Re: Ketanji Jackson Worried That the 1st Amendment is Hamstringing Government Censorship

On 3/23/2024 7:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

On 3/23/2024 1:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <utmrq9$3n3jl$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 3/22/24 4:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 22, 2024 at 4:08:21 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 3/21/24 4:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

>

You're comparing the text of an amendment to 200+ years of Supreme
Court jurisprudence interpreting an amendment.
>

Nope, it was perfectly apt, and nothing you cited changed that.
SCALIA. Remember him?
>
Because every time I bring him up to you about how no amendment is
sacrosanct (not even the second), you fall into that coma again.

>
No, I don't. Every time you bring that up, I ask you whether you think that
it'd be okay for the government to make exceptions to Amendment XIX and
prohibit women from voting since "no amendment is sacrosanct", after all.
Or since "no amendment is sacrosanct", it'd be okay for the government to
prohibit black people from voting (Amendment XV) and allow people to be
owned as slaves (Amendment XIII).
>
And that's when *you* go into a coma.
>

No amendment is above being regulated. Period.

>
So describe how the 13th Amendment might be regulated beyond the plain
text of the Constitution, Shit-Shoes.
>
Thrill us with your acumen.

>
    "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation."
>
...could be amended to...
>
    "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for *CAPITAL* crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation."
>
...or, as the straw-man you might be hoping for, to...
>
    "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for *NEGRO ANCESTRY* whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation."

 Any amendment can be amended or repealed completely. That's not what we're
talking about. The issue is how a Court could interpret Amendment XIII in
any way that wouldn't allow for the very thing it proscribes.

Yes, ANY amendment can be amended.  What else are you imagining Scalia to be saying?  Surely not that he'd carefully examined every one of the existing amendments and found each to be eminently mutable...
But, perhaps you're presenting XIII as the rare specimen of legislation worded so tightly that no detail of it may be altered lest its entire edifice of intended purpose disintegrate.  I, otoh, would bet that anyone reading this can build you examples with ease...