[kia252]

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

Get. Over. It.

I'm calling you a liar because you are. You say how nice and polite you are and then proceed to spew insults in the very same breath. You are NO position to lecture me about how bad name calling is so just put that stone down lest you shatter the house.

I am not taking it personally, I'm just saying it's a bad argument. That's your burden to bear, not mine.
Like always, you attribute an argument never made. I CAN politely debate with an opponent that shows some respect to his opponents, respect that you lack and has lead me to feel I do not have to be polite to you. Nowhere did I say I was nice. Criticism of your argumentative tactics is just as permissible as your arguments.

I don't want to hear what SOME people think, I want to hear your own justification. This reeks of shamelessly fence sitting so as to avoid the risk of being called out.

But I'm not arguing for or against these points, because that's not my point. I made the claim that most people do not believe their positions are unconstitutional, not that I endorse any of these. I do have opinions on all of these, but that is not the debate. This reeks of attempting to shift the debate to an indefensible ground that I did not promote so you can pretend I support any manner of reprehensible things.

Then you don't deny that it is a violation? As for what "some" think, do I even need to get out the Ben Franklin quote?

I know the whole "deserves neither" bit. Good thing the point is not to endorse a side, but to show both believe a constitutional basis for their argument.

How about this question then? Why did prohibition require a constitutional amendment (which was later retracted) yet the war on drugs did not?

I don't know of any case that struck down prohibition acts as unconstitutional, even after some research. I think they just jumped straight to an amendment because they could, not because it was required.

Those things are not expressing opinions and thus have nothing to do with freedom of speech. That's lame excuse making.

Constitutional rights are not subject to public whims. Even if everyone in America was in favor of slavery, it would still be unconstitutional. The whole idea behind a republic is that everyone's rights are inherrent and nobody gets a say otherwise. It's called the rule of law, look it up.

I don't think your contentions even really oppose what I said as much as you might think. Supreme Court cases have upheld that some speech, like obscenity, is not protected, which you seem to agree with. My second point was anything broadcast on the electronic spectrum is inherently interstate commerce and can be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause. I am saying those are the constitutional grounds for censorship that have been upheld, particularly the FCC. Oh, and the public nature of broadcasting doesn't really have anything to do with it, that was an unnecessary extension of the precedent on my part.

Measures that have all proven to be completely ineffective at stopping gun crime because criminals just simply don't obey them. (Not making this up. Criminals interviewed have said this themselves) The honor system does not impede the dishonorable.

That's not a matter of constitutionality, but of effectiveness.

You're not alone in that, but you're also dead wrong.

In states where it's illegal, you could go out tonight and rob and/or rape a prostitute and I guarantee you that you will get off scott free. Why? Because she can't report you. If she does, she'll be the one going to jail. Explain to me how this maintains public order? It's a BS, feel good law with no rational thought behind it.

The rational thought: If you take out the money part, isn't it nothing more than sex between two consenting adults? Why is it illegal to sell something that's 100% legal to give away for free? It makes no sense whatsoever.

That's not a matter of constitutionality, but of rationality. I am not wrong, because the assertion is that those are the reasons states have outlawed prostitution, and the reasons are constitutional even if they may not be rational.

Only because you fail to understand the concept of rule of law. Like I said, these are inherrent rights not subject to the whims of politicians or the public. To allow such is to invite tyranny.

I've noticed that that you hacked of the part of the paragraph that denies your claim. The rule of law says that we don't get dismiss opposition arguments as unconstitutional at a whim or behest of popular opinion, but that it must be decided by the Supreme Court what is and is not in line with constitutional law. If you want to claim that the Constitution is a good thing, I don't see how you can deny that such a role is, indeed, reserved solely to the Supreme Court.

Let me know when you're done yelling at strawmen, and want to debate my points.