Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you think a law passes Congress, twice, w/o someone doing some sort of constitutional analysis?

So no unconstitutional laws are ever passed? I guess we don't really need the Supreme Court any more.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
dumb fuck.

we're not the governemnt.

do you think a law passes Congress, twice, w/o someone doing some sort of constitutional analysis? Ty wants to say it is uncon. he at least has to make some sort of argument, beyond "it is, trust me."

and if you and SS are simply going to post "I agree with Ty" the next time i get money to the board, it will come with strings that the two of you can't take up bandwidth here anymore.

Hank, I gave that one to you fair and square. I myself am glad to see you arguing for governmental authority and power. It warms my heart to see that the era of conservatives arguing for limited government is over.

And, it's good to see how much you trust Congress, too. I'm sure you'll give everything coming out of Congress over the next couple of years the benefit of the doubt.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
So no unconstitutional laws are ever passed? I guess we don't really need the Supreme Court any more.

I quit.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Hank, I gave that one to you fair and square. I myself am glad to see you arguing for governmental authority and power. It warms my heart to see that the era of conservatives arguing for limited government is over.

And, it's good to see how much you trust Congress, too. I'm sure you'll give everything coming out of Congress over the next couple of years the benefit of the doubt.

the first maybe 3 or 4 posts by your southern general sock were witty. I think it was because this lame attempt at sarcasm was wrapped in a layer of the accent, or something, but really your naked attempts are lame.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I quit.

Woo hoo!

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski the first maybe 3 or 4 posts by your southern general sock were witty. I think it was because this lame attempt at sarcasm was wrapped in a layer of the accent, or something, but really your naked attempts are lame.

Hank lied!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
And if you concede that cows are round, then we don't disagree?

I don't think the law is nuts at all, and "a bit overly broad" doesn't mean "nuts."

I assumed that it's a small step from agreeing that a restriction on speech is overbroad to agreeing that it is constitutionally problematic. I seem to have lost you on that step. It's another small step, rhetorically, to calling the overbreadth "nuts," if there is no plausible justification for it. I don't see you offering one.

In theory you are absolutely right. So complain and get some amendments expressly protecting artistic or political expression, and/or focusing on gain/benefits. (The last part is tricky.) That might make the law better.

I don't think misrepresenting one's status as a decorated veteran should, per se, be a federal crime. If those misrepresentations are part of fraud, then prosecute the fraud.

Consider two eccentrics. One has a lot of a money and represents himself as homeless. The other never served and represents himself as a decorated veteran. Absent other facts, why is one a criminal but not the other?

Chilling effect? Really? Good.

The government gives the awards/insignia per certain criteria. The government can regulate how and when they are lawfully displayed.

It is simple, but it's also crazy. The government gives stop signs certain criteria, but that doesn't permit the goverment to forbid anyone from displaying a stop sign. Sure, you can be convicted if you misuse one, but the crime is the misuse, not the speech itself.

I wouldn't call you a totalitarian, but you do seem to have a cramped appreciation of free speech today.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Consider two eccentrics. One has a lot of a money and represents himself as homeless. The other never served and represents himself as a decorated veteran. Absent other facts, why is one a criminal but not the other?

Colonel Sanders is going to be in a lot of trouble.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ummm, the burden is to prove to you it is okay?

S_A_M agrees that the law is overbroad, and neither of you has offered a justification for the overbreadth.

you, who couldn't even bother to google why the law was enacted, don't have to show anything. you, whose best argument is that another law, which restricts speech for all employees of the world's largest employer, is "narrow."

Right. My posts here are usually devoid of links to things like the statute we're discussing, and your posts are chock-a-block full of them. If you have something useful to say about the Hatch Act, in respond to Burger's post, e.g., just go ahead.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Colonel Sanders is going to be in a lot of trouble.

Only if he claims to be decorated. But Hank seems to have considerable familiarity with the legislative history, so perhaps he knows something else that KFC's lawyers should worry about.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

do you think a law passes Congress, twice, w/o someone doing some sort of constitutional analysis? Ty wants to say it is uncon. he at least has to make some sort of argument, beyond "it is, trust me."

Of course the analysis is done. It's then ignored by Congress and punted to the courts.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Only if he claims to be decorated. But Hank seems to have considerable familiarity with the legislative history, so perhaps he knows something else that KFC's lawyers should worry about.

He's decorated by Robert E. Lee. Oddly, KFC does not accept Confederate money.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Consider two eccentrics. One has a lot of a money and represents himself as homeless. The other never served and represents himself as a decorated veteran. Absent other facts, why is one a criminal but not the other?
.

The government has a greater interest in protecting the meaning of its military decorations than in protecting the meaning of homelessness.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Only if he claims to be decorated. But Hank seems to have considerable familiarity with the legislative history, so perhaps he knows something else that KFC's lawyers should worry about.

I wonder if they're going to prosecute Thomas Rost.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The government has a greater interest in protecting the meaning of its military decorations than in protecting the meaning of homelessness.

I thought that the criminal laws were supposed to be about protecting individuals, rather than the government's interest in different messages.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought that the criminal laws were supposed to be about protecting individuals, rather than the government's interest in different messages.

So a law against defacing a government building with grafitti wouldn't be proper?