Advertisement
by Kubra » Mon Apr 04, 2011 3:51 pm
by Arkinesia » Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:10 pm
Caecili wrote:Two words: Hate crime.
Disappointment Panda wrote:Don't hope for a life without problems. There's no such thing. Instead, hope for a life full of good problems.
by SaintB » Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:23 pm
by You-Gi-Owe » Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:27 pm
Zonolia wrote:if he gets prosectuted for this he'll try to sue the US government for impeding on his first amendment right but then again no one ever wins against the US in a law suite...(seriously i have reseached this alot if anyone can give me a case where the winner wasnt the US please tell me i wanna know)
From Wikipedia;
Chief Justice Hughes wrote for a unanimous Court in invalidating the industrial "codes of fair competition" which the NIRA enabled the President to issue. The Court held that the codes violated the constitutional separation of powers as an impermissible delegation of legislative power to the executive branch. The Court also held that the NIRA provisions were in excess of congressional power under the Commerce Clause.
The Court distinguished between direct effects on interstate commerce, which Congress could lawfully regulate, and indirect, which were purely matters of state law. Though the raising and sale of poultry was an interstate industry, the Court found that the "stream of interstate commerce" had stopped in this case—Schechter's slaughterhouses bought chickens almost exclusively from intrastate wholesalers and sold completely exclusively to intrastate buyers. Any interstate effect of Schechter was indirect, and therefore beyond federal reach.
Though many considered the NIRA a "dead statute" at this point in the New Deal scheme, the Court used its invalidation as an opportunity to affirm constitutional limits on congressional power, for fear that it could otherwise reach virtually anything that could be said to "affect" interstate commerce and intrude on many areas of legitimate state power.
Justice Cardozo's concurring opinion clarified that a spectrum approach to direct and indirect effects is preferable to a strict dichotomy. Cardozo felt that in this case, Schechter was simply too small a player to be relevant to interstate commerce.
This traditional reading of the Commerce Clause was later disavowed by the Court, which, after West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937) began to read congressional power more expansively in this area. However, more recent cases such as United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) perhaps signal a growing inclination in the Court to once again affirm limits on its scope.
by Galenaima » Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:29 pm
Oterro wrote:I read it in Latest Forum Topics and was like; ''oho, some chap managed to keep himself seated for 2 years and finally stood up!''
But no. Morbidly obese man dies in chair, covered in shit.
Nationstatelandsville wrote:Is Hell North Korea off earth?
Wikkiwallana wrote:I don't like flamish anyone. It distresses me to see people on fire. People who like to get involved with their own gender don't bother me at all though.
by Canada Remnants » Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:32 pm
by SaintB » Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:33 pm
by Buffett and Colbert » Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:55 pm
You-Gi-Owe wrote:1. If burning the U.S. Flag is protected free speech, then, IMHO, isn’t it free speech to burn a book?
You-Gi-Owe wrote:2. Why is the U.S. Government inserting itself into a matter of Religion? I know I read in the First Amendment that Congress isn’t supposed to help or hinder religious expression.
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.
by Buffett and Colbert » Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:58 pm
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.
by Florin and Atlantis » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:18 pm
Zonolia wrote:if he gets prosectuted for this he'll try to sue the US government for impeding on his first amendment right but then again no one ever wins against the US in a law suite...(seriously i have reseached this alot if anyone can give me a case where the winner wasnt the US please tell me i wanna know)
Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969), is a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the constitutionality of Marijuana Tax Act. Timothy Leary, a professor and activist, was arrested for the possession of marijuana in violation of the Marijuana Tax Act. Leary challenged the act on the ground that the act required self-incrimination, which violated the Fifth Amendment. The unanimous opinion of the court was penned by Justice John Marshall Harlan II and declared the Marijuana Tax Act unconstitutional. Thus, Leary's conviction was overturned. However, Congress responded shortly after by passing the Controlled Substances Act to continue the prohibition of certain drugs in the United States.
by Bottle » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:29 pm
by Meryuma » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:32 pm
Niur wrote: my soul has no soul.
Saint Clair Island wrote:The English language sucks. From now on, I will refer to the second definition of sexual as "fucktacular."
Trotskylvania wrote:Alternatively, we could go on an epic quest to Plato's Cave to find the legendary artifact, Ockham's Razor.
Norstal wrote:Gunpowder Plot: America.
Meryuma: "Well, I just hope these hyperboles don't...
*puts on sunglasses*
blow out of proportions."
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
by Cannot think of a name » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:34 pm
Bottle wrote:Terry Jones is a knob, but two knobs...make ...
by The Corparation » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:37 pm
Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here | A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc. | Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia- |
Making the Nightmare End | WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety | This Cell is intentionally blank. |
by SaintB » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:38 pm
Genivaria wrote:The U.S government should stay out of religious affairs.
It should only get involved if people are getting hurt.
by Genivaria » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:40 pm
by Augarundus » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:43 pm
Caecili wrote:Two words: Hate crime.
by Augarundus » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:44 pm
by Occupied Deutschland » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:46 pm
by Mosasauria » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:46 pm
Caecili wrote:Two words: Hate crime.
by Genivaria » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:47 pm
by Hebalobia » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:50 pm
by New new nebraska » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:51 pm
by Genivaria » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:52 pm
Hebalobia wrote:This is an easy one. NO, absolutely not. Remember freedom of speech and the budget deficit? Pastor Jones has as much right to make a complete ass of himself as the rest of us do. Now excuse me while I go burn a case of bibles.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Einaro, Floofybit, Kannap, Skorpiii-Antares, So uh lab here, Stellar Colonies
Advertisement