Iowa Caucus
-
Hitler comparisons are probably not good generally speaking but I do have problems with some of the hard left who seem to have little regard for the constitution. Recently at Missouri University we had a college professor try to remove a student from filming a protest. The student told her he had every right under the first amendment to film the protest and her response was to tell the crowd "we need some muscle over here". The student knew more about the first amendment than the professor. Maybe not all on the left but for sure there are a number of them that need to learn what our constitution is about and the wisdom of the founders of this country.
You're interpretation of the Constitution. Trump had "Anti-Trump" protesters removed from his rally, you ready to start a new thread.
You're interpretation of the Constitution. Trump had "Anti-Trump" protesters removed from his rally, you ready to start a new thread.
Like any real mid Western Americans care what some New England fag thinks?
-
Hitler comparisons are probably not good generally speaking but I do have problems with some of the hard left who seem to have little regard for the constitution. Recently at Missouri University we had a college professor try to remove a student from filming a protest. The student told her he had every right under the first amendment to film the protest and her response was to tell the crowd "we need some muscle over here". The student knew more about the first amendment than the professor. Maybe not all on the left but for sure there are a number of them that need to learn what our constitution is about and the wisdom of the founders of this country.
You're interpretation of the Constitution. Trump had "Anti-Trump" protesters removed from his rally, you ready to start a new thread.
You're interpretation of the Constitution. Trump had "Anti-Trump" protesters removed from his rally, you ready to start a new thread.
No it is not just my interpretation as this professor got criminal charges over this:
Missouri Professor Who Called for ‘Some Muscle’ at Protest Is Charged -
And "my" interpretation of the 1st Amendment is anything that doesn't incite violence or cause violence is protected speech. So if you make it into a political rally you're speech should be protected.
Yelling and causing a disturbance in a private event isn't protected under the first amendment. They're just disturbing all the people who waited however many hours to legitimately hear the event.
If they were outside the private venue, then yes they'd be fine.
If you went into a McDonalds and started yelling "McDonalds is evil" that's not protected under the first amendment, they'll kick your ass out
Yelling and causing a disturbance in a private event isn't protected under the first amendment. They're just disturbing all the people who waited however many hours to legitimately hear the event.
If they were outside the private venue, then yes they'd be fine.
If you went into a McDonalds and started yelling "McDonalds is evil" that's not protected under the first amendment, they'll kick your ass out
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
While I don't disagree with you as we can see with the language of the First Amendment it strictly is talking about the power of Congress and the creation of law. Every situation that determines what speech is allowed and which isn't is strictly "our" interpretation of what was intended by the First Amendment.
-
You're interpretation of the Constitution. Trump had "Anti-Trump" protesters removed from his rally, you ready to start a new thread.
No it is not just my interpretation as this professor got criminal charges over this:
Missouri Professor Who Called for ‘Some Muscle’ at Protest Is ChargedNo it is not just my interpretation as this professor got criminal charges over this:
Missouri Professor Who Called for ‘Some Muscle’ at Protest Is ChargedI'm sure you actually read the link you posted. The misdemeanor assault charge is for striking the person and threatening harm, not saying "get the fuck out of here"...
-
Melissa A. Click, assaulted a videographer “by grabbing at his camera with her hand and attempting to knock it from his grasp” and “by calling out and asking for other people in the area at the time to forcefully remove him.”
-
Melissa A. Click, assaulted a videographer “by grabbing at his camera with her hand and attempting to knock it from his grasp” and “by calling out and asking for other people in the area at the time to forcefully remove him.”
Melissa A. Click, assaulted a videographer “by grabbing at his camera with her hand and attempting to knock it from his grasp” and “by calling out and asking for other people in the area at the time to forcefully remove him.”
Misdemeanor assault, also referred to as a simple assault, generally means an act of violence against another person but can actually include any physical contact made without consent. Even a threat of bodily harm made with an apparent ability to cause the harm is considered assault. The threat must cause a reasonable fear of injury, otherwise there is no assault.
Pretty simple definition. You have to have the ability to do harm for a verbal threat to be considered assault. If I'm in line at the movies and yell out, "will somebody punch this person" the plaintiff has to prove that I had the ability to persuade someone to punch the person. If I walk up and grab the person the misdemeanor assault case is already made.
-
Melissa A. Click, assaulted a videographer “by grabbing at his camera with her hand and attempting to knock it from his grasp” and “by calling out and asking for other people in the area at the time to forcefully remove him.”
Misdemeanor assault, also referred to as a simple assault, generally means an act of violence against another person but can actually include any physical contact made without consent. Even a threat of bodily harm made with an apparent ability to cause the harm is considered assault. The threat must cause a reasonable fear of injury, otherwise there is no assault.
Pretty simple definition. You have to have the ability to do harm for a verbal threat to be considered assault. If I'm in line at the movies and yell out, "will somebody punch this person" the plaintiff has to prove that I had the ability to persuade someone to punch the person. If I walk up and grab the person the misdemeanor assault case is already made.
Misdemeanor assault, also referred to as a simple assault, generally means an act of violence against another person but can actually include any physical contact made without consent. Even a threat of bodily harm made with an apparent ability to cause the harm is considered assault. The threat must cause a reasonable fear of injury, otherwise there is no assault.
Pretty simple definition. You have to have the ability to do harm for a verbal threat to be considered assault. If I'm in line at the movies and yell out, "will somebody punch this person" the plaintiff has to prove that I had the ability to persuade someone to punch the person. If I walk up and grab the person the misdemeanor assault case is already made.
The student filming that protest had every right to be there and film it. It was a public event. He was not causing a disturbance and the professor was out of line in trying to remove him. Now she is facing criminal charges over it. The student was in the right and the professor was in the wrong.
In the case with Trump a protester has every right to be at his meeting but if they cause a disturbance Trump has the right to have them removed. The professor did not have the right to have the student filming removed because he was doing nothing wrong. She might not have liked him filming the protest but that did not give her cause to do what she did. As a professor she should have known better.
-
And "my" interpretation of the 1st Amendment is anything that doesn't incite violence or cause violence is protected speech. So if you make it into a political rally you're speech should be protected.
Maybe somebody thought they were going to start praying...
WSS
-
Yelling and causing a disturbance in a private event isn't protected under the first amendment. They're just disturbing all the people who waited however many hours to legitimately hear the event.
If they were outside the private venue, then yes they'd be fine.
If you went into a McDonalds and started yelling "McDonalds is evil" that's not protected under the first amendment, they'll kick your ass out
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
While I don't disagree with you as we can see with the language of the First Amendment it strictly is talking about the power of Congress and the creation of law. Every situation that determines what speech is allowed and which isn't is strictly "our" interpretation of what was intended by the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
While I don't disagree with you as we can see with the language of the First Amendment it strictly is talking about the power of Congress and the creation of law. Every situation that determines what speech is allowed and which isn't is strictly "our" interpretation of what was intended by the First Amendment.
The rights provided under the first amendment do not extend to private property. There's many court cases about it but I'm too lazy to look them up.
Universities are different too, but generally disrupting a public forum or class activities would not be guaranteed under the first amendment either.
And we're not talking about the government intervening here, although those rules don't necessarily apply to the secret service.
But you can be told to leave, if you refuse then you are trespassing.
-
This is the issue I have with someone fundamentally religious - when they make statements like:
...our rights do not come from the democratic party or the Republican party or even from the tea party. Our rights come from our creator.
- Ted Cruz, couple days ago
It implies that they want to impart the religious rule of their choosing over everybody, regardless of their religion.
-
Cruz looks and has the demeanor of every guilty party in an SVU episode.
-
This is the issue I have with someone fundamentally religious - when they make statements like:
...our rights do not come from the democratic party or the Republican party or even from the tea party. Our rights come from our creator.
- Ted Cruz, couple days ago
It implies that they want to impart the religious rule of their choosing over everybody, regardless of their religion.
No, that's what our constitution and declaration say.This is the issue I have with someone fundamentally religious - when they make statements like:
It implies that they want to impart the religious rule of their choosing over everybody, regardless of their religion.
I'm not a Cruz fan either, but this is a stretch.
-
This is the issue I have with someone fundamentally religious - when they make statements like:
...our rights do not come from the democratic party or the Republican party or even from the tea party. Our rights come from our creator.
- Ted Cruz, couple days ago
It implies that they want to impart the religious rule of their choosing over everybody, regardless of their religion.
This is the issue I have with someone fundamentally religious - when they make statements like:
It implies that they want to impart the religious rule of their choosing over everybody, regardless of their religion.
I don't see it that way. Cruz is a strong follower of the constitution and he has no intentions of trying to make the United States a theocracy.
-
This is the issue I have with someone fundamentally religious - when they make statements like:
It implies that they want to impart the religious rule of their choosing over everybody, regardless of their religion.
I don't see it that way. Cruz is a strong follower of the constitution and he has no intentions of trying to make the United States a theocracy.
Except when he says things like the supreme court ruling on gay marriage was unconstitutional and he's going to change it.I don't see it that way. Cruz is a strong follower of the constitution and he has no intentions of trying to make the United States a theocracy.
The constitution he's referring to is his bible.
-
Except when he says things like the supreme court ruling on gay marriage was unconstitutional and he's going to change it.I don't see it that way. Cruz is a strong follower of the constitution and he has no intentions of trying to make the United States a theocracy.
The constitution he's referring to is his bible.
Was the gay marriage ruling unanimous? If it wasn't there is at least some question among the scholars on the Supreme Court as to its constitutionality.Except when he says things like the supreme court ruling on gay marriage was unconstitutional and he's going to change it.
The constitution he's referring to is his bible.
Just like Obamacare. Split decision and decided specifically because the court decided that what Obama said was wrong. He said it is not a tax but the only way it could be found constitutional was to say that it was. And that's what they did.
There were at least three candidates much more invested in religion than Ted Cruz. Santorum Huckabee and Carson.
WSS
-
The constitution doesn't say anything about gays.
But it does say freedom and liberty for all. The 14th amendment equal protection clause was relevant in the decision iirc.
Gay marriage was always a state thing, the supreme Court ruled it's unconstitutional under the equal protection clause.
It was not unanimous but it doesn't matter, Ted Cruz wants to overrule the SCOTUS because the constitution's definition of equal rights don't correlate with his religious beliefs.
They'll shut him down, but as president he'd nominate batshit insane social conservative justices (it's likely the next POTUS will have to nominate at least a couple), then they'll have the power to set us back another 30 years.
-
The constitution doesn't say anything about gays.
But it does say freedom and liberty for all. The 14th amendment equal protection clause was relevant in the decision iirc.
Gay marriage was always a state thing, the supreme Court ruled it's unconstitutional under the equal protection clause.
It was not unanimous but it doesn't matter, Ted Cruz wants to overrule the SCOTUS because the constitution's definition of equal rights don't correlate with his religious beliefs.
They'll shut him down, but as president he'd nominate batshit insane social conservative justices (it's likely the next POTUS will have to nominate at least a couple), then they'll have the power to set us back another 30 years.
The constitution doesn't say anything about gays.
But it does say freedom and liberty for all. The 14th amendment equal protection clause was relevant in the decision iirc.
Gay marriage was always a state thing, the supreme Court ruled it's unconstitutional under the equal protection clause.
It was not unanimous but it doesn't matter, Ted Cruz wants to overrule the SCOTUS because the constitution's definition of equal rights don't correlate with his religious beliefs.
They'll shut him down, but as president he'd nominate batshit insane social conservative justices (it's likely the next POTUS will have to nominate at least a couple), then they'll have the power to set us back another 30 years.
So you think that your batshit insane Democrats in the houses would confirm that nomination?
PSMs I'm wrong the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage either.
WSS
-
The constitution doesn't say anything about gays.
But it does say freedom and liberty for all. The 14th amendment equal protection clause was relevant in the decision iirc.
Gay marriage was always a state thing, the supreme Court ruled it's unconstitutional under the equal protection clause.
It was not unanimous but it doesn't matter, Ted Cruz wants to overrule the SCOTUS because the constitution's definition of equal rights don't correlate with his religious beliefs.
They'll shut him down, but as president he'd nominate batshit insane social conservative justices (it's likely the next POTUS will have to nominate at least a couple), then they'll have the power to set us back another 30 years.
So you think that your batshit insane Democrats in the houses would confirm that nomination?
PSMs I'm wrong the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage either.
WSS
So you think that your batshit insane Democrats in the houses would confirm that nomination?
PSMs I'm wrong the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage either.
WSS
No but the congress is currently republican controlled.
The marriage thing has always been a state law, the ruling was just that it was unconstitutional via the equal protection clause - which basically says States must guarantee equal protection of the laws.
-
Except when he says things like the supreme court ruling on gay marriage was unconstitutional and he's going to change it.I don't see it that way. Cruz is a strong follower of the constitution and he has no intentions of trying to make the United States a theocracy.
The constitution he's referring to is his bible.
Except when he says things like the supreme court ruling on gay marriage was unconstitutional and he's going to change it.
The constitution he's referring to is his bible.
How does he change it as president? Once the Supreme Court ruled on this there is not a whole lot that can be done. Cruz is a big time advocate of following the constitution and I don't see where anyone should be frightened of that.
-
Except when he says things like the supreme court ruling on gay marriage was unconstitutional and he's going to change it.
The constitution he's referring to is his bible.
How does he change it as president? Once the Supreme Court ruled on this there is not a whole lot that can be done. Cruz is a big time advocate of following the constitution and I don't see where anyone should be frightened of that.
How does he change it as president? Once the Supreme Court ruled on this there is not a whole lot that can be done. Cruz is a big time advocate of following the constitution and I don't see where anyone should be frightened of that.
He thinks the supreme court ruling on gay marriage is a violation of the "religious liberty" provided by the constitution.
"I will defend the constitution of the United States....unless it conflicts with my personal beliefs"
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login