The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was barely conscious and could hardly speak even in her prim
Poast new message in this thread
Date: December 3rd, 2021 1:11 AM Author: Fluffy fortuitous meteor She said our legislature sucked because wouldn't it be great if the government could just pass millions of laws all the time and run around being do gooders getting shit done fast and efficiently and grow the government with no checks and balances (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4977710&forum_id=2#43549657) |
Date: December 3rd, 2021 1:23 AM Author: Purple Theater Stage Genital Piercing That's just what libs want. It had nothing to do with her mental decline. Libs just wish we lived in a totalitarian dictatorship where they can do whatever insane lib shit they feel like with no restrictions:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-under-fire-for-expressing-admiration-for-china-s-basic-dictatorship-1.1535116 |
 |
Date: December 3rd, 2021 1:32 AM Author: Fluffy fortuitous meteor This dictatorship exists it's called England
Which ironically, England ruled over Canada until 1983 when Canada decided they wanted to be their OWN dictatorship |
|
Date: December 3rd, 2021 4:03 AM Author: Purple Theater Stage Genital Piercing Pretty sure it was 1867, champ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4977710&forum_id=2#43549949) |
|
Date: December 3rd, 2021 1:34 AM Author: Curious Jap House tbf the original justification for bicameralism vanished when we ratified the 17th amendment and required elections for senators. The justifications we have for it now are all post hoc. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4977710&forum_id=2#43549755) |
|
Date: December 3rd, 2021 1:36 AM Author: Fluffy fortuitous meteor I am a huge anti 17th amendmentmo and have railed against it here many times (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4977710&forum_id=2#43549764) |
|
Date: December 3rd, 2021 1:42 AM Author: Curious Jap House 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4977710&forum_id=2#43549768) |
|
Date: December 3rd, 2021 1:47 AM Author: Fluffy fortuitous meteor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0utJAu_iG4
This is pretty deranged.
Ruth is rambling about the Rights of Man, a founding document from the 1st French Republic. Hey Ruth, that's not our country and you shouldn't cite it!
God she's such a fag.
Also saying 1st amendment doesn't guarantee free speech. Yeah, this is how we got to this statist nightmare. |
|
Date: December 3rd, 2021 1:53 AM Author: Fluffy fortuitous meteor "Americans didn't have the right to Free Speech until the First World War" - Ruth Bader Ginsburg
with scholarship like this who can deny her towering intellect |
|
Date: December 3rd, 2021 1:55 AM Author: Diverse mewling property (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4977710&forum_id=2#43549787) |
|
Date: December 3rd, 2021 2:08 AM Author: Fluffy fortuitous meteor I looked it up she was right. Lmao.
Free Speech at the state level came about in 1931
Jfc |
|
Date: December 3rd, 2021 10:28 AM Author: Diverse mewling property Holy shit, thought there was nothing to this. I feel kind of dumb now. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4977710&forum_id=2#43550810) |
|
Date: December 3rd, 2021 10:35 AM Author: Fluffy fortuitous meteor Same. This is one of the most little known historical facts and complete fraudlies they don't tell you this in high school.
In the 1870s some blacks were protesting getting murdered by the Klan in Louisiana and it went to the Supreme Court and the court was like, nah, nah you don't have any first amendment or second amendment rights at the state level.
What they don't tell you is that prior to the 20s and 30s the US was a loose confederation of states and the Bill of Rights was there because the Framers feared centralized power.
But they believed completely that states could do whatever the hell they wanted with almost no limitations. Federal law was extremely minimal and really only served for national defense. The idea that federal law applied to the states was insane at the time.
In the 20s and 30s the Supreme Court changed everything, with the same 14th Amendment due process clause that was used in Rowe v Wade. The SCOTUS pulled out of their ass that suddenly the Bill of Rights applied to everyone at the state and federal level and changed everything for everyone.
This is also why the federal right to bear arms does not apply to the states beyond self defense in your own home and a state like New Jersey can effectively ban all firearms in public. |
|
Date: December 3rd, 2021 10:45 AM Author: Diverse mewling property If the fed gov was effectively national defense + guarantor of general basic liberties like 1st and 2nd amendment I'd be good with that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4977710&forum_id=2#43550919) |
|
Date: December 3rd, 2021 10:56 AM Author: Fluffy fortuitous meteor The federal government was never supposed to guarantee the 1st or 2nd amendment.
All of your rights derived from your state legislature.
States could do anything they wanted to do. They could ban abortion, they could lock everyone up for protesting, they could ban guns everywhere.
But the states didn't do that, mostly. They were mostly free because the people of those states elected legislatures that were pro freedom. The people of the states wanted freedom, but were nowhere required to do so.
The Bill of Rights only protected the people from the federal government. Congress could not come after you for free speech or bearing arms or invoking the right to remain silent, and this is what the Framers were terrified of: centralized, federal power.
They had nothing to say about an individual state doing whatever the hell they wanted, if that was the will of the people of that state.
Congress was there to fund wars and annex territory and prosecute crimes against the nation. Not much else. The Attorney General was a part time employee and the only employee of the Justice Department. |
|
Date: December 3rd, 2021 11:24 AM Author: Diverse mewling property Yeah, but I don't mind the fed gov setting some bare minimum standards for freedom (no, the state can't ban speech it doesn't like, no, CA/NY/NJ can't really ban guns, etc.). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4977710&forum_id=2#43551192) |
|
Date: December 3rd, 2021 12:08 PM Author: Fluffy fortuitous meteor But NJ can ban guns. And Louisana banned free speech in the 1870s (overturned by Due Process in 1931).
And even Scalia upheld the gun ban.
Scalia wrote the majority opinion in DC vs Heller which said that the right to bear arms extends only to people defending themselves inside their own homes, and less this the state may ban arms in public places. This is current stare stare decisis.
I guess there's theoretical loophole in the event that a regular militia forms for a legitimate purpose such as fighting a tyrannical federal army, a foreign invasion, or a rogue state/junta, that states could not prohibit.
1A law seems to change based on the times, too. Obviously no problem with 1A applying to the states, but if we go by hardcore originalism this definitely was not true in 1789.
As an aside I wonder if the well regulated militia preface could be applied to citizens defending themselves against rioting and looting. Would be a 180 expansion of the scope of this provision. |
|
Date: December 3rd, 2021 2:12 AM Author: Scarlet Pungent Locus they literally photoshopped a photo of her "officiating" some jew wedding as "proof" she was alive and well. it was hilariously bad. you could run the image through software that detects manipulation and "ruth" lit up like a christmas tree (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4977710&forum_id=2#43549808) |
|
Date: December 3rd, 2021 10:29 AM Author: amber national security agency She wasn't a bad looking woman back in the day. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4977710&forum_id=2#43550814) |