@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.
While I recognize that most Republicans are grossly hypocritical when it comes to Freedom of Religion and the Free Exercise thereof, to be completely fair to the State of Iowa, the Republicans in its House seem to be divided on the issue.
I can't say that I totally disagree with Rep. Jon Dunwell's sentiments from this article from the Christian Post.
LINK: Satanic display in Iowa State Capitol stirs debate among GOP lawmakers: 'Outrage and disgust'
@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:
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....
Preambles don't have legal effect. What does have legal effect from that 1857 Constitution is Section 3 which says:
Sec. 3 Religion. 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.
@raphjd said in More Racism of Low Expectations - it's so apropos:
He is literally saying that antic cheating policies harm blacks and latinXs.
Saying that anti-cheating policies harm blacks and Latinos (I refuse to use the word Latinx) isn't the same thing as saying "Non-whites can't do well unless they cheat or we remove the requirement to get good grades."
"Environmental regulations harm small businesses." =/= "Small business can't succeed unless they pollute the environment and kick babies." See how those aren't equivalent statements?
@raphjd said in More Racism of Low Expectations - it's so apropos:
"Non-whites, except those we hate, can't do well unless they cheat or we remove the requirements to get passing grades" is what the left keep saying.
Except that's not what THIS man was saying. And I suspect that isn't what most Leftists are saying when your side accuses them of it. You can't say your side has never cried wolf, because you literally just cried wolf here.
@raphjd said in Royse City Settles After Embarassing Deposition With "Expert Police Witness":
Why does every deposition video have;
"Objection to form" after every question except the most basic ones like: name.
Two major reasons:
Also, you shouldn't allow your client to answer compound questions, i.e., 2 or more questions jammed together. It can be confusing which question the answer is answering.
Bad questions happen frequently because lots of attorneys are bad writers and bad at forming questions. Other times, the opposing attorney is intentionally asking a poorly formed question because he's trying to slip it by and get the answer he wants.
His points:
Exam surveillance - He's talking about computer proctoring software, basically software that monitors that a student taking a test on a computer doesn't look away from the screen or go out of the picture (i.e., to cheat offscreen). He points out, quite correctly btw, that these shitty programs often have trouble recognizing ethnic or darker complexion faces. That's a real thing. I remember reading about ethnic students taking the Bar Exam and having to have their test footage manually reviewed because it reported them leaving the computer.
Zero-tolerance policies - Basically, he's saying that professors under zero tolerance regimes still have discretion to decide when to report, and when to overlook, a student having copied-and-pasted too many direct quotes. His point is that statistically, professors cut white students more slack than minority students, for various reasons, racism being a big one.
Fraternities and Sororities - Here's he's accusing frat boys and sorority bitches of getting an unfair advantage because minorities are, statistically, excluded from participation in Greek life (for racism, economic, etc. reasons) and, in case you didn't know, Frats and Sororities have huge databases of prior years midterms and final exams. If you're in a frat, then you can usually see the last decade's worth of exams for most of your classes and know exactly the kinds of course material that's likely to be tested and study accordingly. If minorities are less likely to be in Greek houses, then they don't have access to these databases.
As per usual, your racist Conservative twitterverse has sensationalized something that is, in fact, rather mundane observations.
@raphjd said in Douglass Mackey case: USA criminalizes memes. Literally.:
So, it's law-fare.
2 people do the exact same thing
So you can't read, apparently. They DIDN'T do the same thing.
One was a liberal comedian who posted a joke with no intent to violation anyone's right to vote.
The other was a conservative "comedian," who participated in sophisticated online groups coordinating efforts between themselves to have an actual effect on the election, with a stated goal within those groups being suppression of minority voter turnout.
Not the same thing. Prosecuting someone with both the necessary actus reus and mens rea isn't "lawfare."
@raphjd said in Douglass Mackey case: USA criminalizes memes. Literally.:
Like when Hillary destroyed 33,000+ emails that were under Congressional subpoena it was excused because she didn't have the "mens rea" (criminal mindset) according to the FBI. If a Repub tried that, they would be in prison for decades.
Oh, you mean like the approximately 5,000,000 missing official emails from the George W. Bush administration because government officials were using email servers owned and possessed by the Republican National Committee, which came to light during the US Attorney firing controversy.
Or are we still ignoring that and chanting "Lock her up! Lock her up!" even though Karl Rove was a MUCH worse offender than Clinton?
@raphjd said in Douglass Mackey case: USA criminalizes memes. Literally.:
Why was a Trump supporter prosecuted, but a Trump hater was not?
I imagine they didn't prosecute the liberal comedian because she wasn't part of multiple online propaganda groups full of witnesses willing to come forward and testify that she did not, in fact, intend the meme as only a joke, but, in fact, did intend to affect the election and deprive some voters of their franchise. You know, evidence like they had against Mackey.
@blablarg18 said in Sandra Day O'Connor dead at 93:
Again, only one who tried to make Sandra's passing political is u, when u posted it there.
I assumed because she was the decisive vote on cases such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey (upholding Roe v. Wade), Grutter v. Bollinger (allowing colleges to use affirmative action in admissions), or and several cases upholding separation of church and state; that one or more of you numbskulls would turn the post into a political discussion.
I forgot that you're an idiot and probably had no idea what her jurisprudential oeuvre included.
As far as I can tell, the arguments being made by Mackey's attorneys on appeal are related to venue (i.e. was the Eastern District the correct court within which to prosecute Mackey) and certain Brady violations (i.e., alleging that the government did not properly or timely turn over potentially exculpatory evidence to the Defense).
I suspect that the reason he's being granted bond pending appeal is because the court believes they could possibly be successful on the Brady violations, which might have resulted in a conviction for a period of time shorter than the sum of time already spent incarcerated and the length of the appeals process. I mean, even as convicted, he was only giving 7 months. Maybe the appeals court believes he would have only gotten a couple of months had the evidence been properly handed over to the Defense.
Bond pending appeal here doesn't necessarily mean the appeals court believes he didn't commit conspiracy with the Internet posts.
@blablarg18 said in George Santos likely getting the boot...:
Santos' key legal infraction was, I believe, a paperwork thing worth like $500.
Santos lied on the FEC paperwork to make it seem like he had raised over $250,000 from third parties in a single quarter so that he could fraudulent get money from the national GOP party.
He also lied and said that he donated $500,000 personally to his campaign so that he could use donations to his campaign to reimburse himself for that personal loan.
He also stole several of his campaign contributors' identities in order to make multiple unauthorized charges to their credit cards/bank accounts, some of which went to his campaign, but many went directly to himself.
He also set up front companies to launder donations into his personal bank account. Basically, those companies solicited political donations to themselves, and then the companies paid out those funds directly to Santos.
@blablarg18 said in USSA watch: for J6, “All of the videotapes of all depositions are gone":
Transcripts don't mean shit if you can't prove they're correct as well as complete.
Because video is un-editable. Gotcha.
@raphjd said in Sandra Day O'Connor dead at 93:
I respect @hubrys for putting it in Politics & Debate because it could turn into a political discussion.
That was my thought process.