Obama Good for Business

[Michael]

ACLU highlights ‘Constitution-Free Zone’ 100 miles from border

The ACLU says a "Constitution-free zone" exists within 100 miles of the US border, where DHS claims the authority to stop, search and detain anyone for any reason. Nearly two-thirds of the US population lives within 100 miles of the border, according to the ACLU, and the border zone encompasses scores of major metropolitan areas and even entire states.

Customs and Border Patrol, a component of DHS, was authorized by Congress to operate within a "reasonable" distance of the border, and that distance has been set at 100 miles in regulations governing CBP, the ACLU says. The authorization has been in place for decades, but complaints about abuses of the extended border zone began to ramp up as CBP was expanded and folded into DHS after 9/11.

[Steve James]

Any particular reason you posted this in this thread???

[klonk]

Gun sales have shot up (no pun intended) since the election. Some stores have doubled their sales.

Old guy who runs the gun store down the road says this happens every time a bunch of anti-gun politicians get elected. People are thinking about avoiding new rules, regulations and fees that might be showing up. Nothing to see here, move along...

[C-Hopkins]

[Walter Joyce]

"There have been Supreme Court Justices who've said that the right to free speech was absolute."

Really? that must have been pre-Oliver Wendell Holmes, because ever since then the standdard limit is put like this:

No one has the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater.

[Michael]

It was Justice Hugo Black.

Black took an absolutist approach to First Amendment jurisprudence, believing the first words of the Amendment that said "Congress shall make no law..." Black rejected the creation of judicial tests for free speech standards, such as the tests for "clear and present danger," "bad tendency," "gravity of the evil," "reasonableness," or "balancing."Black would write that the First Amendment is "wholly 'beyond the reach' of federal power to abridge... I do not believe that any federal agencies, including Congress and the Court, have power or authority to subordinate speech and press to what they think are 'more important interests.'"

[Walter Joyce]

It was Justice Hugo Black.

Black took an absolutist approach to First Amendment jurisprudence, believing the first words of the Amendment that said "Congress shall make no law..." Black rejected the creation of judicial tests for free speech standards, such as the tests for "clear and present danger," "bad tendency," "gravity of the evil," "reasonableness," or "balancing."Black would write that the First Amendment is "wholly 'beyond the reach' of federal power to abridge... I do not believe that any federal agencies, including Congress and the Court, have power or authority to subordinate speech and press to what they think are 'more important interests.'"

So it was post-Holmes and either a privately held opinion or part of a dissent, because it is not 1st Amendment jurisprudence.

Judges disagree and get things wrong, just like anyone else. And as Justice Black words clearly illustrate, like so many of us they have a hard time admitting they are wrong.

[Steve James]

Be fair, read the entire entry.

However, he did not believe that individuals had the right to speak wherever they pleased. He delivered the majority opinion in Adderley v. Florida (1966), controversially upholding a trespassing conviction for protestors who demonstrated on government property. He also dissented from Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), in which the Supreme Court ruled that students had the right to wear armbands (as a form of protest) in schools, writing,

While I have always believed that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments neither the State nor the Federal Government has any authority to regulate or censor the content of speech, I have never believed that any person has a right to give speeches or engage in demonstrations where he pleases and when he pleases.[69]

Moreover, Black took a narrow view of what constituted "speech" under the First Amendment; for him, "conduct" did not deserve the same protections that "speech" did.[70] For example, he did not believe that flag burning was speech; in Street v. New York (1969), he wrote: "It passes my belief that anything in the Federal Constitution bars a State from making the deliberate burning of the American flag an offense."[71] Similarly, he dissented from Cohen v. California (1971), in which the Court held that wearing a jacket emblazoned with the words "Fuck the Draft" was speech protected by the First Amendment. He agreed that this activity "was mainly conduct, and little speech."

[qiphlow]

i rather enjoyed this!

[Michael]

There's definitely some nuance going on with Black even though he's often characterized as a "free speech absolutist." It's interesting how he separates actions from speech and considered the famous L.A. "Fuck the Draft" shirt not to be speech. If Black could lay out a scheme where pure speech was absolutely protected, but actions were different and perhaps fell under the right to peacefully assemble, that would be interesting. I suppose the other famous case of wearing a black armband to protest the Vietnam War would have not been approved by Black? Not sure about that.

As far as shouting "Fire!" in a theater, that's not absolute either. What if there really is a fire? What if you see a fire, shout, and someone dies in the stampede, only to find out later the fire was not even sufficient for a bush league weeny roast?

[zenman]

Sweet little survival pistol for small game. I might have to get one.

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/firearms/FAProdView?model=4901&return=Y

[Ben]

I agree with you.
I really don't like the wording of the second amendment. Its to vague.

That was the point of my "original intent" question in the other thread.

Certain language in the constitution is crystal clear, the intent is obvious for specific reasons.

Other sections of the Constitution, like many sections of the Bill of Rights, were intentionally written vague and ambiguous. The reason is the framers wanted wiggle room for changes that society would undergo that would effect community standards and the loose language would leave room for interpretation as theses changes took place over time.

The problem with "original intent" zealots is that even as the language of these intentionally open sections was being drafted and in the period of time thereafter while the framers were still alive there was disagreement as to how these sections should be interpreted. Which begs the question, whose original intent?

I should also explain that the list of questions I posed in the other thread were used as examples of constitutional topics that still trigger intense debate. There are no right or wrong answers to the questions I posed, but the way in which you (as in you generally, not you, Ben) frame your responses illustrates your understanding of these issues and can also be an illustration of the political and philosophical underpinnings of your legal reasoning.

This vagary and room for interpretation has led many to assert that the Constitution is a living and dynamic document that can and should be interpreted differently as society progresses.

I'm all for wiggle room. I don't think the people should have WMDs, surface to air missles, land mines, all other kinds of "arms" that are out there. The thing with guns is that a lot of his regulation isn't going to make much of a difference. For instance, If what Michael said is true and Obama wants to ban .223 and .308 the people have have those guns will simply get them rechambered for another round. Its not going to take guns off the streets, its not going to make it harder for people to own them. Its pointless.

I am also not saying the constitution in its present form is absolute. There are a few things in it I think should change, But my point is that they should change. I realise that politicians don't want to take on the changing the constitution. If Obama, and enough of the people want a national healthcare system then the constitution needs to be changed to reflect it. Otherwise it violates the 10th amendment and can be struck down by the supreme court later. What good will that do us?

[Dmitri]

Its not going to take guns off the streets, its not going to make it harder for people to own them. Its pointless.

It's not pointless -- these previously good citizens will automatically become criminals. Which means -- more work for the very, very many "internal security" agencies in this country. Hence, more (fake) justification for bigger government, more "need" for it. Nobody cares if that need is real -- unless (or is it 'until'?) they become the victims of that system themselves...

[qiphlow]

It's not pointless -- these previously good citizens will automatically become criminals. Which means -- more work for the very, very many "internal security" agencies in this country.

and...
way more profits for the private corporations that specialize in doing all the homeland security work that's been outsourced thanks to rumsfeld and company.

[DeusTrismegistus]

Its not going to take guns off the streets, its not going to make it harder for people to own them. Its pointless.

It's not pointless -- these previously good citizens will automatically become criminals. Which means -- more work for the very, very many "internal security" agencies in this country. Hence, more (fake) justification for bigger government, more "need" for it. Nobody cares if that need is real -- unless (or is it 'until'?) they become the victims of that system themselves...

The first thing to do when establishing a dictatorship or putting an extreme regime in power is to take away the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves and to organize and to fight back. Before the first amendment can be taken away they must take away the second. State sanctioned militias are useless in the context of protecting ourselves from our own government. Too many people forget that this country is a child of revolution. The Bill of Rights is designed from the outset to protect the ability of the people to prevent the government from eroding our freedoms and putting us under the thumb of a small group of people that only have their own power in their interests.

My only consolation with Obama in office is the senate is still not filibuster proof, and the recent supreme court decision overturning the DC gun ban. Legally the rights granted in the Bill of Rights can be regulated but that decision should help ensure that the regulations don't go as far as bans or laws that effectively ban guns.