Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 06:13:33 -0000 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 258 Sender: Jim Pennino Message-ID: References: <1s54dc-n1.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <3af4dc-0v.ln1@mail.specsol.com> Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="db4120ef82bbc153014637d4cd15a795"; logging-data="16947"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19D+ypKpKFm9xWuo40lxvZ5" User-Agent: tin/2.2.1-20140504 ("Tober an Righ") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.10 (i86pc)) Cancel-Lock: sha1:lth+JMsHbdVCk778YWq1ButSxYI= Xref: csiph.com rec.arts.sf.written:423304 sci.physics:522461 sci.physics.relativity:364825 rec.arts.tv:937292 In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman wrote: > wrote: >>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>> wrote: >>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article , >>>>>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > In article , >>>>>>>>>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Not quite, for instead of some convoluted interpretation >>>>>>>>of the RICO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> act, the charge would be something along the lines of >>>>conspiracy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> to deprive constitutional rights. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > By doing nothing more than saying stuff that's unpopular. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The Court would have to overturn almost 200+ years of 1st >>>>>>>>Amendment >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > jurisprudence to uphold the notion that the state can >>>>>>validly hold >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > people criminally liable for deprivation of civil rights >>>>>>>>merely for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > saying "bad" stuff. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That would highly depend on exactly who said what and to whom. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. >>>>>>>>This is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary course in a free society. The response to the >>>>>>>>>>unreasoned is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the >>>>>>>>straight-out lie, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simple truth. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, >>>>>>377 (1927) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Brandeis, J., concurring) ("If there be time to expose through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the >>evil by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more >>>>>>speech, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforced silence"). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The theory of our Constitution is "that the best test of >>>>>>truth is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> power of the thought to get itself accepted in the >>>>>>competition of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> market," Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919) >>>>>>>>>>(Holmes, J., >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dissenting). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 1st Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to >>>>>>speech we do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought >>>>>>>>flows not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable >>>>>>>>>>rights of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person. And suppression of speech by the government can make >>>>>>>>>>exposure of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right >>>>>>and civic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These >>>>>>>>ends are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public >>>>>>>>discussion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through content-based mandates. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. vs. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2550 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if >>>>>>>>lying is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an option? Even if untruthful speech were not valuable for its >>>>>>>>>>own sake, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its protection is clearly required to give breathing room to >>>>>>truthful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-expression, which is unequivocally protected by the First >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amendment." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> United States v. Alvarez, 638 F.3d 666, 675 (9th Cir. 2011) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The person doing the tipping in an insider trading case >>who does no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>trading can be prosecuted even though the tipster has done nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but speak. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Under United States Code Title 18, Section 871 a person can be >>>>>>>>prosecuted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>for nothing more than speech. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You made me look it up. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not just any speech; it has to be mailed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18 U.S.C. Sec. 871 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Threats against President and successors to the Presidency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in >>>>>>>>the mail or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier >>>>>>any letter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any >>>>>>>>threat to take >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the >>President >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice >>>>President or other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> officer next in the order of succession to the office of >>>>>>>>President of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and >>>>willfully >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise makes any such threat against the President, >>>>>>President-elect, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vice President or other officer next in the order of >>>>succession to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined >>>>>>under this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope; "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I hate statutory construction. You sure that's not meant to >>>>broaden out >>>>>>>>>>>>> what was being threatened, instead of relating to mailing? >>If that was >>>>>>>>>>>>> meant to be any threat, what the hell is the point of addressing >>>>>>>>>>>>> the issue of mailing it in the first place? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>As people HAVE been convicted for what they said, but not mailed, yes. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>As to why it was worded that way, likely because when it was enacted >>>>>>>>>>>>in 1917 mail was a common form of communications. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You're missing my point: If it's a criminal threat in ANY method of >>>>>>>>>>> communication, then there's no purpose in mentioning the mails >>>>at all. The >>>>>>>>>>> statute would attempt to make the letter illegal before it's >>mailed the >>>>>>>>>>> moment ink is on paper. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>You're missing my point: How that hell would anyone know what >>the thinking >>>>>>>>>>was behind the wording 98 years later other than making a guess? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Try reading the words for comprehension, like anything else. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Bullshit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If it were that simple there would be no court cases attempting to >>>>>>>>determine the intent of the original authors, and there have been >>>>>>>>a LOT of those. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>An excellent example is the amount of effort in determining the intent >>>>>>>>of the framers in "A well regulated Militia". >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The words "well regulated" and militia had far different meanings 230 >>>>>>>>years ago. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, they didn't. It's merely an old-fashioned term. It had a legal >>meaning, >>>>>>> and quite a bit of discussion from Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29 >>>>>> >>>>>>If it was cut and dry why any discussion at all? >>>>> >>>>> The meaning of "well-regulated militia" wasn't the controversial part of >>>>> the amendment. The legal controversy was whether "the right to bear arms" >>>>> had to be read together with "well-regulated militia". It really was a >>>>> case of poorly executed legal drafting, sorry, Mr. Madison. >>>> >>>>So thus we have come full circle, through a long and arduous path, to >>>>intent of the author. >>>> >>>>Q.E.D. >>> >>> I'm sorry, but the intent of the author doesn't mean shit. Clearly, >>> Scalia ignored it, paid attention to what he could make of the >>> language instead in the Heller decision. >> >>And what does all this have to do with my original statement that >>courts having to determine the intent of the author is not a rare >>thing? > > It means EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. The "well-regulated militia" phrase > refers to the militia clauses in the main body of the Constitution; that's > not controversial either. Madison's intent was to link the right of the > people to keep and bear arms to the formation of the militia, without > addressing the keeping and bearing of arms for any other purpose. > > But that ain't what he wrote, is it. It's critical to convey meaning > when drafting legislation; the Second Amendment was a failure due to > its ambiguity. Thanks to Scalia's opinion in Heller, it's no longer ambiguous. Your fixation on the 2nd Amendment and it's interpretation has already been noted. >>Take carefull note that in this I said "courts", NOT Supreme Court >>nor did I offer a particular case involing the 2nd Amendment as >>anything other than one fairly well known example and NOT an exhaustive >>list of such cases. > > It doesn't matter if it's at trial court or appellate court level. The > judge says what the law is. Legislative intent can come up at trial. Good. I'm glad you agree with me. > In fact, both sides are usually required to make all arguments at trial > in order to have something to appeal if the trial judge rules against their > side. Senate and House committees often include guidance to courts that > they call "legislative intent", written at the direction of the committee > chairman and not necessarily the opinion of the member of Congress or > Senator that actually drafted the language. It's not precedent and > it can certainly be ignored. Sometimes it discusses aspects of the law > that never made it into the actual bill. > > They're legislators. If they wanted the law interpreted in a specific > manner, it had to be drafted in the legislation itself; opinions that > "Apply provision A in these circumstances but not in the following > circumstances" stated as legislative intent don't actually guide courts. > I have no idea when Congress started issuing "intent" to guide courts; > I suppose in the 1930s. My state legislature doesn't do anything like that. > > The more traditional way of determining legislative intent is to read > arguments in support and oppose made on the floor and possibly in committee. > You may have to look for debate on the provision from a previous session, > given how common it is that provisions from bills that died get > reintroduced in identical language in subsequent sessions. Your fixation on Federal law is noted. >>I'm sure with a bit of digging I can find a case where the intent of >>the author was subject to interpretation in a traffic case. That you ramble on and on about Federal law and totally ignore the last sentence is noted. -- Jim Pennino