Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EnigmaticHat]

Well people, if it's so objectionable then the Supreme Court will take it up. It is a lower court, after all, and it's decisions are not final.

And if I may ask, where precisely is everyone getting their knowledge of constitutional law? I'd assume based on the conviction with which I hear arguments spoken in this thread that we were a flock of constitutional experts. Please, enlighten me as to how I might be so wise.

I love how your second statement applies to your first

Seriously tho, we don't need to be experts to talk about something.  Normally you're not supposed to talk about legal matters because bad legal advice can hurt people in real life, but that's irrelevant here.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Constitutional law is different from other forms, and I think it's a good thing that it has a large laymen's discussion. As both the highest law in this country and the simplest on paper, the gap in knowledge between lawyers and non-lawyers is infinitely smaller than say, with contract law.

Since everything has to comply with the Constitution no matter what level of law it's on, having a position on it is probably good for everybody and the political discourse in general.

[Strife26]

Constitutional law is different from other forms, and I think it's a good thing that it has a large laymen's discussion. As both the highest law in this country and the simplest on paper, the gap in knowledge between lawyers and non-lawyers is infinitely smaller than say, with contract law.

Since everything has to comply with the Constitution no matter what level of law it's on, having a position on it is probably good for everybody and the political discourse in general.

You ask the layman about freedom of speech and they're likely to spout nonsense about fires and theaters. Of course, that's stupidity that's replicated (or maybe mimicked with malice) in the supposedly educated class, so I guess it's not unreasonable.

[WealthyRadish]

I'm assuming this is the basis for rejecting a travel ban on Muslims:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education

Neither [a state nor the Federal Government] can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.

I believe there's another case that was specifically aimed at discriminating on the basis of nationality, but I couldn't find it.

And here are some clear examples of supreme court cases that considered the real effect of a law, regardless of what the law's stated purpose was:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomillion_v._Lightfoot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_v._Virginia_State_Board_of_Elections

And everything here that got struck down by the courts in a flurry after the Voting Rights Act of 1965:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disenfranchisement_after_the_Reconstruction_Era#Disenfranchisement

None of those laws say anywhere "we're doing this to oppress the blacks", but it was obvious that that's what they were doing and why they were enacted. It shouldn't even be worth mentioning that the lawmakers throwing a cute paragraph saying explicitly that the law isn't about disenfranchisement wouldn't have saved them either.

If you accept that this is effectively targeting Muslims in particular, that such a thing would be unconstitutional (which I don't think you need to be an expert to argue either), and that the courts do have the power to reject a law on the basis of its real effect, then I think it should be pretty clear that this ban should be struck down.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Constitutional law is different from other forms, and I think it's a good thing that it has a large laymen's discussion. As both the highest law in this country and the simplest on paper, the gap in knowledge between lawyers and non-lawyers is infinitely smaller than say, with contract law.

Since everything has to comply with the Constitution no matter what level of law it's on, having a position on it is probably good for everybody and the political discourse in general.

You ask the layman about freedom of speech and they're likely to spout nonsense about fires and theaters. Of course, that's stupidity that's replicated (or maybe mimicked with malice) in the supposedly educated class, so I guess it's not unreasonable.

Didn't say we didn't need constitutional lawyers as well. Just consider the number of nations that have constitutional orders that are implicitly or explicitly based off the US Constitution but refuse to enforce any of those alleged rights, in part because the population isn't educated on them or to treat them rigorously. We wouldn't have anything like the ACLU if average people didn't care about the place of constitutionality. See: China

[Reelya]

Yeag, if you had a law that said all elections were on Sunday, that could in fact be thrown out because it affects Christians who observe Sundays. The law doesn't need to specifically mention the religious group who is negatively affected to be unconstitutional.

[nenjin]

But we don't, so why care about the spirit now when the judges haven't before? This whole thing reeks of political bias all the way to across the pond.

That's rich. The guy who speaks from a position of completely uninformed bias, proudly, now needs to be defended against bias.

It's almost like you reap what you fucking sow.

[da_nang]

Yeag, if you had a law that said all elections were on Sunday, that could in fact be thrown out because it affects Christians who observe Sundays. The law doesn't need to specifically mention the religious group who is negatively affected to be unconstitutional.

Copyright negatively affects kopimists. I promptly expect the DMCA and related laws to be thrown out any second now.

[Wolfhunter107]

We're talking about actual religions here, not thinly-disguised political activists.

[wierd]

Define "actual religion"

See also: Scientology-- Religion, or tax dodging professional fraudsters?

(What I am politely trying to get at here, is that this is not some place you want to go if you are a rigid intellectual. What does and does not constitute a religious belief is not something that can be rigorously defined. All that is required are for people to profess a belief, and state that it is an honest, deep one.)

[redwallzyl]

depends where you decide to draw the line between "religion" and "cult" generally this changes depending on where and when you are and who your talking to.

[wierd]

The Missionary Church of Kopimism (in Swedish Missionerande Kopimistsamfundet), is a congregation of file sharers who believe that copying information is a sacred virtue[1][2][3] and was founded by a 19 year old philosophy student[4] Isak Gerson[5] and Gustav Nipe in Uppsala, Sweden in the autumn of 2010.[6] The Church, based in Sweden, has been officially recognized by the Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency as a religious community in January 2012, after three application attempts.[5][7]

So, I presume the answer is "Yes."

[Frumple]

I'm assuming this is the basis for rejecting a travel ban on Muslims:

You can read the actual decision instead of assuming here. Politico hosted .pdf copy, there's probably other sources but that's the one I dug up first.

Short form is the establishment clause is only part of the reason the EO's been suppressed. There's other stuff involved beyond the religious aspect. Possibly even more involved on the net, skimming over it.

[Wolfhunter107]

The Missionary Church of Kopimism (in Swedish Missionerande Kopimistsamfundet), is a congregation of file sharers who believe that copying information is a sacred virtue[1][2][3] and was founded by a 19 year old philosophy student[4] Isak Gerson[5] and Gustav Nipe in Uppsala, Sweden in the autumn of 2010.[6] The Church, based in Sweden, has been officially recognized by the Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency as a religious community in January 2012, after three application attempts.[5][7]

So, I presume the answer is "Yes."

And this is exactly why using tax-exempt status isn't a very good metric.

[Max™]

I was totally down with them up to the guy fawkes mask, hopefully it was a copy or handmade or something, as Time Warner isn't really a friend of file sharing.

I'm not sure who exactly T.I. is, but I think I'm a fan now.

@snoopdogg is a Fuckin Legend u Fucking Tangerine Tanned Muskrat scrotum skin, Lacefront Possum fur Wig wearing, Alternative fact, Atomic Dog diarrhea face ass man!!!! Leave our legends names out ya fuckin old ass puppy piss smelling ass mouth & continue to focus on dividing minorities, building barriers, alienating immigrants, & fuckin this country up like u been doin.... #UWannaBeDictator #PresidentialLevelFuckBoy.

Oh my, all sorts of comedy I missed out on, McCain bitches at Rand Paul over NATO and tosses in that he thinks Rand is clearly working for Putin, they cut to Rand and he quips "well, he makes a great case for term limits."

Also, any of you Canuckistanians... Canadistas... Moose... Meesen... FOLKS IN OUR HAT... watch out!

Spoiler: Ivanka is making eyes at Trudeau (click to show/hide)

While he is a gorgeous man... I think she's after the strategic maple syrup reserves!