Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"I don’t think willful deliberate falsehoods need be protected under the Second Amendment."

They aren't, that's what the First is for, the Second is to protect it effectively.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I don't have any sympathy for em either, none whatever - but THINK for a minute about your own rights, and where that path goes, although the idea of rounding up the entirety of Congess is appealing, it's a bad bad baaaad precedent, and more grease on an awfully slippery slope.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Different concept, Geeze.

No harm to another person could really come of this morons abject stupidity, so he gets a pass on free speech grounds, in my opinion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
It's written in such (intended) iron-clad terms for just these kind of instances, the interpretation is always supposed to come down on the side of no, unless explicitly and expressly authorized.

The Constitution is not a list of things WE can do, with all else prohibited.

It's a list of things the Government is allowed to do, with all else expressly forbidden.

But try tellin that to the Supreme Court... grr

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
In this case, however, while there seems to be a restraint on liberty, the issue is not one of speech, but rather fraud. No person has the right to defraud another.

---

Quote:

---

Your overbroad argument would make it legal for another person to claim ownership of your property and sell that property even though they had no right to do so simply because the law of fraud restricts their 'free speech' right to lie. That makes no sense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:

There's some rule on the books that you can claim abandoned land and if the owners of the land don't respond then its yours, but the whole thing has a very Hitchhikers Guide feel to it since there's apparently no mechanism to attempt to check if the land is actually abandoned.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
For instance, the Govt can restrict speech under certain limited circumstances...such as the 'fire' in a theater argument or 'time, place, and manner' arguments. It really comes down to due process and whether or not the law in question meets that standard.

In this case, however, while there seems to be a restraint on liberty, the issue is not one of speech, but rather fraud. No person has the right to defraud another.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by milford:
Since you're up on the law, do I remember correctly that there are instances in which the military operates under a different set of rules than civilian society? If I remember correctly (which after a longish morning is doubtful) that this is true, then could the military bring charges against him, perhaps for impersonating an officer, or something similar?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
I think it's pretty clear this idiot's claim to be a war hero is protected speech. Seems if someone could prove real damages they might have a civil case against him at best. The public shame that results from outing a piece of crap like this guy is the best punishment.

I know I'm right in this case because I asked my wife Morgan Fairchild.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
I think it's pretty clear this idiot's claim to be a war hero is protected speech.

---

Quote:

---

From this investigation into the organization of this government, it appears that it is devoid of all responsibility or accountability to the great body of the people, and that so far from being a regular balanced government, it would be in practice a permanent ARISTOCRACY.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
In essence, what is to stop them from re-interpreting ANY word or phrase of the Constitution to mean the exact opposite of it's intention - a document written quite deliberately in (intended) iron-clad terms to prevent it ?

Why, nothing - no proper check and balance upon them exists, and that this would lead to misery, was bloody obvious from the beginning...

---

Quote:

---

...The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Razza:
To say there is nothing anyone could do to a justice(s), who declared themselves "Judicial Monarchs with supreme power over the land" through an interpretation of the federal highway bill is a bit of a stretch. The fact is that they could not enforce such an interpretation if they were foolish enough to make it. I doubt the House of Representatives would sit idly by while the Supreme Court went amok with ridiculous interpretations that were the exact opposite of the Congress' intentions either. Impeachment is just one method the Congress could use to reign in Judicial overstepping.

---

Quote:

---

Funny thing, not too long ago my grandparents neighbors filed a claim of some sort (forget the name) basically stating that they owned about a quarter to half an acre of land that belonged to my grandparents, not that the property lines were incorrect, but rather that they were simply claiming the land. There's some rule on the books that you can claim abandoned land and if the owners of the land don't respond then its yours, but the whole thing has a very Hitchhikers Guide feel to it since there's apparently no mechanism to attempt to check if the land is actually abandoned.-FredG

Its called Adverse Possession and generally only applies to real property (ie Real Estate). You claim it by action...like mowing or farming or improving. If the owner does not respond in some fashion (including simply giving you written permission to mow or whatever) then its yours. Its a common law notion and the rule is generally seven years. Check your local laws though, the times and manner vary and in most cases you can't adverse possess govt property.-Hero

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
I think it's pretty clear this idiot's claim to be a war hero is protected speech.

---

At first glance you are correct, however the Supreme Court has been very consistant in saying that there is no 'right to lie'.


"Calculated falsehood falls into that class of utterances which are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. . . ." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572.

---

Quote:

---

"Hence the knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection." Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 75 (1964). [472 U.S. 488]


That about ends the discussion...questions?

H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
...Catherine Bell...

---