Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #22  
Old 12-17-2005, 02:01 PM
elwoodblues elwoodblues is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 462
Default Re: Senate rejects Patriot Act

[ QUOTE ]
Civil suits being different than criminal laws, and also being different than government imposed fines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even private rights of action have Constitutional implications (not just government imposed fines.) Say Congress gives (or a judge creates through his/her common law powers) a private right of action that allows you to sue for hurtful (though true) speech. Are you suggesting that there aren't constitutional implications?

[ QUOTE ]
The simplest meaning (in this matter and most others) is generally the best.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, Mr Ocham, what is the simplest meaning of the phrase "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech" and how would that simple meaning incorporate financial contributions into the meaning of "speech." How would the simple word "no" be defined so that laws against defamation and fraud, the fcc, and countless other examples could exist.

Sometimes, if you try to oversimplify you just sound like a simpleton.
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.