New law would turn our church leaders into criminals

[GreenJeans]

The book does it far better than I do.

You’re getting confused.

I said it’s not clear about the reasonable man standard being employed - maybe it will be, maybe it won’t.

I said that the answer as to whether or not he could be charged with incitement would seem to be “yes”.

No flip-flopping here.

Show me the legal standard for incitement, and show me that it’s been employed the way you claim. I’ve been doing all the research so far – now it’s your turn.

So you say. A rather notable Supreme Court Justice disagrees with you, and claims that it has meant much.

I’ve posted a Supreme Court ruling which says you’re wrong. I’m not sure how else to tell you.

Do you read my links?

I gave you a scholarly article which described how we have done it and are likely to do it more in the future.

1. Little does not equal “no”.
2. Until overruled, it’s still law…even if it’s not actively employed as such. That’s the way this whole “law” thingy works in this country.
3. It’s interesting to note that Beauharnais is an example of using legislative history to deny the text of a law – namely the Constitution. I think you were asking for an example earlier. This would be one. They trace colonial common law practices to distinguish what is or is not Constitutionally permissible, and (according to Scalia) come to a disingenuous result.

Was Beauharnais overruled?

God Bless,
RyanL

1. I’m sure the book presents your argument better than you could. But you are still claiming an argument but not presenting it.
2. What is the probability preachers will be charged with encitement for reading the bible to their congregation? (Is that in the book?)
3. I told you the standard for incitement. What do you say the standard is? (Is that in the book, too?)
4. “A rather notable Supreme Court Justice disagrees with you, and claims that it has meant much.” If the underlined word was a link it doesn’t work.
5. You posted a link about Beauharnais which said it had little current precedent due to rulings in subsequent cases. I suppose we could post a link about Dred Scott or Plessy, too.
6. Your scholarly article fails to consider the empirical evidence that we have not followed Europe regarding either Nazis or the Holocaust. Poor scholarship. (Articles, books? Do you have any arguments of your own?)
7. Can you offer any reason to think this law will result in incitement charges other than an unstated argument (in the book) and the opinion of one congressman that is contrary to the text of the law?

 

[RyanL]

Did I hurt your feelings?

I said that judges sometimes use legislative history to make a given law say what it doesn’t. You challenged that as a fiction. I gave you a book-length response written by one of the top (and funniest) legal authorities in the country which addresses the topic specifically.

Your reply? It’s insufficient to grant the point. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

I said that the Court is increasingly looking to international law to determine what this country’s law should be. You challenged that as fiction. I gave you an analysis written by a legal scholar which demonstrably shows this to be the case.

Your reply? Unless we adopt the Holocaust it doesn’t prove anything.

You said that hate speech hasn’t been against the law since the civil rights movement began. I gave you a Supreme Court decision which disagreed, and which was controlling precedent until 1992 (and has not yet been overruled, despite no longer being the controlling precedent).

Your reply? It was decided more than 40 years ago so it doesn’t count. Next, you cite Dred Scott (overruled by Constitutional amendment) and Plessy (overruled by Brown) as if they’re somehow relevant.

I said that it’s not a leap to go from “hate speech” to incitement of a hate crime. I produced congressmen who agreed that this will have a chilling effect on freedom of religion. I stated a line of legal reasoning which would produce this result. I also proposed a scenario where this could be seen as a plausible result.

Your response? They can’t read the statute they’re proposing (or opposing), and incitement means what I say it means. Give me a definite statistical probability that this could happen.

I ask for some legal support that incitement means what you say and is applied the way you claim.

Your response? No. I said it, so you have to accept it.

For some reason I’m sensing that this conversation isn’t going to go much further.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[GreenJeans]

1. My feelings are intact, but I appreciate your asking. Few people have the sensitivity to really care today.
2. You told us a congressman’s opinion which is contrary to the text of the law has legal weight. This is wrong.
3. You provide no argument, just refer us to a book.
4. You provided a link that showed a 1952 case to support your position. The link even says it is not a controlling precedent since subsequent decisions have supplanted it. Read your own link. Reliance on this case to support speech crime is invalid.
5. When someone provides a case that has subsequently been reversed by other cases, it is reasonable to compare that error to citing Dred Scott or Plessy. Both those cases have also lost their legal precedent.
6. The proposed legislation is very clear. The congressman is wrong. Have you read the statute? Do you have an argument that is not based on the congressman?
7. Recall you are the one who initially said incitement charges could be brought. I presume you had a reason besides the congressman?
8. Feel free to take this conversation further. Just present an argument supporting the notion that the opinion of a congressman contrary to the text of a law is legally binding. You also might present an argument yourself rather than claiming a book does it.
9. Catholics have not historically been victims. It is unfortunate to see some grasp for that status today.

 

[RyanL]

You told us a congressman’s opinion which is contrary to the text of the law has legal weight. This is wrong.

MAY have legal weight, depending on whether or not the particular judge wants it to.

You provide no argument, just refer us to a book.

The argument is simply that this happens. The book is a clear presentation that it happens. If you want a shorter bit, here’s an article written by a 9th circuit appellate court judge which says the same thing.

The words of the congressmen (plural) are important, because they can be used to subvert or manipulate the text if a judge doesn’t like it. I’m not sure quite how to convince you of this if a Supreme Court Justice, a 9th Circuit Appellate Judge and virtually every legal textbook I’ve read say the same thing. If you really want to deny it, I’m probably not going to convince you.

You provided a link that showed a 1952 case to support your position.

…which was controlling precedent until 1992, but go on…

The link even says it is not a controlling precedent since subsequent decisions have supplanted it.

Yup, it sure does. Your point?

Read your own link.

I did. It said what I said it did.

Reliance on this case to support speech crime is invalid.

That’s not why I cited it. You might want to review the thread. I cited it because you said it hasn’t been the case in 40 years. I said you were wrong and ponied up the case law.

When someone provides a case that has subsequently been reversed by other cases, it is reasonable to compare that error to citing Dred Scott or Plessy. Both those cases have also lost their legal precedent.

Perhaps, but the case I cited wasn’t reversed. It’s no longer controlling precedent, but that’s not the same as being reversed or overruled. There’s a difference. Escobedo is still law, despite being made irrelevant by the subsequent Miranda jurisprudence. That’s the case here as well.

The proposed legislation is very clear. The congressman is wrong.Have you read the statute?

Yes, I’ve read the statute. Yes, this legislation is fairly clear. Yes, another statute would be required to prosecute for incitement. So far, this has been completely lost on you. An incitement charge wouldn’t be under this statute, but it would be based on a violation of this statute.

Do you have an argument that is not based on the congressman?

I gave it. Repeatedly. You didn’t like it. Or maybe you did. I don’t know, because you didn’t address it.

Recall you are the one who initially said incitement charges could be brought. I presume you had a reason besides the congressman?

I’m not the one who initially said it – the congressman (a proponent) did. I agreed. Then I showed an opponent congressman who also agreed. I could also produce several interested (non-Catholic) groups who say the same thing. Can you produce even one who says it’s impossible or even not likely?

So are you going to produce the legal authority which states that incitement is interpreted the way you say or not? Perhaps present the text of an incitement statute for a felony?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[cor]

On legislative history/legislative intent

My understanding is that the approach jurists have to do this is to look at the text and if the text is clear then there is no need to look at the legislative history. But if there’s some aspect of the text which is not clear, they look to legislative history (including the back and forth between two congressmen) to surmise legislative intent.

 

[GreenJeans]

MAY have legal weight, depending on whether or not the particular judge wants it to.

The argument is simply that this happens. The book is a clear presentation that it happens. If you want a shorter bit, here’s an article written by a 9th circuit appellate court judge which says the same thing.

The words of the congressmen (plural) are important, because they can be used to subvert or manipulate the text if a judge doesn’t like it. I’m not sure quite how to convince you of this if a Supreme Court Justice, a 9th Circuit Appellate Judge and virtually every legal textbook I’ve read say the same thing. If you really want to deny it, I’m probably not going to convince you.
…which was controlling precedent until 1992, but go on…Yup, it sure does. Your point?
I did. It said what I said it did.
That’s not why I cited it. You might want to review the thread. I cited it because you said it hasn’t been the case in 40 years. I said you were wrong and ponied up the case law.

Perhaps, but the case I cited wasn’t reversed. It’s no longer controlling precedent, but that’s not the same as being reversed or overruled. There’s a difference. Escobedo is still law, despite being made irrelevant by the subsequent Miranda jurisprudence. That’s the case here as well.

Yes, I’ve read the statute. Yes, this legislation is fairly clear. Yes, another statute would be required to prosecute for incitement. So far, this has been completely lost on you. An incitement charge wouldn’t be under this statute, but it would be based on a violation of this statute.
I gave it. Repeatedly. You didn’t like it. Or maybe you did. I don’t know, because you didn’t address it.

I’m not the one who initially said it – the congressman (a proponent) did. I agreed. Then I showed an opponent congressman who also agreed. I could also produce several interested (non-Catholic) groups who say the same thing. Can you produce even one who says it’s impossible or even not likely?

So are you going to produce the legal authority which states that incitement is interpreted the way you say or not? Perhaps present the text of an incitement statute for a felony?

God Bless,
RyanL

1. Were your feelings hurt?
2. Now you have climbed down to MAY? Doesn’t sound like much reason for concern. Catholics will be relieved they can read he bible in church without fear of arrest.
3. Face it. You provided a link to case that undermined your own argument. Embarrasing, but it happens.
4. 2007-40 =1967. Your pony was a 1952 model. Sullivan v NYT was in 1964. 2007-1964=43.
5. Your case is no longer controlling precdent, yet you cite it as your support. That’s not support.
6. Has it occured to you this legislation is not at all necessary under your argument that a preacher can be charged with incitement for reading the bible in church? Since the founding of the republic, how many preachers have been indicted for reading the bible in church? That’s a pretty good precedent.
7. You didn’t argue anything. You told us a book said so. I guess it’s habit.
8. RyakL#1: Besides – the question wasn’t whether he could be charged with a hate crime, but rather whether he could be charged with INCITEMENT to a hate crime. And the answer would seem to be “yes”.
   RyanL#2: I’m not the one who initially said it – the congressman (a proponent) did. I agreed.
9. You made the claim about incitement. I leave it to you, the Taxas congressman, and the book to back it up.

 

[Urf]

So much for religious freedom.

Wow irony

 

[RyanL]

GreenJeans:

Now you have climbed down to MAY? Doesn’t sound like much reason for concern. Catholics will be relieved they can read he bible in church without fear of arrest.

Scroll up. I never claimed infallible certitude. The statements I made were all fairly conditional – “if” and “probably” and “might” and “could change”.

My position hasn’t changed. It’s a distinct possibility. And a distinct possibility is no cause for relief.

Face it. You provided a link to case that undermined your own argument.

2007-40 =1967. Your pony was a 1952 model. Sullivan v NYT was in 1964. 2007-1964=43.

Your case is no longer controlling precdent, yet you cite it as your support. That’s not support.

Face it – I answered your challenge. I didn’t cite it to support my case. Here’s the exchange:

Consider that for the last 40 years we have had anti-discrimination laws, yet there has been no

legislation outlawing speech gainst any race.

Really

?

I didn’t cite it to support my side at all, and it’s disingenuous of you to claim that I did. I cited it to show you that your legal history is mistaken.

Moreover, it appears you didn’t read the footnote:

See also Collin v. Smith, 447 F. Supp. 676 (N.D. Ill.) (ordinances prohibiting distribution of materials containing racial slurs are unconstitutional)…cert. denied, 439 U.S. 916 (1978) (Justices Blackmun and Rehnquist dissenting on basis that Court should review case that is in “some tension” with Beauharnais). But see New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 763 (1982) (obliquely citing Beauharnais with approval).

So Beauharnais was still being cited with approval in 1982. 2007 - 1982 = 25. Further, it wasn’t until 1992 that the Court finally took a contrary position - and they did so without overruling Beauharnais. 2007 - 1992 = 15.

Face it – you were wrong. Embarrassing, but it happens.

You didn’t argue anything. You told us a book said so. I guess it’s habit.

Now you’re just being juvenile.

I said that using legislative history, a judge could interpret the statute to mean what it doesn’t explicitly say. I gave a book by a Supreme Court Justice which shows this to be the case – you’ve eschewed it as fantasy. I also said that the international move is to label parts of the Bible “hate speech”, and the US is increasingly adopting foreign approaches in our law. I gave a paper which showed this to be the case. You’ve now dropped the point without ceding it. I said that based on this, where hate speech is, incitement to hate crimes is not far behind. I also gave an example of a “San Francisco court” where it would not be impossible (and would likely have broad support) for the court to prosecute for incitement. This could be done either through legislative history (by the judge) or through a sort of jury nullification (if the Bible has not been officially declared “hate speech”) or through the reasonable man standard (if it is declared “hate speech”).

1. RyakL#1: Besides – the question wasn’t whether he could be charged with a hate crime, but rather whether he could be charged with INCITEMENT to a hate crime. And the answer would seem to be “yes”.
   RyanL#2: I’m not the one who initially said it – the congressman (a proponent) did. I agreed.

Look. Post #4 gives Davis’ statement. You jump in at post #13 saying that Davis is wrong about whether incitement to a hate crime could be charged. Then, in post #16, I point out to you that it is INCITEMENT (a separate offense based on a violation of the first) is what’s being spoken of.

Finally, in post #44 I remind you that I’m not the one who started the idea of incitement – it was the congressman.

Are you really having this amount of difficulty staying with the thread or are you purposefully trying to misrepresent me?

You made the claim about incitement. I leave it to you, the Taxas congressman, and the book to back it up.

The congressmen (both proponent Davis and opponent Smith) made the claims, several interested groups agree (which I’ll produce if you really think I need to), and I said that this does seem to be the case. You haven’t produced anyone who disagrees. I gave you a few ways that what they said could happen. I gave you reasons and answered your objections. I provided support for my propositions. I’ve done my work.

Now I’m asking you to do the same.

Please show me in the law where the elements of incitement are defined, and that it’s applied in the manner you say.

That’s it. Do that and we’ll have something to discuss. Don’t do that and I’m not sure there’s anything left to cover.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[bones_IV]

“ADL expressed disappointment, however, that senior advisors in the Administration have recommended that the President veto the legislation should it come to his desk for signature.”

Sounds like the beaurocrats in the ADL are apologists for the gay fascists.

adl.org/PresRele/HatCr_51/5040_51.htm

 

[GreenJeans]

Scroll up. I never claimed infallible certitude. The statements I made were all fairly conditional – “if” and “probably” and “might” and “could change”.

My position hasn’t changed. It’s a distinct possibility. And a distinct possibility is no cause for relief.

Face it – I answered your challenge. I didn’t cite it to support my case. Here’s the exchange:
I didn’t cite it to support my side at all, and it’s disingenuous of you to claim that I did. I cited it to show you that your legal history is mistaken.

Moreover, it appears you didn’t read the footnote:
So Beauharnais was still being cited with approval in 1982. 2007 - 1982 = 25. Further, it wasn’t until 1992 that the Court finally took a contrary position - and they did so without overruling Beauharnais. 2007 - 1992 = 15.

Face it – you were wrong. Embarrassing, but it happens.

Now you’re just being juvenile.

I said that using legislative history, a judge could interpret the statute to mean what it doesn’t explicitly say. I gave a book by a Supreme Court Justice which shows this to be the case – you’ve eschewed it as fantasy. I also said that the international move is to label parts of the Bible “hate speech”, and the US is increasingly adopting foreign approaches in our law. I gave a paper which showed this to be the case. You’ve now dropped the point without ceding it. I said that based on this, where hate speech is, incitement to hate crimes is not far behind. I also gave an example of a “San Francisco court” where it would not be impossible (and would likely have broad support) for the court to prosecute for incitement. This could be done either through legislative history (by the judge) or through a sort of jury nullification (if the Bible has not been officially declared “hate speech”) or through the reasonable man standard (if it is declared “hate speech”).

Look. Post #4 gives Davis’ statement. You jump in at post #13 saying that Davis is wrong about whether incitement to a hate crime could be charged. Then, in post #16, I point out to you that it is INCITEMENT (a separate offense based on a violation of the first) is what’s being spoken of.

Finally, in post #44 I remind you that I’m not the one who started the idea of incitement – it was the congressman.

Are you really having this amount of difficulty staying with the thread or are you purposefully trying to misrepresent me?
The congressmen (both proponent Davis and opponent Smith) made the claims, several interested groups agree (which I’ll produce if you really think I need to), and I said that this does seem to be the case. You haven’t produced anyone who disagrees. I gave you a few ways that what they said could happen. I gave you reasons and answered your objections. I provided support for my propositions. I’ve done my work.

Now I’m asking you to do the same.

Please show me in the law where the elements of incitement are defined, and that it’s applied in the manner you say.

That’s it. Do that and we’ll have something to discuss. Don’t do that and I’m not sure there’s anything left to cover.

God Bless,
RyanL

1. You are not infallible? If? Probably? Could? Would?.. You may not be infalible, but you cerainly are wishy-washy. Take a stand without relying on your mystery book not in evidence.
2. OK. Let’s face it. You can’t add to 40. That certainly confirms your lack of infallible certitude. But maybe that’s not a requirement to claim infallibility.
3. So, whose side were you supporting with your self-refuting citing of Beauharnais. Like I said, embarassing, but not fatal.
4. I eschewed your book? Like your dog eschewed your homework? No. I just said you should try standing on your own two feet and making an argument without claiming a book does it for you.
5. I have no need to misrepresent you. You’re the one who links to references that refute your own position. I didn’ do it. All I have to do is sit back and watch. The lesson here is to read your own links.
6. According to your argument, preachers would be charged with incitement for reading the good book on the holy sabbath. Then you tell us this action would be brought under incitement statutes. Is your favorite congressman a crafter of that incitement law? Is his opnion on a law that he had nothing to do with what you call legislative intent? Or is legislative intent whatever some congressman wants on any of the thousands of laws in the federal register? Could be. Sounds like religion.
7. Please don’t go away. Have I hurt your feelings? Keep trying, and you will get better at standing up for yourself and presenting a logocal and cogent argument. You’re welcome to continue the discussion. Ain’t this a great country?

 

[RyanL]

OK. Let’s face it. You can’t add to 40.

You’re killin’ me.

You were wrong to say, and I quote, “Consider that for the last 40 years we have had anti-discrimination laws, yet there has been no legislation outlawing speech gainst any race.”
That’s just plain wrong. Beauharnais was good law until 1992. I’m not going to deal with this topic anymore because you’re clearly wrong. Before 1992, you would not have been able to criticize Beauhamais – it was controlling precedent.

Again – I don’t need it to support what I’m saying. I mention it only to show you that you’re mistaken.

If you’re going to keep going on about it, show me where I said, “This case is absolutely essential to prosecution for incitement.”

Good grief!
sigh

I eschewed your book? Like your dog eschewed your homework? No. I just said you should try standing on your own two feet and making an argument without claiming a book does it for you.

**Please, be specific in answering this question: **Are you claiming that no American judge has used legislative history to make a given law say what it does not explicitly say?

If yes, I’ll take the time to go get you the material to show you that you’re wrong.

If no, why on earth are you still fighting this?

According to your argument, preachers would be charged with incitement for reading the good book on the holy sabbath. Then you tell us this action would be brought under incitement statutes. Is your favorite congressman a crafter of that incitement law? Is his opnion on a law that he had nothing to do with what you call legislative intent? Or is legislative intent whatever some congressman wants on any of the thousands of laws in the federal register? Could be. Sounds like religion.

Look, bright eyes, this is the way it would work:

Judge: Hmm. I wonder if the incitement laws would apply to this hate crime bill? Let me look at the legislative history of the hate crime bill. It seems amendments were proposed which would exempt religious speech, but they were rejected. It also seems like the author explicitly contemplated and affirmed this result. So did the opposition. I guess incitement laws do apply, because that’s the explicit intent of the legislator.

Please don’t go away. Have I hurt your feelings?

No, you’re annoying me with your asinine and juvenile responses.

I need to go pray for patience and charity.

God Bless,
RyanL

P.S.,
Am I ever going to get an answer about the elements of incitement and a demonstration that the law is applied in the way you claim?

 

[GreenJeans]

You’re killin’ me.

You were wrong to say, and I quote, “Consider that for the last 40 years we have had anti-discrimination laws, yet there has been no legislation outlawing speech gainst any race.”
That’s just plain wrong. Beauharnais was good law until 1992. I’m not going to deal with this topic anymore because you’re clearly wrong. Before 1992, you would not have been able to criticize Beauhamais – it was controlling precedent.

Again – I don’t need it to support what I’m saying. I mention it only to show you that you’re mistaken.

If you’re going to keep going on about it, show me where I said, “This case is absolutely essential to prosecution for incitement.”

Good grief!
sigh

**Please, be specific in answering this question: **Are you claiming that no American judge has used legislative history to make a given law say what it does not explicitly say?

If yes, I’ll take the time to go get you the material to show you that you’re wrong.

If no, why on earth are you still fighting this?

Look, bright eyes, this is the way it would work:

Judge: Hmm. I wonder if the incitement laws would apply to this hate crime bill? Let me look at the legislative history of the hate crime bill. It seems amendments were proposed which would exempt religious speech, but they were rejected. It also seems like the author explicitly contemplated and affirmed this result. So did the opposition. I guess incitement laws do apply, because that’s the explicit intent of the legislator.

No, you’re annoying me with your asinine and juvenile responses.

I need to go pray for patience and charity.

God Bless,
RyanL

P.S.,
Am I ever going to get an answer about the elements of incitement and a demonstration that the law is applied in the way you claim?

1. You’re back dragging the self-refuting cite around again. Go for it. That’s your choice.
2. Here’s a trick. Start with 1, then 2, then 3,… add a number each day and a few weeks you’ll get to forty, and innumeracy will be eschewed.
3. Now we are at the point of “no American judge has ever done bla bla bla” How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? (Are you still in school? I hadn’t considered that.)
4. I’m annoying you with my asinine and juvenile responses? Why on earth would you give this away? You sure are easy. I trust you have eschewed thoughts of a legal career.
5. Forget those prayers for charity and patience. Try asking for the ability to present cogent, concise, and intelligent argument. Hiding behnd the mystery book doesn’t work.
6. If you get distracted in your prayers, maybe you can think about how the congressman’s opinions on incitement statute constitute legislative intent?
7. And remember, you’re the one who told us preachers would be torn from their pulpits on the holy sabbbath by slobbering, jack-booted thugs, dragged down the aisle, and thrown in a cold, damp cell for merely reading the word of the Lord to their flock. Christians, be afraid. Be very afraid.
8. But for the Christians who realize that incitement laws have been on the books for years, and laws against assault have also been on the books for years, and the preachers are still in their pulpits, just humor the rest. Patience.
9. Hope I didn’t hurt your feelings. In the words of the immortal Hunter S. Thompson, Ain’t this a great country? Y’all come back, now!

 

[RyanL]

Wow. That was quite a tirade.

Please warn me before your next diatribe, so I know to put my waders on.

A Supreme Court Justice wrote a book called “A Matter of Interpretation”. In it, he discusses the use of legislative history to make a statute say what the text itself does not (and how this should not be the case, but it happens). They actually have seminars and guides (with examples) to show judges how to do this. You still seem to be laboring under the impression that I’m making it up, though you cite no authority for your opinion.

Cute, but not persuasive.

As for the free speech case, here’s a question…

Plessy v. Ferguson was decided in 1896. When did it stop being good law? Options:

1. Immediately after it was decided, in 1896.
2. In Brown v. Board of Education, in 1954, when a contrary ruling was finally made.

If your answer is 1, you’re demonstrably ignorant of the law.

If your answer is 2, you have ceded that point that there has been law in the last 40 years prohibiting some racial speech (RAV, holding contrary to Beauharnais, wasn’t decided until 1992).

There’s really not another way to see it.

And yes, I’m still in school.

Still nothing about incitement, huh? I’m beginning to think you now realize you were wrong, but you continue to fight…what…out of pride?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[GreenJeans]

Wow. That was quite a tirade.

Please warn me before your next diatribe, so I know to put my waders on.

A Supreme Court Justice wrote a book called “A Matter of Interpretation”. In it, he discusses the use of legislative history to make a statute say what the text itself does not (and how this should not be the case, but it happens). They actually have seminars and guides (with examples) to show judges how to do this. You still seem to be laboring under the impression that I’m making it up, though you cite no authority for your opinion.

Cute, but not persuasive.

As for the free speech case, here’s a question…

Plessy v. Ferguson was decided in 1896. When did it stop being good law? Options:

1. Immediately after it was decided, in 1896.
2. In Brown v. Board of Education, in 1954, when a contrary ruling was finally made.

If your answer is 1, you’re demonstrably ignorant of the law.

If your answer is 2, you have ceded that point that there has been law in the last 40 years prohibiting some racial speech (RAV, holding contrary to Beauharnais, wasn’t decided until 1992).

There’s really not another way to see it.

And yes, I’m still in school.

Still nothing about incitement, huh? I’m beginning to think you now realize you were wrong, but you continue to fight…what…out of pride?

God Bless,
RyanL

It would be wise to don your waders on if you’re going to keep going where I point.

The mystery book is back. Standing on it will make you look taller, but you’re still not presenting any real argument. But, two copies would make you even taller. I’m reminded of the good senator from Wisconsin waving around mystery papers he claimed supported his position.

Now Plessy is back as precedent. Plessy, Dred Scott, and your self-refuting posting do make a powerful statement. It might be simpler to just learn that one should not link to sites that refute one’s own position. Continuing to showcase a mistake digs your position into an even deeper hole. But, maybe that’s where the congressman is.

You are still in school? That explains a lot. Students tend to see themselves rather than the issue as most important to a discussion. Everybody goes through it. But take heart, you’ll grow out of it.

If there are any Christians out there who still revel in the anticipation of following the martyrs, they might note that hate crime legislation has been on the books since 1968, and incitement legislation has been on the books during that same time. But, where are all those preachers rotting in cells for reading the word of the Lord? Perhaps the mystery book will tell us which congressmen have the power to force the courts to their personal opinion…

Have you abandoned the congressman you previously used to support your position? Cruel, very cruel. Just because he has nothing to do with crafting the incitement legislation you lean on is no reason to abandon the misguided soul. And just recently he was an authority…

How’s the counting going? You should be up to 2 today. When you get to 40 we can take a leap and figure how old the Plessy decision is. Good work. Ain’t this a great country?

 

[RyanL]

It would be wise to don your waders on if you’re going to keep going where I point.

You’re not kidding! I’m knee-deep in screed!

The mystery book is back. Standing on it will make you look taller, but you’re still not presenting any real argument. But, two copies would make you even taller. I’m reminded of the good senator from Wisconsin waving around mystery papers he claimed supported his position.

Frankly, I’m at a loss. You’re not even disagreeing with my statements anymore. You’re in your own little, little world.

Let me know if I need to call someone for you.

Now Plessy is back as precedent. Plessy, Dred Scott, and your self-refuting posting do make a powerful statement. It might be simpler to just learn that one should not link to sites that refute one’s own position. Continuing to showcase a mistake digs your position into an even deeper hole. But, maybe that’s where the congressman is.

I’m really beginning to lose respect for you. I thought you might bring something worthwhile to the table, but this is just plain shameful. Seriously. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You are still in school? That explains a lot. Students tend to see themselves rather than the issue as most important to a discussion. Everybody goes through it. But take heart, you’ll grow out of it.

Although that’s awfully condescending of you to say, I have a question…what do you do?

Have you abandoned the congressman you previously used to support your position? Cruel, very cruel.

Just because he has nothing to do with crafting the incitement legislation you lean on is no reason to abandon the misguided soul. And just recently he was an authority…

Did you mean to post this on this thread?

How’s the counting going? You should be up to 2 today. When you get to 40 we can take a leap and figure how old the Plessy decision is. Good work.

Finally learning how that whole “overruling” thing works?

Ain’t this a great country?

What have you done for this country? Maybe we can trade credentials?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[PhilipCal]

I’m a retired State Police Officer, not a constitutional expert. I will offer this thought though. To willfully attack, assault, injure, maim, or kill a person because he or she is homosexual ,is a crime under current state law in the same manner as it would apply to any person. . To extend protection to this class of person because of their sexual orientation, simply adds another dimension to existing law. For a Pastor, or for that matter, any person, to assert that homosexual behavior is sinful, falls into the catagory of protected speech. (1st Ammendment). Now, should that same person, advocate, incite, or encourage attacks on homosexuals,his Constitutional protection would no longer apply, and very possibly he could be charged under state or Federal Law.

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

The charity level on this thread has declined. Thank you to all who participated, this thread is now closed.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary