Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Abridged has multiple meanings if you look in the dictionary.

Not to mention the fact that five minutes of research will show you that the courts have upheld the constitutionality of protest permits.

Is it just me or does a google search for "abridge" cause a server error?

I've noticed this with other searches as well.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Ahtman wrote:So if it doesn't specifically say "right to enjoy a park" then the Constitution can't have a say? It also never specifically says you have the right to breathe oxygen in those specific terms either.

YES, dude. This is how the constitution works. If you have an EXPLICIT RIGHT granted by the constitution, it comes first. End of discussion. If the exercise of a right explicitly provided by the constitution conflicts with a fake right like "enjoying a park" that's not actually written into law anywhere, the explicit right definitely wins.

You could have just said right off the bat you don't really understand Constitutional Law and saved us all a lot of time you know.

Monster Rain wrote:Not to mention the fact that five minutes of research will show you that the courts have upheld the constitutionality of protest permits.

They also held up dredd scott and plessy v Ferguson, that didn't make them right. I disagree with those rulings, while accepting that they are the law at this moment.

I firmly hold that protest permits are unconstitutional in the majority of the places they are used. They're a good idea at the core, but their application is not constitutional.

Monster Rain wrote:Not to mention the fact that five minutes of research will show you that the courts have upheld the constitutionality of protest permits.

But, the Supreme Court upheld Slavery when it was Constitutional therefor the Supreme Court is evil and doesn't have the right to say that Protest Permits are Constitutional.

Ahtman wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Ahtman wrote:So if it doesn't specifically say "right to enjoy a park" then the Constitution can't have a say? It also never specifically says you have the right to breathe oxygen in those specific terms either.

YES, dude. This is how the constitution works. If you have an EXPLICIT RIGHT granted by the constitution, it comes first. End of discussion. If the exercise of a right explicitly provided by the constitution conflicts with a fake right like "enjoying a park" that's not actually written into law anywhere, the explicit right definitely wins.

You could have just said right off the bat you don't really understand Constitutional Law and saved us all a lot of time you know.

How am I wrong in the post you quoted? Are you saying that a non-right can beat an actual explicit right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Not to mention the fact that five minutes of research will show you that the courts have upheld the constitutionality of protest permits.

But, the Supreme Court upheld Slavery when it was Constitutional therefor the Supreme Court is evil and doesn't have the right to say that Protest Permits are Constitutional.

You keep straw manning me like this and I'll be nasty right back.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Not to mention the fact that five minutes of research will show you that the courts have upheld the constitutionality of protest permits.

They also held up dredd scott and plessy v Ferguson, that didn't make them right. I disagree with those rulings, while accepting that they are the law at this moment.

You realize that disagreeing with something doesn't make it "unconstitutional" right?

Rented Tritium wrote:I firmly hold that protest permits are unconstitutional in the majority of the places they are used. They're a good idea at the core, but their application is not constitutional.

Your firmly held position is incorrect.

Monster Rain wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Not to mention the fact that five minutes of research will show you that the courts have upheld the constitutionality of protest permits.

They also held up dredd scott and plessy v Ferguson, that didn't make them right. I disagree with those rulings, while accepting that they are the law at this moment.

You realize that disagreeing with something doesn't make it "unconstitutional" right?

Rented Tritium wrote:I firmly hold that protest permits are unconstitutional in the majority of the places they are used. They're a good idea at the core, but their application is not constitutional.

Your firmly held position is incorrect.

Are you ever going to actually post a position and argue it or are you going to just keep popping in with contentless quips?

The explicit right says that the government can't deprive people of the right to protest or assemble. The explicit right doesn't say that the government can't make people be orderly about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:
You keep straw manning me like this and I'll be nasty right back.

Don't know, your "caps lock" bursts were kind of nasty.

halonachos wrote:The explicit right says that the government can't deprive people of the right to protest or assemble. The explicit right doesn't say that the government can't make people be orderly about it.

It doesn't say can't deprive, it says can't abridge.

And again, do you know what abridge means? Spoiler alert: It doesn't mean take away

Rented Tritium wrote:Are you ever going to actually post a position and argue it or are you going to just keep popping in with contentless quips?

Now who is failing to parse?

My position, since I need to spell it out, is that protest permits are Constitutional and that your idea that they aren't is profoundly incorrect. I don't know how you could have missed that.

Too bad it can mean to take away because it can also mean "curtail".

dictionary wrote:a·bridge   /əˈbrɪdʒ/ Show Spelled[uh-brij] Show IPA
verb (used with object), a·bridged, a·bridg·ing.
1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.
2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
3. to deprive; cut off.

I have become quite adept in using various definitions in my arguments and I know that some words can have multiple meanings based on context. Just because you see only one definition as fit doesn't mean I can't use the other one.

halonachos wrote:Too bad it can mean to take away because it can also mean "curtail".

Maybe you should look up "curtail" now


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If your position is that the first amendment only stops the government from taking away your ENTIRE right to speech and that it's fine as long as they leave a tiny sliver intact, then we are definitely not going to get anywhere. That is crazytown.

Or maybe you could read the third use of the word "abridge". You know that part that says "to deprive; cut off".

No seriously, forget the definitions. You think that the government is allowed to take away all but the last sliver of your free speech and it's constitutional as long as they didn't take it ALL away. You think the first amendment stops the government from completely shutting off free speech, but DOESN'T stop it from restricting free speech.

Because that's what your position is if you use those other definitions of those words.

If that's really your position, I am done arguing. Our premises are SO FAR APART here that it's just not going to go anywhere.

Rented Tritium wrote:That is crazytown.

Unlike the idea that you have complete and unrestricted freedom of speech, you mean?

Monster Rain wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:That is crazytown.

Unlike the idea that you have complete and unrestricted freedom of speech, you mean?

Unironically yes.

Monster Rain wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:That is crazytown.

Unlike the idea that you have complete and unrestricted freedom of speech, you mean?

I guess you have freedom of speech so long as you aren't a resident of "crazytown".

Rented Tritium wrote:How am I wrong in the post you quoted? Are you saying that a non-right can beat an actual explicit right?

Neither of those are explicitly mentioned, but you feel like one is a right becuase it flows from amendments you like and you like the idea. You don't give the other argument the same consideration, that it may be enshrined in other ways not literal. You'll find the word "oxygen" never comes up in the Constitution and neither does the word "park".

Though if it makes you feel better:

Ahtman wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:How am I wrong in the post you quoted? Are you saying that a non-right can beat an actual explicit right?

Neither of those are explicitly mentioned, but you feel like one is a right becuase it flows from amendments you like and you like the idea. You don't give the other argument the same consideration, that it may be enshrined in other ways not literal. You'll find the word "oxygen" never comes up in the Constitution and neither does the word "park".

Though if it makes you feel better:

Spoiler:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2)

Oh snap, that spoiler is a countdown.

Ahtman wrote:
Though if it makes you feel better:

Spoiler:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2)

And you think this is allowed to override the first amendment whenever they feel like it?

No. This article is how it's ok to want permits if you're going to block a road. Needful is the key word here.

In regard to government property, why wouldn't it?

It's right there in the Constitution. Or are some parts of the Constitution more "Constitutiony" than others?

Rented Tritium wrote:
If that's really your position, I am done arguing. Our premises are SO FAR APART here that it's just not going to go anywhere.

Ah, I see we're at the stage of "capitalization makes us correct."

Its a part of the Constitution, an explicit part of the Constitution.

Monster Rain wrote:In regard to government property, why wouldn't it?

It's right there in the Constitution. Or are some parts of the Constitution more "Constitutiony" than others?

Yep. The articles give a power, the amendments define that power's boundary. Otherwise it would be perfectly logical to use that article as justification to undo all of the amendments whenever you are on government land.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
Though if it makes you feel better:

Spoiler:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2)

And you think this is allowed to override the first amendment whenever they feel like it?

No. This article is how it's ok to want permits if you're going to block a road. Needful is the key word here.

Or a government owned piece of property, like a government owned park for example.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:In regard to government property, why wouldn't it?

It's right there in the Constitution. Or are some parts of the Constitution more "Constitutiony" than others?

Yep. The articles give a power, the amendments define that power's boundary.

Again we are back to your understanding of Constitutional Law (though perhaps just Law would suffice) and how you could have saved us all a bunch of time.

So it would be legal for congress to make a law allowing slavery on public land, since article IV says they can make the rules on public land.

Cause that's what you're inadvertently implying here.

Rented Tritium wrote:So it would be legal for congress to make a law allowing slavery on public land, since article IV says they can make the rules on public land.

Cause that's what you're inadvertently implying here.

It depends on whether or not the Court upheld the law.