Comments on: Janice Rogers Brown Confirmed 56-43

By: Baklava

Baklava — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:14:52 +0000

RedBeard. He has a reading comprehension problem. The point was won but lost I’m afraid.

By: RedBeard

RedBeard — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:08:24 +0000

Yes, I saw those links, none of which addresses my question. Well, one does, by actually contradicting the website’s main content. The Utah law say that an internet provider can comply by only offering, upon request, a piece of blocking software. I can find no such clause in the Pennsylvania law. Apples, oranges.

By: actus

actus — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:46:22 +0000

“The website you referenced has not updated itself to show the Utah law as it exists. That site apparently is looking at what was first proposed.”

You’ll notice a press release, as well as a complaint filed — both dated june 9th. The latter has more detail than the former. Included in this extra detail is the date in which the law was signed (paragraph 3).

Towards the bottom of the screen, on march 22 and 8th, you have the law being signed and passed. This is right above the headline describing the PA law being struck down.

By: RedBeard

RedBeard — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:10:13 +0000

The website you referenced has not updated itself to show the Utah law as it exists. That site apparently is looking at what was first proposed.

By: RedBeard

RedBeard — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:08:09 +0000

Ok then, can you explain what the Utah law does, and what I have misstated? And then can you explain how it’s the same as the Pennsylvania law?

By: actus

actus — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 16:22:36 +0000

“Clearly unconstitutional? Thatâ€™s a bit premature. Weâ€™ll see.”

PA recently had a similar law struck down.

“But a law requiring only that a porn filter be offered as an option at the subscriberâ€™s discretion? Doesnâ€™t sound very heinous to me, and hardly a threat to the 1st Amendment.”

That’s not the law that Utah passed. For more, check out the folks that got the PA law struck down:

http://cdt.org/speech/

By: RedBeard

RedBeard — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:34:12 +0000

Clearly unconstitutional? That’s a bit premature. We’ll see.

Liberal courts, led by the nose by the Utah ACLU, will probably find a reason to declare it unconstitutional. But a law requiring only that a porn filter be offered as an option at the subscriber’s discretion? Doesn’t sound very heinous to me, and hardly a threat to the 1st Amendment.

By: SCSIwuzzy

SCSIwuzzy — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:23:37 +0000

Explain how so actus.

By: actus

actus — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:31:22 +0000

“My point is Iâ€™d like to see current examples, the past is past. ”

People clearly pass unconstitutional laws. Utah just passed an internet filtering law that is clearly unconstitutional.

By: RedBeard

RedBeard — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:24:50 +0000

Maybe a few states with some intestinal fortitude will pass new laws about the murdering of unborn children, forcing the issue back to the Supreme Court for the eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade.

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:01:40 +0000

My point is I’d like to see current examples, the past is past.

By: actus

actus — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:48:55 +0000

“Itâ€™d be nice if some politicians had the fortitude to buck the courts every once in a while to keep them in balance. ”

It also happened for decades following brown. Remember, brown was mostly not implemented in 1954. The civil rights act only came a decade later, and even into the 70′s desegregation was going on.

So another example for you.

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 03:25:23 +0000

Actus, you’re right, while the Indian Removal Act was a tragedy, Andrew Jackson was a nice guy.

It’d be nice if some politicians had the fortitude to buck the courts every once in a while to keep them in balance.

By: actus

actus — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 01:26:05 +0000

“The judiciary has no powers of enforcement, so itâ€™d be up to a State to decide to buck or cave”

In the case of lochner, it did cave.

“Iâ€™d really like to see someone buck the court for a change.”

Andrew Jackson did. nice guy.

“The feds canâ€™t make laws superior to state law unless specifically granted that power by the Constitution.”

I know. That’s why I said that so long as congress can act, it is supreme.

By: RedBeard

RedBeard — Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:19:17 +0000

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The feds can’t make laws superior to state law unless specifically granted that power by the Constitution. That’s why the above so-called “supremacy clause” uses the words “in Pursuance thereof” to define the process. Laws which are created without specific Constitutional authority cannot, by definition, be “in pursuance” of the Constitution. Unfortunately for us all, liberal interpretations have thoroughly corrupted our federal system.

The true “supremacy clause” is the 10th Amendment.