Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 18:02:15 -0500, gregg wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , gregg
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
And if the Court rules that Congress has no power to do that? What
then?
Article III, Section 2. Clause 2. Last phrase. This gives the
Congress the
power to preclude the SC from addrssing an issue.
The First Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from enacting laws
that abridge freedom of speech or of the press. They did just that
last year. The Court ruled that they didn't.
You keep repeating that.
You keep failing to understand it.
Wrong. I keep refusing to:
1) accept your opinion as fact
Where is the opinion? The facts a
The opinion is, well, yours and Doug's. But the larger point is that you
either (probably) haven't read my posts on this, or are being purposefully
obtuse, because I've stated several times that I don't KNOW if the law in
unconstitutional or not. I've also stated that it COULD be.
But that my ONLY point is that Doug was saying the SC could not be stopped
if they wanted to be dictatorial and I disagreed.
My secondary point was that whether or not any particular finding of the SC
is right or wrong is irrelevant to that point, and that I have no desire to
debate that law's constitutionality.
Your 7 point analysis snipped.
2) get into a debate about that particular law.
Which is especially frightening. One does not have to be a
constitutionsal scholar to understand what this law does or how it
abridges
the constitution.
Sorry I disagree. But as you see above, that's irrelevant to my point.
But is is NOT a fact that it's unconstitutional. It's merely your
opinion.
I daresay your uneducated (from the standpoint of being a Constitutional
scholar) opinion.
When one believes that a constitutional scholar is required to interpret
that which is expressed in plain English, the uneducated opinion is not
coming from the person interpreting the plain English phrase.
No it's coming from someone (you)who thinks they know everything about the
law and how it's supposed to be interpreted and cannot be wrong.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that all sorts of speech is limited by
law.
Yeah, yeah, the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" chestnut.
Happens to be a fine example.
By
allowing McCaine Feingold to pass that test, there is *no* law suppressing
free speech that could possibly be found to be in violation of the first
amendment.
You keep harping on a point I'm not debating. Enjoy yourself.
--
Saville
Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html
Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm
Steambending FAQ with photos:
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm