satanic Temple's display from Capitol
Lucien Greaves, spokesman and co-founder of the Satanic Temple, said it is always important for the group to seek equal representation in public forums that are open for religious displays.
"People assume that we're there to insult Christians and we're not," Greaves said. "And I would hope that even people who disagree with the symbolism behind our values, whether they know what those values (are) or not, would at least appreciate that it's certainly a greater evil to allow the government to pick and choose between forms of religious expression."
So, I guess @blablarg18 was wrong about their motives and intentions.
@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?
@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.
@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:
"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.
@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:
they sought to mock & blaspheme & tear down.
Should displays that blaspheme be taken down?
@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:
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?
@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.
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:
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.
@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.
Just looks like an argument between trans-inclusive feminism and trans-exclusionary feminism.