GrowRebel
Well-Known Member
... yea the illegitimate bush just makes you feel warm and cozy inside .... you bushies are so fucking blind ... it's too funny.
(I)Bush Outlaws War Protest
- Thread starter GrowRebel
- Start date
medicineman
New Member
I wouldn't be so sure with this supreme court. 5 right wing justices will pretty much do what the right wants. and as you know, 5to4 wins and it is the law of the land. When the second Bush term was up for bid, most people didn't know how important it was, the court now sits square on the rights side. We're fucked!
420worshipper
Well-Known Member
Grow since this came from you I'm not suprised by your lack of intelligence concerning a law. In the US a law is made when both the House of Representatives and the Senate vote on a bill. When both pass its sent to the President to sign into law or veto. And an executive order is just that something that the Executive (President) is ordering people that work for him in the Federal Government to execute. The fact you know so little about the government is a hilarity to me. An Executive Order can never become a law. The President uses them for people that work below him because that is the only true power that he has. And if you think that this president is the one that came up with them, then that will give me something else to laugh about. Because you should really read the entire constitution. I mean all 286 pages of it and not just the Bill of Rights.
420worshipper
Well-Known Member
How do you figure that? If you look at all Supreme Court votes in the last 8 years half went against what the President wanted. But then you are forgetting some major point. Now what is it........
<Point>
THE US SUPREME COURT HAS TO FOLLOW NOT ONLY THE CONSTITUTION BUT THE US CODE (LAWS).
</Point>
medicineman
New Member
Yeah right. Just like the president has to uphold the constitution. He has certainly shown that is not true, so why would you not suspect these right wing justices would not lean towards the right in every decision. They've already started that trend. You'll see many 5 to 4 decisions coming out of this court, mark my words. Even if the House decided to impeach the twin evil bastards the court would overturn it on appeal, So outside of assasination, there is no way to get rid of them before Jan 09.
ViRedd
New Member
You guyz know what really cracks me up? Its the lefties like Med who call judges that abide by constitutional law "right wing."
So Med ... if constitutionalist judges are "right wing," what would you call judges who read things into the Constitution that aren't there in an effort to further socialistic agendas?
Personally, I'd call them traitors.
Vi
So Med ... if constitutionalist judges are "right wing," what would you call judges who read things into the Constitution that aren't there in an effort to further socialistic agendas?
Personally, I'd call them traitors.
Vi
GrowRebel
Well-Known Member
The law and the constitution hasn't inhibit the illegitimate bush regime before ... they just make shit up to suit them ... what makes you think it will stop them now?
You actually believe these asswipe obey the law and the constitution ... now THAT'S funny.
GrowRebel
Well-Known Member
.... oh is that why the court rule students could display a banner stating ... "Bong hit for Jesus" ... because they were following the constitution ... oh I see ...
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
GrowRebel, We all know your views on Bush's legitimacy or lack there of, and some of us agree with you.... But quit putting it in every God damned thread you post in.
Yes the Supreme Court decided against the Bong Hit's For Jesus, but by the same token the same week the decided in favor of, on another freedom of expression case. But as long as your going to be selective on your views, your judgment will be clouded.
Bong hits for Jesus isn't important in the scheme of things, also if you would have been paying attention the case was decided on the basis of if you can put up a banner like that on a School Field Trip.
Yes the Supreme Court decided against the Bong Hit's For Jesus, but by the same token the same week the decided in favor of, on another freedom of expression case. But as long as your going to be selective on your views, your judgment will be clouded.
Bong hits for Jesus isn't important in the scheme of things, also if you would have been paying attention the case was decided on the basis of if you can put up a banner like that on a School Field Trip.
Reprogammed
Well-Known Member
It's been enacted for almost a goddamn week. It's an executive order hidden behind the guise of an emergency, and as such isn't likely to be contested.
It sucks, but I don't think a case would get past barely being filed.
Sure, Bush is an idiot of the highest order, but it's an effective way to wipe out any opposition to it that isn't being documented in a closed room.
It sucks, but I don't think a case would get past barely being filed.
Sure, Bush is an idiot of the highest order, but it's an effective way to wipe out any opposition to it that isn't being documented in a closed room.
420worshipper
Well-Known Member
Now this really shows how ignorant you really are. Did you even read the entire story about the case? No, if you had you would have realized that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this was inappropriate material to be putting up at a school function. Considering the school board has deemed any material relating to drugs to be highly inappropriate on school property..... oh is that why the court rule students could display a banner stating ... "Bong hit for Jesus" ... because they were following the constitution ... oh I see ...
Plato Is Boring
Well-Known Member
So which one of you stoners called into Washington Journal ten minutes ago talking about this very issue?
GrowRebel
Well-Known Member
yeah I read the entire case and it's an example of supression of students expression of free speech ... stupid.
420worshipper
Well-Known Member
Then you obviously haven't read it. The US Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote the following:yeah I read the entire case and it's an example of supression of students expression of free speech ... stupid.
6/25/07 06-278 Morse v. Frederick
<quote>
The chief justice’s reasoning was based in part on two assumptions. First, he disagreed with Frederick’s assertion that the event was not educational in nature simply because the banner was displayed off-campus.
The event in question occurred during normal school hours and was sanctioned by [Principal] Morse as an approved social event at which the district’s student-conduct rules expressly applied. Teachers and administrators were among the students and were charged with supervising them. Frederick stood among other students across the street from the school and directed his banner toward the school, making it plainly visible to most students. Under these circumstances, Frederick cannot claim he was not at school.
Second, the majority concluded that a school may limit student free speech when that speech attempts to undermine the school’s anti-drug policies.Because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick…. …The Court agrees with [Principal] Morse that those who viewed the banner would interpret it as advocating or promoting illegal drug use, in violation of school policy. At least two interpretations of the banner’s words that they constitute an imperative encouraging viewers to smoke marijuana or, alternatively, that they celebrate drug use demonstrate that the sign promoted such use. This pro-drug interpretation gains further plausibility from the paucity of alternative meanings the banner might bear.
Taking these two factors into account, Chief Justice Roberts offered this summary: “A principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.”Justice Thomas wrote a harsher assessment regarding student free speech rights, or the lack thereof:
The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” As this Court has previously observed, the First Amendment was not originally understood to permit all sorts of speech; instead, [t]here are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem….
…In my view, the history of public education suggests that the First Amendment, as originally understood, does not protect student speech in public schools….
…n the earliest public schools, teachers taught, and students listened. Teachers commanded, and students obeyed. Teachers did not rely solely on the power of ideas to persuade; they relied on discipline to maintain order….
…I am afraid that our jurisprudence now says that students have a right to speak in schools except when they don’t-a standard continuously developed through litigation against local schools and their administrators. In my view, petitioners could prevail for a much simpler reason: As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools.
Justice Samuel Samuel Alito offered his own concurring perspective:
</quote>I join the opinion of the Court on the understanding that (a) it goes no further than to hold that a public school may restrict speech that a reasonable observer would interpret as advocating illegal drug use and (b) it provides no support for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue, including speech on issues such as the wisdom of the war on drugs or of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use….
…The opinion of the Court does not endorse the broad argument advanced by petitioners and the United States that the First Amendment permits public school officials to censor any student speech that interferes with a school’s educational mission…. This argument can easily be manipulated in dangerous ways, and I would reject it before such abuse occurs. The “educational mission” of the public schools is defined by the elected and appointed public officials with authority over the schools and by the school administrators and faculty. As a result, some public schools have defined their educational missions as including the inculcation of whatever political and social views are held by the members of these groups.
420worshipper
Well-Known Member
Justice Breyer took a very different tack, falling somewhere between a concurring and dissenting opinion, raising various concerns about the case, but essentially saying the Supreme Court should stay out of this particular debate:
This Court need not and should not decide this difficult First Amendment issue on the merits. Rather, I believe that it should simply hold that qualified immunity bars the student’s claim for monetary damages and say no more…. … One concern is that, while the holding is theoretically limited to speech promoting the use of illegal drugs, it could in fact authorize further viewpoint-based restrictions. Illegal drugs, after all, are not the only illegal substances. What about encouraging the underage consumption of alcohol? Moreover, it is unclear how far the Court’s rule regarding drug advocacy extends. What about a conversation during the lunch period where one student suggests that glaucoma sufferers should smoke marijuana to relieve the pain? What about deprecating commentary about an antidrug film shown in school? And what about drug messages mixed with other, more expressly political, content? If, for example, Frederick’s banner had read “LEGALIZE BONG HiTS,” he might be thought to receive protection from the majority’s rule, which goes to speech encouraging illegal drug use…. But speech advocating change in drug laws might also be perceived of as promoting the disregard of existing drug laws.
The remaining three justices, represented by Justice Stevens, dissented against the ruling:
The remaining three justices, represented by Justice Stevens, dissented against the ruling:
[T]he school’s interest in protecting its students from exposure to speech, reasonably regarded as promoting illegal drug use… cannot justify disciplining Frederick for his attempt to make an ambiguous statement to a television audience simply because it contained an oblique reference to drugs. The First Amendment demands more, indeed, much more….
…In my judgment, the First Amendment protects student speech if the message itself neither violates a permissible rule nor expressly advocates conduct that is illegal and harmful to students. This nonsense banner does neither, and the Court does serious violence to the First Amendment in upholding-indeed, lauding-a school’s decision to punish Frederick for expressing a view with which it disagreed.
…In my judgment, the First Amendment protects student speech if the message itself neither violates a permissible rule nor expressly advocates conduct that is illegal and harmful to students. This nonsense banner does neither, and the Court does serious violence to the First Amendment in upholding-indeed, lauding-a school’s decision to punish Frederick for expressing a view with which it disagreed.
420worshipper
Well-Known Member
And what part of the decision did you not understand...
<QUOTE>
a school may limit student free speech when that speech attempts to undermine the schools anti-drug policies
</QUOTE>
closet.cult
New Member
i don't care if there's a ton of leagalista behind Bush making all the decisions. He, the President, takes the full blame for all his cabinet's and administration's moronic actions and failures.
If he were a greater man and understood the intent of the freedoms granted by the framers of the constitution he would fight for them and not allow these decisions to be made. but he not fighting them, is he? he may be a puppet, but he is benifiting vastly from the strings being pulled and doesn't give a shit about America and or Americans.
The rich don't have to worry because you can actually buy freedom these days. Break the law and you don't have to pay except a little out of your deep pockets. but for avarage citizens, the threat of having your assets frozen is enough to keep them quiet.
goddamn i hate this commie bastard and his regime! what are they doing to this country?! the question is do we sit and watch while we shift into a dictatorship? or do we stand up and protest, with fear of a destroyed livelyhood? or do we pack up and leave this once great nation for places more moderate and rational?
why should we, the people, HAVE TO leave?! WE are supposed to be in control of this nation. if WE don't like what our government is turning into, we are supposed to have the power to change it. so, where are the great, honest leaders to lead this nation back toward it's great principals?!
fuck! i'm moving to canada.
If he were a greater man and understood the intent of the freedoms granted by the framers of the constitution he would fight for them and not allow these decisions to be made. but he not fighting them, is he? he may be a puppet, but he is benifiting vastly from the strings being pulled and doesn't give a shit about America and or Americans.
The rich don't have to worry because you can actually buy freedom these days. Break the law and you don't have to pay except a little out of your deep pockets. but for avarage citizens, the threat of having your assets frozen is enough to keep them quiet.
goddamn i hate this commie bastard and his regime! what are they doing to this country?! the question is do we sit and watch while we shift into a dictatorship? or do we stand up and protest, with fear of a destroyed livelyhood? or do we pack up and leave this once great nation for places more moderate and rational?
why should we, the people, HAVE TO leave?! WE are supposed to be in control of this nation. if WE don't like what our government is turning into, we are supposed to have the power to change it. so, where are the great, honest leaders to lead this nation back toward it's great principals?!
fuck! i'm moving to canada.