Poll Taxes and their Merits

[The Parkus Empire]

It's not a metaphor, it's an idiom.

The intention behind it is of course not something that can be feasibly and easily discerned. Blackstone says the best option in going for intent is looking to the reason the law was made, which is not so obscure.

Same principle appies.

The reason the law was made is not always clear. The only thing that is (almost) always clear is what the document says, taking metaphors and idioms as their commonly understood meaning. Deciding a law based on the reason it was made could have bad effects, as shown by anti-second amendmenters who say the second amendment was made for 18th century circumstances. Or hate-specch prohibitionists who say that free speech doesn't apply because free speech was created only to create stable democracy and allow one to criticize the government.

Very well then, free speech doesn't cover porn

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Same principle appies.

The reason the law was made is not always clear. The only thing that is (almost) always clear is what the document says, taking metaphors and idioms as their commonly understood meaning. Deciding a law based on the reason it was made could have bad effects, as shown by anti-second amendmenters who say the second amendment was made for 18th century circumstances. Or hate-specch prohibitionists who say that free speech doesn't apply because free speech was created only to create stable democracy and allow one to criticize the government.

Very well then, free speech doesn't cover porn

Porn depicting consenting adults is completely victimless and shouldn't be prohibited

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Same principle appies.

The reason the law was made is not always clear. The only thing that is (almost) always clear is what the document says, taking metaphors and idioms as their commonly understood meaning. Deciding a law based on the reason it was made could have bad effects, as shown by anti-second amendmenters who say the second amendment was made for 18th century circumstances. Or hate-specch prohibitionists who say that free speech doesn't apply because free speech was created only to create stable democracy and allow one to criticize the government.

Very well then, free speech doesn't cover porn

If the U.S law did say that, then I'd just vote to amend that part.

[The Parkus Empire]

Very well then, free speech doesn't cover porn

If the U.S law did say that, then I'd just vote to amend that part.

U.S. law does indeed say it doesn't cover obscenity

[The Parkus Empire]

Very well then, free speech doesn't cover porn

Porn depicting consenting adults is completely victimless and shouldn't be prohibited

That's not a concern for this thread, we're only discussing Constitutional interpretation for its pertinence to poll tax's legality

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

If the U.S law did say that, then I'd just vote to amend that part.

U.S. law does indeed say it doesn't cover obscenity

Like I said, I'll just vote to amend that part of the law.

[The Parkus Empire]

U.S. law does indeed say it doesn't cover obscenity

Like I said, I'll just vote to amend that part of the law.

Freedom of film?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Like I said, I'll just vote to amend that part of the law.

Freedom of film?

Yeah?

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Not really, the judge knew what phrases meant and knew it didn't apply and ruled correctly in line with the law since the doctor didn't murder or fight anybody. But since we are talking about US Constitutional law, ruling by the letter of the constitution is a lot better than ruling by intent in the majority of circumstances because you then get into potential slippery slopes.

Strict constructionism is doable, I guess

It would likely result in a better scenario than one with a strict originalist judge saying "well, this Latino citizen was denied the right to vote based on his race, but the 15th amendment was originally intended to protect black people so it only protects black people", or other similar situations where amendments are worded to broadly protect everybody but originally intended to protect a certain group of people, which is why Originalism is garbage IMO.

[The Parkus Empire]

Strict constructionism is doable, I guess

It would likely result in a better scenario than one with a strict originalist judge saying "well, this Latino citizen was denied the right to vote based on his race, but the 15th amendment was originally intended to protect black people so it only protects black people", or other similar situations where amendments are worded to broadly protect everybody but originally intended to protect a certain group of people, which is why Originalism is garbage IMO.

Originalism doesn't work like that Originalisn would be, " Though they need not think of Mexicans, they obviously wouldn't have excluded them."

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Strict constructionism is doable, I guess

It would likely result in a better scenario than one with a strict originalist judge saying "well, this Latino citizen was denied the right to vote based on his race, but the 15th amendment was originally intended to protect black people so it only protects black people", or other similar situations where amendments are worded to broadly protect everybody but originally intended to protect a certain group of people, which is why Originalism is garbage IMO.

It gets worse. The original US constitution said that a black person is 3/5 of a white person.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

It would likely result in a better scenario than one with a strict originalist judge saying "well, this Latino citizen was denied the right to vote based on his race, but the 15th amendment was originally intended to protect black people so it only protects black people", or other similar situations where amendments are worded to broadly protect everybody but originally intended to protect a certain group of people, which is why Originalism is garbage IMO.

It gets worse. The original US constitution said that a black person is 3/5 of a white person.

Not half, but 3/5. That's important.

[The Parkus Empire]

It would likely result in a better scenario than one with a strict originalist judge saying "well, this Latino citizen was denied the right to vote based on his race, but the 15th amendment was originally intended to protect black people so it only protects black people", or other similar situations where amendments are worded to broadly protect everybody but originally intended to protect a certain group of people, which is why Originalism is garbage IMO.

It gets worse. The original US constitution said that a black person is 3/5 of a white person.

No it didn't. It said a slave counted 3/5 for representation. This was to prevent slave states from getting a ton of representation just by owning slaves (who weren't even citizens). Slave states wanted slaves to count as regular, and free States didn't want them to count at all, so there was a compromise. But freed blacks counted as full

[San Lumen]

It gets worse. The original US constitution said that a black person is 3/5 of a white person.

No it didn't. It said a slave counted 3/5 for representation. This was to prevent slave states from getting a ton of representation just by owning slaves (who weren't even citizens). Slave states wanted slaves to count as regular, and free States didn't want them to count at all, so there was a compromise. But freed blacks counted as full

And that was fundamentally wrong. Anyone who is 18 and above and citizen should be allowed to vote unimpeded unless they are incarcerated.

[The Parkus Empire]

No it didn't. It said a slave counted 3/5 for representation. This was to prevent slave states from getting a ton of representation just by owning slaves (who weren't even citizens). Slave states wanted slaves to count as regular, and free States didn't want them to count at all, so there was a compromise. But freed blacks counted as full

And that was fundamentally wrong. Anyone who is 18 and above and citizen should be allowed to vote unimpeded unless they are incarcerated.

Slaves weren't citizens, derp. Also they have voting for the incarcerated, I seen it

[San Lumen]

And that was fundamentally wrong. Anyone who is 18 and above and citizen should be allowed to vote unimpeded unless they are incarcerated.

Slaves weren't citizens, derp. Also they have voting for the incarcerated, I seen it

No state allows voting the incarcerated as far as I know.

[The Parkus Empire]

Slaves weren't citizens, derp. Also they have voting for the incarcerated, I seen it

No state allows voting the incarcerated as far as I know.

Welp I been incarcerated. Hell I've been to prison (High Desert State Prison, CA). And there was voting

[Reformed Houn]

Prisoners should be given the ability to beat up the current governor

[The Parkus Empire]

Prisoners should be given the ability to beat up the current governor

The current governor is low, but prisoners are pretty bad tbh. I remember my whole race had to be put on lockdown because the CO's (guards) intercepted a note from the guys at the top to kill one of the CO's. Fucking hell man

[Reformed Houn]

Prisoners should be given the ability to beat up the current governor

The current governor is low, but prisoners are pretty bad tbh. I remember my whole race had to be put on lockdown because the CO's (guards) intercepted a note from the guys at the top to kill one of the CO's. Fucking hell man

Badness is a spook. I think this way because the governor could have the ability to restrict my freedoms.

[The Parkus Empire]

The current governor is low, but prisoners are pretty bad tbh. I remember my whole race had to be put on lockdown because the CO's (guards) intercepted a note from the guys at the top to kill one of the CO's. Fucking hell man

Badness is a spook. I think this way because the governor could have the ability to restrict my freedoms.

Which he should

[San Lumen]

Badness is a spook. I think this way because the governor could have the ability to restrict my freedoms.

Which he should

To restrict whose rights?

[Mike the Progressive]

Parkus, I have the utmost respect for you. But I'll be frank.

No.

I get where you were coming from. A couple years back, I found me some religion, I embraced what I saw as a better America. But it wasn't. It was shit. Like it is today and forever will be. Like every country will be. Because people are shit. And as long as people are shit everything they touch will have shit on, in or all over it.

[The Parkus Empire]

Parkus, I have the utmost respect for you. But I'll be frank.

No.

I get where you were coming from. A couple years back, I found me some religion, I embraced what I saw as a better America. But it wasn't. It was shit. Like it is today and forever will be. Like every country will be. Because people are shit. And as long as people are shit everything they touch will have shit on, in or all over it.

I agree completely, I think this is a very important truth and has lead me to this conclusion

[San Lumen]

Parkus, I have the utmost respect for you. But I'll be frank.

No.

I get where you were coming from. A couple years back, I found me some religion, I embraced what I saw as a better America. But it wasn't. It was shit. Like it is today and forever will be. Like every country will be. Because people are shit. And as long as people are shit everything they touch will have shit on, in or all over it.

What are you talking about?