- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: NYC passes law: $250,000 fine for saying “illegal alien” outloud
Posted on 9/29/19 at 1:44 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 9/29/19 at 1:44 pm to AggieHank86
Cite your best case to support the constitutionality of this ordinance.
2
Posted on 9/29/19 at 1:45 pm to DeusVultMachina
No way to prove it of course, but I have often said that if the authors of the Constitution could see how some of these so called "judges" have twisted the meaning of what they wrote, they would hang said "judges" from the nearest tree.
Posted on 9/29/19 at 1:49 pm to troyt37
quote:This is really the crux of the issue, isn’t it? You argue the constitution, but insist that the views of the ultimate arbiter of that document have no relevance.
Maybe I am the moron here, but I don’t give a rats arse about what the Supreme Court finds Constitutional. If the City of New York has given themselves permission to fine people for calling someone an illegal immigrant, threatening to call ICE, whatever, it’s unconstitutional. Black and white. No probably. No possibly. Unconstitutional.
And you get angry with me for acknowledging that their rulings ARE relevant, regardless of whether I agree with them.
I am sorry, but I see both of those views as being quite silly.
Posted on 9/29/19 at 1:53 pm to SOKAL
quote:
Cite your best case to support the constitutionality of this ordinance.
Looks like it violates free speech to me.
Posted on 9/29/19 at 1:55 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
This is really the crux of the issue, isn’t it? You argue the constitution, but insist that the views of the ultimate arbiter of that document have no relevance.
And you get angry with me for acknowledging that their rulings ARE relevant, regardless of whether I agree with them.
I am sorry, but I see both of those views as being quite silly.
I’m sure you do. Wait and see how silly you think it is when shitbags like you are successful in destroying the rule of law for real Americans, and we decide it it time to fix what is wrong in this country. Hint: one of those things will be judicial activism, and finding gray areas in plain text, which allows you to apply your agenda. Silly will be an understatement. Folks like you will be laughing yourself to death.
Posted on 9/29/19 at 2:05 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
you have now convinced yourself that I took a position that the ordinances themselves were all constitutional
This is brazenly false
fricking troll
Posted on 9/29/19 at 2:14 pm to SOKAL
quote:you have not given me nearly enough information.
Cite your best case to support the constitutionality of this ordinance.
What portion of NYC title eight has allegedly been violated? Employment? Housing?
What specific action is alleged to have been a violation of that ordinance? Simply calling someone “an illegal alien?“
Posted on 9/29/19 at 2:33 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:”What” violates free speech?quote:.Looks like it violates free speech to me.
Cite your best case to support the constitutionality of this ordinance
The ordinances say that you cannot discriminate against someone in various listed contexts because you think he is an illegal alien.
The application memo seems to suggest that you cannot even call someone an “illegal alien” if you are doing so to be “mean.”
Rather different concepts.
Posted on 9/29/19 at 2:50 pm to BigJim
quote:You are being sarcastic, but I bet they already are filing motions
I am sure the modern ACLU will be all over this.
Posted on 9/29/19 at 4:04 pm to cokebottleag
More evidence of liberals wasting tax payer money with garbage legislation
Posted on 9/29/19 at 4:37 pm to cokebottleag
Illegal alien.
See, nothing happened.
Gfy, NY.
See, nothing happened.
Gfy, NY.
Posted on 9/29/19 at 4:49 pm to cokebottleag
Yep it's time to move out of here and back to Arkansas. Cant happen soon enough, frick NYC.
Posted on 9/29/19 at 5:17 pm to cokebottleag
Freedom of speech? WTF!
Posted on 9/29/19 at 5:48 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Because I recognize that the process of Constitutional interpretation is not a black/white matter?
quote:Not odd for people that know what the 1A is for.
What an odd world view.
Posted on 9/29/19 at 5:51 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Faux contrarian. That's why he gets angry when called out for it. It's a (tired) schtick. I don't think anyone believes it anymore.
He's just a contrarian. He'll argue with a dead fly. The sad part is he gets angry when confronted about it.
Posted on 9/29/19 at 5:56 pm to antibarner
quote:I'm old enough to remember when democrats (back when they were all about wild liberalism) were the ones defending the KKK's rights to operate. "I disagree with you, but I'll defend your right to say it."
It isn't even unconstitutional nor illegal to be an actual White Supremacist.
I miss those f*ckers. Now the left are all more puritanical than the religious right ever were.
Posted on 9/29/19 at 6:37 pm to cokebottleag
$250,000 for saing illegal alien? Like this is the most egregious, pressing problem in NYC?
I would LOVE to know what the penalty is for littering or taking a crap on the sidewalk.
I would LOVE to know what the penalty is for littering or taking a crap on the sidewalk.
Posted on 9/29/19 at 6:42 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
AggieHank86
I can't help but notice that after you lied and claimed I was trying to good you into supporting the ordinance, you STILL haven't articulated why it was possible it is constitutional
He did make some lame swipe about how such things are decided but that argument goes to s*** since you already took a strong position regarding the Deblasio's position on the ordinance
As per usual you're trying to have it both ways.
this is one of those threads Hank where you earned the reputation you have
Posted on 9/29/19 at 7:01 pm to ShortyRob
quote:Shorty, try not to be so disingenuous. I’ve answered the question three times. Now, I suppose, I will answer it for the fourth time.
I can't help but notice that after you lied and claimed I was trying to good you into supporting the ordinance, you STILL haven't articulated why it was possible it is constitutional
The ordinances in question are essentially very generic protected class statutes. I linked Article 8 of the NYC code in its entirety. The Supreme Court has addressed similar statutes dozens of times over the last 40 or 50 years. They are routinely upheld, and there is absolutely no reason to think that these ordinances would be treated any differently than the statutes which have repeatedly been upheld.
Do I now need to explain this a fifth time?
This post was edited on 9/29/19 at 7:08 pm
Posted on 9/29/19 at 7:04 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:Which you clearly understand better than some 50 years or more of supreme court precedent. OK.quote:Not odd for people that know what the 1A is for.
What an odd world view.
This post was edited on 9/29/19 at 8:31 pm
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News