John Kerry Says First Amendment is a Major Roadblock for Government

originally posted by: argentus

That's not what Kerry wants. He wants to recreate the Thought Police to determine that which is truth and that which is not, and to punish those who don't align with his holy view.

Are you trying to tell me that you're not in his camp? That you wholly support freedom of speech? If so, I will apologize.

This thing called the internet, and social media really pisses off people like Kerry. In the past, they would lie their asses off and there was no one there to question them on anything. They also would do whatever the F they wanted with once again no checks and balances. They have been doing this crap for so long that it is all a norm to them. I remember when Pelosi sold a ton of stock 3 days before Congress came down with a hammer and when asked she was like...what the hell are you talking about I just sold stock...lol

a reply to: chr0naut

Appreciate your response, and there are a few things
we agree on. However, you are willing to give too much
credit to the intentions of those emperor lap dogs.

To quote you here:

An example of the doublethink of US citizens, they believe that the Constitution is the supreme and overriding determinant of law, but there are multiple examples, even in the last decade, where the Constitution is countered by other new Federal statute on multiple fronts. Such as;
- FISA courts.
- NSA/CIA/FBI surveillance of citizens who are not felons.
- Whistle-blower prosecutions (even of non-residents/non-nationals).
- Military courts being used against non-military citizens.

The problem here is not US Citizens, the problem is those
violating The Constitution. And Kerry wants more of that.

He wants to be able to delete information, censor people,
and likely shut down a website like X. Before Elon bought
it the Government had nearly full control there to ban
topics, ban people, shadow ban posts etc.

The idea that people can go on X and just say what
they want about politics is just too harmful to the
regime in power. Kerry is not alone, he just said
the quiet part out loud, thinking that people would
not understand the real meaning of his words.

a reply to: xuenchen

John Kerry is a stumbling block for pretty much everything.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: Annee
Person with mind of their own — votes to elect person that best represents them.

Hey Annee, hope all is well with you and yours.

I am curious as to what your opinion would be in regards to lowering the voting age.

Let's say it was proposed that you must be at least 12 years old to vote.

Opinion?

IMO — legal adult should be 18 “across the board”.

John Kerry is a typical globalist, what he wants for the people is not necessary what he wants for himself as a member of the elite.

a reply to: marg6043

Well said, and like many globalists, he believes that which he thinks trumps all other views, that what he thinks is more important and more applicable to the global situation that our minor, great-unwashed thoughts of everyday people. If only Kerry could be uber-wealthy, then he could truly rule the world and usher us into a new age where we didn't have to think and didn't have to work any more.

a reply to: argentus

He, he, the wet dreams of globalist, dictate what the rest of the slaves out to do while they seat in the palaces collecting the profits from force label.

No wonder globalist hates US constitution.

originally posted by: Annee
IMO — legal adult should be 18 “across the board”.

Could you please elaborate just a little bit on why someone under the age of 18, in your opinion, should not legally be allowed to vote?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: coldisbest118
so your reply is to not rebuke me with facts but to just say nu uh not true.

what are you even on about bro? That makes no sense how am i admitting to myself that people are likely to give little regard to that i say?

yes you are right %100 in the fact that all truth and importance are at the same level of pointless babble.
Its up to the individual to distinguish the right from wrong and make up their own mind on things, no single person has the whole truth.

Look at history, all of history is filled with what you would call pointless babble but was once considered truth and to be of great importance.

I was making a point on how little you know of the first amendment. i can in fact say what i want when i want and the government cannot do a thing about it.

a reply to: chr0naut

But the 1st Amendment is brief and written in plain English, in which I am fluent. I have no deficit in understanding of what the 1st Amendment says. It is as plain and clear. However, I wonder if you are actually reading the wording of the 1st, but are instead inferring into it things it just does not say.

I don't question how fluent you are in English, as you are clearly capable of reading and writing it. I will question your understanding of law and how it works. There are "exceptions" to free speech that have been litigated and examined for 100s of years that almost always boil down to someone doing an illegal act that happens to use speech. Times v Sullivan is the most problematic ruling, in my opinion, when it comes to issues with the first amendment and it hasn't really been challenged since the early 1990s when the decision was made. I know there are some rich podcasters that have current cases hoping to strike that ruling down. Nothing is perfect, not the first amendment, not the constitution, not even John Kerry (that might trigger blasphemy laws if Anniee was in charge), but the first amendment is so infinitely better for people than not having it.

As far as quoting the Bible, everything you quoted, outside of blasphemy laws, is covered under perjury laws.

You clearly have little understanding of the first amendment and no idea how the law works in the USA.

The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech may be exercised in a direct (words) or a symbolic (actions) way.'

The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress.Furthermore, the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.

Generally, a person cannot be held liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion and such statements.
The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence.

Despite the popular misunderstanding, the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.

You clearly have little understanding of the first amendment and no idea how the law works in the USA.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

now that i have proved that your claims a null and void will you admit you were wrong about the first amendment?
or will you persist and just say nu uh you are wrong while providing no evidence or even a explanation as you have done twice now.

www.law.cornell.edu...
constitution.congress.gov...
a reply to: chr0naut

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.[1] It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law.[2] However, federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution;[3] that is, they must be pursuant to the federal government's enumerated powers, and not violate other constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Bill of Rights—of particular interest is the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that the federal government has only those powers that are delegated to it by the Constitution.[4] It is the responsibility of the United States Supreme Court in that case to exercise the power of judicial review: the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution.

the law of the land.

you are right that it doesn't grant rights it upholds them and prevents the government from trampling them.

wow so you have no clue what you are talking about as you have never studied or even been to the USA and yet claim to know more about its laws then a USA citizen that has.

the government violating the constitution does not make it invalid. it just means that the American people are allowing the government to violate their rights as citizens.
the supreme court should have done their job by now and stopped the violations

you are also right that many Americans are indoctrinated, they have been lead to believe that the constitution is wrong and that the government knows whats right and wrong.

a reply to: chr0naut

originally posted by: BigDuckEnergy

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: coldisbest118
so your reply is to not rebuke me with facts but to just say nu uh not true.

what are you even on about bro? That makes no sense how am i admitting to myself that people are likely to give little regard to that i say?

yes you are right %100 in the fact that all truth and importance are at the same level of pointless babble.
Its up to the individual to distinguish the right from wrong and make up their own mind on things, no single person has the whole truth.

Look at history, all of history is filled with what you would call pointless babble but was once considered truth and to be of great importance.

I was making a point on how little you know of the first amendment. i can in fact say what i want when i want and the government cannot do a thing about it.

a reply to: chr0naut

But the 1st Amendment is brief and written in plain English, in which I am fluent. I have no deficit in understanding of what the 1st Amendment says. It is as plain and clear. However, I wonder if you are actually reading the wording of the 1st, but are instead inferring into it things it just does not say.

I don't question how fluent you are in English, as you are clearly capable of reading and writing it. I will question your understanding of law and how it works. There are "exceptions" to free speech that have been litigated and examined for 100s of years that almost always boil down to someone doing an illegal act that happens to use speech. Times v Sullivan is the most problematic ruling, in my opinion, when it comes to issues with the first amendment and it hasn't really been challenged since the early 1990s when the decision was made. I know there are some rich podcasters that have current cases hoping to strike that ruling down. Nothing is perfect, not the first amendment, not the constitution, not even John Kerry (that might trigger blasphemy laws if Anniee was in charge), but the first amendment is so infinitely better for people than not having it.

As far as quoting the Bible, everything you quoted, outside of blasphemy laws, is covered under perjury laws.

The 10 commandment law existed prior to Hebrew judicial systems, therefore the edict of not bearing of false witness would not only be in regard of perjury, but also generally in life outside of court.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: Annee
IMO — legal adult should be 18 “across the board”.

Could you please elaborate just a little bit on why someone under the age of 18, in your opinion, should not legally be allowed to vote?

Games, huh?

As I pointed out in my “family” example (most families) have rules.

Does your 16-year-old have the same rules as your 8-year-old and vice versa?

Do you allow your unlicensed 8-year-old to take the family car?

Societies need rules and standards to have civility rather than chaos.

Are there 14-year-olds more mature than some legal adults? Of course there are.

Most aren’t employed, paying taxes, etc.

originally posted by: Annee
Games, huh?

I wouldn't call it games because I'm not trying to toy with you. But often times I do have an angle and I find asking you questions and using your answers the best way to try and make my point or get you to consider things in ways you might not.

Does your 16-year-old have the same rules as your 8-year-old and vice versa?

Do you allow your unlicensed 8-year-old to take the family car?

Societies need rules and standards to have civility rather than chaos.

Are there 14-year-olds more mature than some legal adults? Of course there are.

Most aren’t employed, paying taxes, etc.

So basically, under 18 is too young to vote, in your opinion, because of things like maturity/life experiences?

I'm not attempting to derail into a completely different subject. But I will tell you the reason I ask is because of your position on children and allowing them to decide for themselves if gender affirmation care and a roadmap to surgery is right for them.

I would have thought that your opinion would be, if they are mature enough to decide something like that at 12 years old, then they would be mature enough to vote too.

Not trying to pick on you too much but I find your reasoning on the two subjects contradictory.

what ever they set the legal age at, which is 18, and they consider your old enough to go die for your county which is 17 with parents consent you should be able to partake and do anything thing that is legal by law.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

So basically, under 18 is too young to vote, in your opinion, because of things like maturity/life experiences?

I do appreciate the conversation.

However, you should re-read what I wrote — cuz the above is not what I said.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato

what ever they set the legal age at, which is 18, and they consider your old enough to go die for your county which is 17 with parents consent you should be able to partake and do anything thing that is legal by law.

Yes.

Although I disagree with being allowed in the full military prior to age 18.

Perhaps training only until of age.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

So basically, under 18 is too young to vote, in your opinion, because of things like maturity/life experiences?

I do appreciate the conversation.

However, you should re-read what I wrote — cuz the above is not what I said.

The things you said implied maturity levels/life experience.

But if I misunderstood, please, bluntly tell me why shouldn't kids vote if they are under 18 if they can make life changing decisions about their body before that age.

originally posted by: coldisbest118
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.[1] It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law.[2] However, federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution;[3] that is, they must be pursuant to the federal government's enumerated powers, and not violate other constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Bill of Rights—of particular interest is the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that the federal government has only those powers that are delegated to it by the Constitution.[4] It is the responsibility of the United States Supreme Court in that case to exercise the power of judicial review: the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution.

the law of the land.

you are right that it doesn't grant rights it upholds them and prevents the government from trampling them.

wow so you have no clue what you are talking about as you have never studied or even been to the USA and yet claim to know more about its laws then a USA citizen that has.

the government violating the constitution does not make it invalid. it just means that the American people are allowing the government to violate their rights as citizens.
the supreme court should have done their job by now and stopped the violations

you are also right that many Americans are indoctrinated, they have been lead to believe that the constitution is wrong and that the government knows whats right and wrong.

a reply to: chr0naut

There is one of the Goon Shows, a BBC Radio comedy show, where someone asks Eccles for the time. Eccles replies that he has it written down on a piece of paper in his pocket. The person questioning him asks how could he know if it is the right time written on the paper? To which Eccles replies that he knows it is the right time because he can check it by looking at the piece of paper where it is written down.

The supremacy clause in the US Constitution is a similar circular reasoning, in that, if someone doesn't already grant the Constitution supremacy, then why grant the Supremacy clause anything differently?

But clearly there are many acts of Congress and state laws that are contrary to Constitutional principles as interpreted by some. As I have mentioned before, the FISA Courts, surveillance of non-felon citizens, the Espionage Act, and laws governing censorship, fraud, and perjury (which some would try and redefine as free speech issues).

And again, the issue is that you suggest rights are upheld but never granted. But are they actually rights if they are never granted? Surely you don't believe that people can be prosecuted for contravening unwritten laws? And how can un-granted rights be upheld legally? The only rational solution is to both grant and uphold rights, not leave them vaporous and ill-defined enough to be interpreted entirely differently by different people. Law must necessarily be specific, to protect society from those who would misinterpret law maliciously.

And while the Constitution covers particular parts of government and its limitations, it does not address how people outside of those parts of government are to act to each other. Human rights come out of how people are to act in regard to each other. and are not limited in effect of happening 'on a Wednesday evening in Hoboken if in the presence of someone dressed as a clown'. Where a time, or place, or other situational limitation upon a law is specified, it cannot be assumed to be applicable outside of its situational limits.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

So basically, under 18 is too young to vote, in your opinion, because of things like maturity/life experiences?

I do appreciate the conversation.

However, you should re-read what I wrote — cuz the above is not what I said.

The things you said implied maturity levels/life experience.

But if I misunderstood, please, bluntly tell me why shouldn't kids vote if they are under 18 if they can make life changing decisions about their body before that age.

Leading into transgender . . .

Not biting.

“Games” as I suspected.