Posted on 04/08/2013 12:40:59 PM PDT by Biggirl
President Obama makes his second trip to Connecticut on Monday since the Sandy Hook massacre, delivering a speech in Hartford where he is expected to be joined by Newtown families. The president is trying to keep the outrage over the deaths in the forefront of the public, while lawmakers continue fighting over the gun control package the president proposed in the wake of Newtown.
(Excerpt) Read more at thelead.blogs.cnn.com ...
“Necktie”!!
Has anyone heard anything about court challenges to the new Colorado, New York or Connecticut restrictive gun laws? Where is the NRA?
Traitor!
Lamp post!
Look for court challenges golore.
Where is the focus on jobs? All these politcal hacks talk about is politically motivated gun control.
They would just as soon not talk about jobs. Their moronic “Keynesian stimulus” plan was a pathetic failure; they’re not all that eager to discuss it.
One thing we can do right now is contact our elected representatives and Senators and ask them what the hell Barack the Kenyan thinks he is doing ferrying eight Sandy Hookers to the District of Corruption in Air Force One, USING TAXPAYER DOLLARS, so they can lobby the buffoons on Capitol Hill about gun control. I heard this on FOX News Radio at 1:00 p.m. MST today. There seems to be something illegal going on here. Obama needs to be thrown in jail for his continued crimes against Americans.
If those kids were run over and killed by a stolen SUV, would Blumy be threatening to shut down GM’s stranglehold?
I think much, much more needs to be done. Our elected officials couldn’t care less what we little people think.
Any new laws will land up in the courts.
There's the traditional American response of tar, feathers, and a ride out of town on a wooden rail.
After that there's rope-dances.
This is one of the good consequences of our terrible economy and people moving back in with their parents [or other extended family]... it will encourage familial ties and make things like no-knock raids* become more unacceptable because they will see how it could have been them and their son/daughter/grandkids... and that possibility, made more real, becomes intolerable.
* Violent and/or abusive government overreach.
That's been done for at least 94 years: in 1919 the Supreme Court unanimously decreed that the 1st amendment did not prohibit congress from passing laws restricting political speech or printings, you've probably heard a phrase from that ruling ("you can't shout fire in a crowded theater").
I have and that's not a restriction on free speech or political speech. Unless you consider laws against armed robbery an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights too.
It very much is; the case I was talking about, Schenck v. United States, even admits it in the unanimous decision.
But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205, 206. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439.
If you pay attention here, what he is saying is that people might have bad-motives, and that they might have these bad-motives is justification for restriction of speech, and given the ruling, this is in context of Congressional limits. The citations, also, are a problem: an injunction is an act of the Judiciary, not the particular legislature 'Congress' whose powers the First Amendment restricts.
The proper decision of this case would be: No, congress cannot enact laws restricting speech or the press -- but this does not absolve the actor of responsibility in civil cases, nor does this restriction apply to the states's legislatures (and so the act may be criminal under their laws).
But then, that's a Constitutionalist's view on the matter.
To: pillut48Terminello v. Chicago:"The [public disturbance] ordinance as construed by the trial court seriously invaded this province. It permitted conviction of petitioner if his speech stirred people to anger, invited public dispute, or brought about a condition of unrest. A conviction resting on any of those grounds may not stand"This justice apparently forgets that the "shout 'fire' in a crowded theater" statement (a misquote of Holmes by Breyer of course) was made in Schenck v. United States, which has since been overturned as too restrictive on freedom of speech. BTW, "falsely shouting fire in a theater" (the actual quote) was not the point of the case, but a comment by Holmes as an example of what he considered non-protected speech under a standard of "clear and present danger." That is no longer the standard. The current test is "imminent lawless action" and it has three prongs: intent, imminence and likelihood. From Brandenburg v. Ohio:...the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.Even if you could say that he lit a Quran in order to get these people violent, it still doesn't apply. He has to be advocating the violence. As Learned Hand stated in the related case of Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten:[If] one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violationThe preacher is ABSOLUTELY PROTECTED under the 1st Amendment even if his burning gets the Muslims' panties in a bunch and they start rioting. It's sad that a Supreme Court justice would even think this way.
Ah, but there's the problem you are saying that it's an overturned law, but it never was a law: it was a ruling -- to say otherwise is to allow the courts to [illegitimately] destroy and/or edit laws... Roe v. Wade is a good example, in it they created a "right to privacy"* which in turn invalidated the States's restrictions on it. This is further illustrated by Affordable Care Act where the court went in and 'rewrote' the law "making" it constitutional.
* Funny thing about this right to privacy is it doesn't protect from, say, the TSA or warentless wiretap.
OK, overturned ruling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.