This could be bad

[Lason]

That is pretty weak.

Stevo

How so? Your not happy unless your arguing huh?

[stevo]

How so? Your not happy unless your arguing huh?

Because you gave up on your flawed arguement and resorted to silly statements, that is how so.

Stevo

[racrguy]

Denny, I wholly agree with you. Seems like a lot of jack booted thuggery. Lason, I see wut u did thar!

It also appears to me that some people don't realize the courts can't shit all over your rights either.

[Forever_frost]

And completely missed the first words of the 1st amendment which is what he's proclaiming. "Congress shall make no law." If it's not Congress making the law, it's not a violation of the 1st amendment

[racrguy]

derp.

So all these cops shooting people in the head with tear gas canisters is ok because congress didn't make a law ordering them to do it. Gotcha. derp.

[Maddhattter]

derp.

So all these cops shooting people in the head with tear gas canisters is ok because congress didn't make a law ordering them to do it. Gotcha. derp.

No. Learn to read.

States can easily infringe on people constitutional rights so long as congress doesn't make the law.

Remember, the constitution is to limit the power of the federal government. The states can just say "Fuck the constitution!" and do what they want. So long as the state makes it a law.

At least, that's what Forever_frost seems to be implying.

[racrguy]

No. Learn to read.

States can easily infringe on people constitutional rights so long as congress doesn't make the law.

Remember, the constitution is to limit the power of the federal government. The states can just say "Fuck the constitution!" and do what they want. So long as the state makes it a law.

At least, that's what Forever_frost seems to be implying.

Fuck.

[Forever_frost]

No. Learn to read.

States can easily infringe on people constitutional rights so long as congress doesn't make the law.

Remember, the constitution is to limit the power of the federal government. The states can just say "Fuck the constitution!" and do what they want. So long as the state makes it a law.

At least, that's what Forever_frost seems to be implying.

Not at all. I'm explaining how it's not a 1st amendment issue. Now, if you buy into the idea of incorporation, that's a different discussion, however the 1st is very clear. "Congress shall make no law." If they aren't doing it, it's not an infringement. The idea that anything someone does or disagrees with is an infringement is wrong.

And the constitution DOES just limit the federal government. Otherwise, do provide instances where it says the states are limited in anything except enumerated powers expressly granted to the federal government.

I'll wait while you read through it.

[Forever_frost]

derp.

So all these cops shooting people in the head with tear gas canisters is ok because congress didn't make a law ordering them to do it. Gotcha. derp.

Do you have proof it was an intentional action? Were the police aiming for the heads of these protesters? They were dispersing over 1k protesters who were trying to reclaim an area they had already been removed from

[racrguy]

Simply because there's no law regarding it makes it all good? Damn dude, and you call yourself a big supporter of the Constitution. At this point I think you're being hypocritical about it, as you have been in the past.

[Sean88gt]

Occupy will now have a face. This will lead to further protests that beg for violence so the protestors can go all Canadian.

[Forever_frost]

Simply because there's no law regarding it makes it all good? Damn dude, and you call yourself a big supporter of the Constitution. At this point I think you're being hypocritical about it, as you have been in the past.

I never said it was 'all good.' I said it's not a constitutional issue. You call me a hypocrite. Prove it. Prove what I'm saying is wrong. I'll wait for the Article and Section that proves me wrong. Enough emotions. Prove me wrong.

[Maddhattter]

Not at all. I'm explaining how it's not a 1st amendment issue.

That's what you're claiming. You're stating that the individual states can pass laws violating constitutional rights, and that it's okay because the constitution does not prohibit that.

Based on your encouragement of local governments infringing the rights of the protestors, I'd go so far as to say you support what you believe is the local government's ability to infringe on the rights of the people.

Now, if you buy into the idea of incorporation, that's a different discussion, however the 1st is very clear. "Congress shall make no law." If they aren't doing it, it's not an infringement.

So, you're going to tell me that states cannot violate constitutional rights, but the constitution only limits the federal government, therefore allowing the states to violate it with impunity?

You can't even keep your own points straight.

The idea that anything someone does or disagrees with is an infringement is wrong.

This is not about agreeing or disagreeing with anything other than government actions against a protest. Therefore, this statement is irrelevant to the given topic.

And the constitution DOES just limit the federal government. Otherwise, do provide instances where it says the states are limited in anything except enumerated powers expressly granted to the federal government.

I'll wait while you read through it.

Except for the fact that you're wrong. Not only are the rights guaranteed by the first amendment protected from the federal government, but per the Supreme Court decision Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment applies the first amendment rights protection to any and all state, and local governments.

I'll wait while you educate yourself on factual, documented American history that supports the Constitution regardless as to whether you think that personal rights should be set aside because you think these protestors are animals.

[Forever_frost]

Tell me where case law trumps the wording of the Constitution. As I said, you can argue incorporation but the wording of the Constitution is "CONGRESS shall make no law."

De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937) however Incorporated the right to protection of assembly be passed to the states.

[racrguy]

I never said it was 'all good.' I said it's not a constitutional issue. You call me a hypocrite. Prove it. Prove what I'm saying is wrong. I'll wait for the Article and Section that proves me wrong. Enough emotions. Prove me wrong.

That's what you're claiming. You're stating that the individual states can pass laws violating constitutional rights, and that it's okay because the constitution does not prohibit that.

Based on your encouragement of local governments infringing the rights of the protestors, I'd go so far as to say you support what you believe is the local government's ability to infringe on the rights of the people.



So, you're going to tell me that states cannot violate constitutional rights, but the constitution only limits the federal government, therefore allowing the states to violate it with impunity?

You can't even keep your own points straight.



This is not about agreeing or disagreeing with anything other than government actions against a protest. Therefore, this statement is irrelevant to the given topic.



Except for the fact that you're wrong. Not only are the rights guaranteed by the first amendment protected from the federal government, but per the Supreme Court decision Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment applies the first amendment rights protection to any and all state, and local governments.

I'll wait while you educate yourself on factual, documented American history that supports the Constitution regardless as to whether you think that personal rights should be set aside because you think these protestors are animals.

Proven wrong. You also said it was justified, another way of saying "all good."

Edit: before you pull the "case law doesn't apply" bullshit, this case is putting every other level of government under the umbrella of the constitution.