Discussion:
Refusing service
(too old to reply)
Just Wondering
2017-01-11 07:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What would be the point of the rest of the constitution if the
congress can violate all the other constitutional limitations by
simply claiming there is a "general welfare" reason behind it.
Can the congress eliminate free speech because it's in the General
Welfare of the nation?
No.
Why?
The Fist Amendment: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the
freedom of speech"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
2A: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Out of context quote... the 2nd referred to the right of a state militia to
be armed.
Did it hurt, being dropped on your head as a baby?
RD Sandman
2017-01-11 17:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 08:12:54 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Congress has broad latitude in determining what is in the
general welfare.
What would be the point of the rest of the constitution if the
congress can violate all the other constitutional limitations by
simply claiming there is a "general welfare" reason behind it.
Can the congress eliminate free speech because it's in the
General Welfare of the nation?
No.
Why?
The Fist Amendment: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging
the freedom of speech"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
2A: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
Out of context quote... the 2nd referred to the right of a state
militia to be armed.
No, it didn't. It gave *a* reason for arming the people. Heller said it
in very simple language:



Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp.
2-53.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's
interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The
Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the
people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized
standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny
Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and
bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22-28.
--
RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Bob Officer
2017-01-11 20:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
What would be the point of the rest of the constitution if the
congress can violate all the other constitutional limitations by
simply claiming there is a "general welfare" reason behind it.
Can the congress eliminate free speech because it's in the General
Welfare of the nation?
No.
Why?
The Fist Amendment: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the
freedom of speech"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
2A: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Out of context quote... the 2nd referred to the right of a state militia to
be armed.
Did it hurt, being dropped on your head as a baby?
Take a good look at the 2nd. Run it through a language parser, if you do
not have that skill set.

I wish they still taught language arts in grammar school.
--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity

Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2017-01-12 04:26:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Just Wondering
What would be the point of the rest of the constitution if the
congress can violate all the other constitutional limitations by
simply claiming there is a "general welfare" reason behind it.
Can the congress eliminate free speech because it's in the
General Welfare of the nation?
No.
Why?
The Fist Amendment: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging
the freedom of speech"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
2A: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Out of context quote... the 2nd referred to the right of a state
militia to be armed.
Did it hurt, being dropped on your head as a baby?
Take a good look at the 2nd. Run it through a language parser, if you do
not have that skill set.
I wish they still taught language arts in grammar school.
You are perhaps the most illiterate ass I've seen on here recently.

"The right of the people" is about states having militias? Do you drink or
are you just stoopid?
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Just Wondering
2017-01-12 09:30:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Just Wondering
2A: the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed.
the 2nd referred to the right of a state militia to
be armed.
Did it hurt, being dropped on your head as a baby?
Take a good look at the 2nd. Run it through a language parser,
if you do not have that skill set.
Run it by the United States Supreme Court. Oh, that's already
been done.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to
possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia

If you have a problem with that, don't bring it to me, take it
up with Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito. I'd have
said Scalia but that would be hard, he being deceased and all.

But even without Heller, grade school grammar tells one that
the prefatory clause does not limit the operative clause.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-12 19:59:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery but ve shall tell
what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell wedding cakes.
Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've been told not to
discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a problem around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed. the Jim Crow
laws were replaced with different discrimination laws against the same
store owners, when all they needed to do was get government out of it
and have no laws telling store owners what to do.

Perhaps make a law that says the government can't discriminate against
anyone including the store owners.

People act like the blacks were the *ONLY* ones being discriminated
against... but the store owners that had laws forcing them to sell to
some people or NOT sell to others, was discrimination by the government
against the store owners.

If civil rights were for *ALL* Americans then the government can't
discriminate against blacks or the store owners by telling either group
who they can engage in commerce with. Those Jim Crow laws limited the
freedom of the store owners as well as the blacks. The new Civil rights
laws still discriminate against the store owners.
--
That's Karma
Siri Cruise
2017-01-12 21:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery but ve shall tell
what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell wedding cakes.
Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've been told not to
discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a problem around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed. the Jim Crow
This was in San Francisco. They thank you for the endorsement.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2017-01-12 23:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery but ve shall
tell what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell wedding
cakes. Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've been told
not to discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a problem
around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed. the Jim Crow
This was in San Francisco. They thank you for the endorsement.
Here's hoping an earthquake or a North Korean nuke cures you.
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned
from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let
them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and
pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of
liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and
tyrants. It is its natural manure."--Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
2017-01-12 23:27:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery but ve shall
tell what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell wedding
cakes. Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've been told
not to discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a problem
around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed. the Jim Crow
laws were replaced with different discrimination laws against the same
store owners, when all they needed to do was get government out of it
and have no laws telling store owners what to do.
Perhaps make a law that says the government can't discriminate against
anyone including the store owners.
People act like the blacks were the *ONLY* ones being discriminated
against... but the store owners that had laws forcing them to sell to
some people or NOT sell to others, was discrimination by the government
against the store owners.
If civil rights were for *ALL* Americans then the government can't
discriminate against blacks or the store owners by telling either group
who they can engage in commerce with. Those Jim Crow laws limited the
freedom of the store owners as well as the blacks. The new Civil rights
laws still discriminate against the store owners.
I'm from New York. The Irish and Italians were discriminated against at
least as much by the WASPs.

Of course they were tough and didn't whine about it. They overcame and
succeded.
--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-13 02:09:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
It's back door fascism. Ve vill let you own ze bakery but ve shall
tell what to bake.
There used to be a bakery on the way home. They didn't sell wedding
cakes. Nobody told them what they could bake. They could've been told
not to discriminate amongst customers, but that isn't such a problem
around here.
which is why laws were dictating that were never needed. the Jim Crow
laws were replaced with different discrimination laws against the same
store owners, when all they needed to do was get government out of it
and have no laws telling store owners what to do.
Perhaps make a law that says the government can't discriminate against
anyone including the store owners.
People act like the blacks were the *ONLY* ones being discriminated
against... but the store owners that had laws forcing them to sell to
some people or NOT sell to others, was discrimination by the government
against the store owners.
If civil rights were for *ALL* Americans then the government can't
discriminate against blacks or the store owners by telling either group
who they can engage in commerce with. Those Jim Crow laws limited the
freedom of the store owners as well as the blacks. The new Civil rights
laws still discriminate against the store owners.
I'm from New York. The Irish and Italians were discriminated against at
least as much by the WASPs.
Cut the bullshit, bitch. No, it was not "at least as much" as blacks
were the victims of discrimination. It wasn't even close, and it ended
due to intermarriage and due to the basic fact that although Irish and
Italians were Catholic, religion was never as much of a discriminatory
factor as race.

You people feed yourselves shit and pronounce it steak. What lying
assholes.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-12 20:00:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
2A: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
I wholeheartedly agree.
'Lay down a mortar barrage! I'm going to pantry for more flour!'
Dreaming that you live in that Venezuelan Socialist utopia again?
--
That's Karma
Attila
2017-01-13 11:08:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 09:41:52 -0500, NoBody <***@nowhere.com> in
alt.atheism with message-id
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law. Otherwise a 'right' can be ignored with impunity.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-13 15:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Attila
alt.atheism with message-id
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is
a generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...
And if he believes in human sacrifice?
That would violate someone else's constitutional right to life.
No one has a constitutional right to make someone else bake a cake.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional" right. There are just
rights, a few of which receive specific mention in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights creates no rights - it enumerates a few of them,
thereby helping to secure them.
The Bill of Rights by it's very name is stating that all therein ARE
rights. Did they call it the Bill of Suggestions? The First
Ammendment is part of that Bill of Rights and thus it is a right.
The only rights that exist are those that are defined and enforced
under the law.
False.
sugar glider
2017-01-14 18:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
That won't earn you a pass either.
peace and justice,
I'm your waking nightmare, the niggling spectre of /fear/ that wakes you
in a cold sweat when you hear your windows rattle at night.

Now, about your TREASON against AMERICA on 9-11...

I'm always reminded of YOUR very *special personal sentiments* regarding
the attacks of 911, Bill:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I think we can ALL do well to reflect on what kind of sick sociopath
would come up with those words in honor of 911...
Poor dumb Curt
2017-01-14 18:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
That won't earn you a pass either.
peace and justice,
I'm your waking nightmare, the niggling spectre of /fear/ that wakes you
in a cold sweat when you hear your windows rattle at night.

Now, about your TREASON against AMERICA on 9-11...

I'm always reminded of YOUR very *special personal sentiments* regarding
the attacks of 911, Bill:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I think we can ALL do well to reflect on what kind of sick sociopath
would come up with those words in honor of 911...
sugar glider
2017-01-14 18:10:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
And their right to object
I'm your waking nightmare, the niggling spectre of /fear/ that wakes you
in a cold sweat when you hear your windows rattle at night.

Now, about your TREASON against AMERICA on 9-11...

I'm always reminded of YOUR very *special personal sentiments* regarding
the attacks of 911, Bill:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I think we can ALL do well to reflect on what kind of sick sociopath
would come up with those words in honor of 911...
Poor dumb Curt
2017-01-14 18:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
And their right to object
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm your waking nightmare, the niggling spectre of /fear/ that wakes you
in a cold sweat when you hear your windows rattle at night.

Now, about your TREASON against AMERICA on 9-11...

I'm always reminded of YOUR very *special personal sentiments* regarding
the attacks of 911, Bill:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I think we can ALL do well to reflect on what kind of sick sociopath
would come up with those words in honor of 911...
sugar glider
2017-01-14 18:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
nce and wrote your stupid question.
"Thou shall not bake cakes for queers"
I'm your waking nightmare, the niggling spectre of /fear/ that wakes you
in a cold sweat when you hear your windows rattle at night.

Now, about your TREASON against AMERICA on 9-11...

I'm always reminded of YOUR very *special personal sentiments* regarding
the attacks of 911, Bill:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I think we can ALL do well to reflect on what kind of sick sociopath
would come up with those words in honor of 911...
Poor dumb Curt
2017-01-14 18:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
nce and wrote your stupid question.
"Thou shall not bake cakes for queers"
I'm your waking nightmare, the niggling spectre of /fear/ that wakes you
in a cold sweat when you hear your windows rattle at night.

Now, about your TREASON against AMERICA on 9-11...

I'm always reminded of YOUR very *special personal sentiments* regarding
the attacks of 911, Bill:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I think we can ALL do well to reflect on what kind of sick sociopath
would come up with those words in honor of 911...
sugar glider
2017-01-14 18:14:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What faith has tenets about cake baking?
I'm your waking nightmare, the niggling spectre of /fear/ that wakes you
in a cold sweat when you hear your windows rattle at night.

Now, about your TREASON against AMERICA on 9-11...

I'm always reminded of YOUR very *special personal sentiments* regarding
the attacks of 911, Bill:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I think we can ALL do well to reflect on what kind of sick sociopath
would come up with those words in honor of 911...

Loading...