22-05-2003 23:01									#151
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by oedo Slowwhand; you really need a permit for an assembly in America? even for assemblies in closed rooms?

Sometimes, yes. It depends on city ordinances, fire safety codes, etc.

Ten people hanging out at the outdoor tables at a Starbucks doesn't need a permit, but 1000 people at a public park does. Assemblies in closed rooms don't require permits per se, since they're on private property rented for the purpose (unless somebody is trespassing ), but the property owner is responsible for such things as meeting occupancy limits and other fire, safety and similar issues.

	22-05-2003 23:08									#152
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler Well the crucial question is: What happens when I file for a permit, and the authorities do nothing? Are we allowed to assemble, or not?

When you file for a permit, the authorities have to act on it then and there - it's not a delayed process, unless you have something huge (a la million man march or woodstock as the upper sort of extremes) which might require approval of multiple agencies or jurisdictions.

In a typical scenario, you file for a parade permit (if you're going somewhere on a street or public walkways) which is a little more complex, or a use permit, that lets you assemble in one public place. You get a list of standard permit conditions, etc. - how many portacans you need for the crowd, parking and basic traffic, safety, and similar issues.

To be legal, these types of permits have to apply objective criteria such as X number of bodies = y number of portacans, etc. Any criteria related to expressive content of the assembly, or of the group requesting the permit, are extremely limited, as in almost nothing of that type is allowed as a permit condition.

	22-05-2003 23:09									#153
	Re: Police attacking the left across Midwest Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Che, it's strangely ironic that someone who's an ardent communist calls for Democracy now!

	22-05-2003 23:32									#154
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat When you file for a permit, the authorities have to act on it then and there - it's not a delayed process, unless you have something huge

I assume that the authority has an obligation to act, but that doesn't really answer the question: What happens if it doesn't? Does its silence allow me to assemble, or not?

	22-05-2003 23:33									#155
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Does questioning the veracity of any site under the indymedia banner somehow equate with supporting the violation of others' civil rights?

I assumed you were the ringleader.

No? That doesn't wash? Okay, sorry, I'll include you out.

	22-05-2003 23:57									#156
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

What's funny as **** is that so many people, Americans included, think "Freedom" and "Liberty" means they can do whatever they want.

That's a sure sign of moron genes at work.

	23-05-2003 00:08									#157
	Re: Re: Police attacking the left across Midwest Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 Che, it's strangely ironic that someone who's an ardent communist calls for Democracy now!

Chris, it is more interesting because one of the first things the communists would do upon taking power would be to repeal the Bill of Rights.

While the commies were having a discussion awhile back about the fine points of their dogma, I asked simply whether they would support the Bill of Rights in any new communist government. I got no replies. Perhaps they thought the question was so off the wall as to be not worthy of a reply.

But what makes America the nation we are is that we are willing to respect the constitutional rights of those who, if in power, would destroy the constitution. By respecting their rights, we demonstrate how ludicrous communism really is.

	23-05-2003 01:08									#158
	Re: Re: Re: Police attacking the left across Midwest Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Ned While the commies were having a discussion awhile back about the fine points of their dogma, I asked simply whether they would support the Bill of Rights in any new communist government. I got no replies. Perhaps they thought the question was so off the wall as to be not worthy of a reply.

I remember the question, but I don't remember why I didn't reply. IIRC, it was cuz there was a klot of intense discussion, and it simply go by passed. By and large, I support the Bill of Rights. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single one that I think we should do without. Maybe Ten, if that's the one that gives all power to the States that isn't delimited in the Constitution (don't have it memorized anymore).

As to why I'm sticking up for a bunch of anarchists, I'd stick up for you or Chris or just about anyone else I thought the state was unfairly targetting and supressing their Constitutional rights. Remember the labor rallying cry, "An Injury to One is an Injury to All!" Also, if I don't defend you when the state attacks you, who will be left to defend me when they come for me?

Chris62, I am a radical democrat first and more most. A beliver in communal property second. Of course, I believe that a truely democratic system would lead to the latter eventually. It's also what the framers thought, which is why they designed our system to be rather undemocratic.

	23-05-2003 01:19									#159
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Maybe Ten, if that's the one that gives all power to the States that isn't delimited in the Constitution (don't have it memorized anymore).

That's basically it. All powers not given to the Federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or the people. It's basically been interpreted as meaning the states have powers too (in fact they have greater powers that the federal government, but that's for another thread).

	23-05-2003 02:30									#160
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand What's funny as **** is that so many people, Americans included, think "Freedom" and "Liberty" means they can do whatever they want. That's a sure sign of moron genes at work.

A Dallasite calling other people morons? That takes the cake!

	23-05-2003 02:36									#161
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

At least I recognize limitations.

	23-05-2003 02:37									#162
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Maybe Ten, if that's the one that gives all power to the States that isn't delimited in the Constitution (don't have it memorized anymore). That's basically it.

Remove the States part of that Amendment and I have no problems with the Bill of Rights. I believe the people should be sovreign, not the States.

	23-05-2003 02:48									#163
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Remove the States part of that Amendment and I have no problems with the Bill of Rights. I believe the people should be sovreign, not the States.

The 10th Amendment on its face isn't that bad.

The real bugaboo is the 11th. Apparently someone got the bright idea that people shouldn't be able to sue states in which they don't reside. This may in part be a good idea - you don't want people with no stake in a state's welfare tying it up in litigation. On the thoer hand, why shouldn't government be accountable for its actions.

Then Rehnquist's Gang of Five decided that the 11th Amendment applied to any person suing any state! Incredible! So-called "textualists" actually contradicting the text. This is the real evil amendment, especially when combined with Rehnquist and Co.'s anti-textualist reading. Conservatives are such liars! Interpret the text indeed.

	23-05-2003 02:52									#164
	Tired of ads?

quote: Remove the States part of that Amendment and I have no problems with the Bill of Rights. I believe the people should be sovreign, not the States.

The Framers were equating the states with the people so there's no need to remove one and keep the other. The state is merely the vehicle of the people.

	23-05-2003 03:00									#165
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker The Framers were equating the states with the people so there's no need to remove one and keep the other. The state is merely the vehicle of the people.

That's a nice theory, but the States are sovreign, not the people. The States weren't even forced to accept that they had to abide by the Bill of Rights until the last century. Even now, as The Templar mentions, the people have very litte redress against the actions of their states.

Sure, we can vote them out of office, providing they don't blatently violate the law, as they did in Florida. All the Constitution guarantees us against our own states is that the governments must be republican. Well, Venice was a republic, but I doubt any of us would trade their government for ours.

The Constitution has never even been ratified by the people of the US. IIRC, we're the only Constitutional government in the developed world to have that honor.

The States created the Constitution, the States ratified it, and only they can change it. We are their subjects, not their masters.

edit: Had States and the people reversed in first sentence. Fixed now.

	23-05-2003 03:02									#166
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: All the Constitution guarantees us against our own states is that the governments must be republican.

You mean to say Republican.

	23-05-2003 03:12									#167
	Support Apolyton

quote: Remove the States part of that Amendment and I have no problems with the Bill of Rights. I believe the people should be sovreign, not the States.

But that isn't true, is it? States are soveriegn, not the people within them (all around the world). While the federal government can't do anything unless they can find it in the Constitution (or twist something within it), the states can do ANYTHING, as long as the federal or state Constitutions do not prohibit it.

The US federal branch is an outlier in the world. In no other country is the federal government so restricted.

quote: Then Rehnquist's Gang of Five decided that the 11th Amendment applied to any person suing any state! Incredible! So-called "textualists" actually contradicting the text.

A. They are following precedent. The decision that the 11th basically meant the states had soveriegn immunity comes from the 1800s. The current court is merely applying the precedent.

B. There is only ONE textualist on the court. Scalia. I don't understand how you get Conservatives are the textualists. Rehnquist himself has said he isn't a textualist. And Thomas is the farthest thing from a textualist (believes natural rights superceed the Constitution), even though he agrees with the textualist. O'Conner and Kennedy are both not textualists.

I seriously don't understand how Scalia = all conservatives. The entire textualist school comes from Scalia. Most conservative justices aren't like that at all. But I know how you like to throw names rather than look at the issue.

	23-05-2003 03:13									#168
	Remove this text

Remove the fishy taste and I like trout.

	23-05-2003 03:13									#169
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by The Templar Then Rehnquist's Gang of Five decided that the 11th Amendment applied to any person suing any state!

I had no idea that Rhenquist & Co. have been on the Court since the 19th century.

	23-05-2003 03:16									#170
	Got spare money?

Like I've been saying DD, the left wants to blame the Rehnquist court for every ill society has. I can't wait for them to blame poverty on Rehnny and co. .

	23-05-2003 03:18									#171
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I'm somewhat shocked that Templar can froth at the mouth so much over a subject he knows so little about.

	23-05-2003 03:20									#172
	Get a bigger avatar today!

What do you expect from a lefty with a hammer and sickle in his avatar? I wouldn't expect him to know Hans v. Louisiana (1890).

	23-05-2003 04:04									#173
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Like I've been saying DD, the left wants to blame the Rehnquist court for every ill society has. I can't wait for them to blame poverty on Rehnny and co. .

Well, the supreme court is not only to blame. It's the whole govt.

	23-05-2003 04:16									#174
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

www.democracynow.org is an awsome website....... just read through alot of it and bookmarked it, thank you for the link(gonna pass it around some other politically focused forums I post on).

	23-05-2003 04:59									#175
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Vesayen www.democracynow.org is an awsome website....... just read through alot of it and bookmarked it, thank you for the link(gonna pass it around some other politically focused forums I post on).

I listen to the webcast occasionally (you can watch it now). It's often quite interesting.

	23-05-2003 06:30									#176
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui What do you expect from a lefty with a hammer and sickle in his avatar? I wouldn't expect him to know Hans v. Louisiana (1890).

A guy with a flag-waving avatar is making cracks about mine?

I'm well aware of Hans, thank you very much. The reasoning at 134 US 1 at 18 is flawed. US Const. Art. III sec. 2 clearly gives the power for a federal court to adjudicate disputes "between states and citizens of another state". (We could argue about enabling statutes here, but Hans was not based on the adequacy of the enabling statute - it was a contitutional case). The 11th Amend. then took that power away from the federal courts. But - it only took away the power of citizens of one state to sue another.

Hans argues that the constitution did not intend to confer jurisdiction to suits between states and citizens of that state in federal court. This on the grounds that fed courts have concurrent jurisdiction with state courts. This is fine as far as it goes - presumably a state is immune from suit unless it gives permission (this itself is dumb - but there you have it.) Now, given that the supremacy clause makes federal law superior to state law federal law may give a right of action to an individual even against a state. What the court in Hans is saying is that even if the federal government gives you a private right of action against a state - the framers of the constitution didn't mean for you to have this right. That's fine and well, except the framers never put this into the text of the constitution. To the contrary, the fact that the 11th Amend. revises the section of Art III that DID allow citizens of another state to sue a state - the founders (by implication) did invision a private right of action against states in federal law. Hans is at best in error or at worst a deliberate attempt to subvert the constitution.

"Fine and well, Templar" you might say, "but how does the blame fall on Rehnquist and Co.?" Well, there is no excuse for maintaining bad precedent. Brown v. Board overturned Plessey, for example. But not only have Rehnquist and Co. not struck down this awful precedent - they have used it to impose their own odd version of federalism on the government. In Maritime Commission they even went so far as to say an agency of the federal government could not bring a suit against a state if a private interest petitions the agency. Of course, Alden v. Maine is the most grotesque example (denying federal labor law protection to state workers) where Kennedy writing for the majority noted that Hans is essentially an 11th Amend. case. In other words, Rehnquist's Gang of Five is exploiting bad precedent instead of correcting it.

I recommend, Siddi, that you demand a refund of tuition from whatever law school you attend or attended.

Oh, and next time you accuse me of not knowing something, please be sure that I actually don't know about it.

	23-05-2003 06:31									#177
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc I'm somewhat shocked that Templar can froth at the mouth so much over a subject he knows so little about.

Read my above post. Now, do you have a response or are you just shooting your mouth off?

	23-05-2003 06:33									#178
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Like I've been saying DD, the left wants to blame the Rehnquist court for every ill society has. I can't wait for them to blame poverty on Rehnny and co. .

One more thing - Thomas IS a textualist, and Rehnquist and Gang aren't the cause of every social ill - but they sure seem to exaserbate the ones they rule on!

	23-05-2003 06:41									#179
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: I recommend, Siddi, that you demand a refund of tuition from whatever law school you attend or attended.

Why? You've demonstrated how wrong you actually were.

You insinuated the blame fall squarely on the Rehnquist Court. I saw it, and DD saw it. You cannot deny it. NOW, you change your tune and say they didn't get rid of bad precedent.

Of course, you totally ignore the argument (which is telling) that ONLY ONE person on the SCOTUS considers themself a textualist!!

If you've read Seminole Tribe of Fla v. Florida or Alden v. Maine, you will realize that the majority used legislative history to determine what the 11th Amendment meant. Especially since it came right after (and was meant to rectify) the SCOTUS decision in Chrisholm v. Georgia.

And btw, saying there is no excuse not to overturn 'bad' precedent shows a severe lack of understanding of the federal court system and how insanely difficult it is to overturn precedent. Brown came 60 years after Plessy, and is one of the rare cases that actually overturned prior precedent. One can easily see from Planned Parenthood v. Casey how important precedent is to the federal court system (or else they easily would have overturned Roe v. Wade in 1991, and then it would have overturned again with the next Democrat majority).

All going to show that your view is seriously misguided and in some parts just wrong.

And I think I'll continue to let my top 30 ranked Law School keep my tuition. Though perhaps you ought to write your educational facilities and ask for a partial refund, since you seem to have large gaps in your educational understanding.

	23-05-2003 06:46									#180
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Thomas IS a textualist

Bullshit! Thomas uses legislative history just as much as anyone else on the bench. That, by definition, does not make him a textualist. I understand that it is a nice pejorative slur you'd like to use towards him, but it doesn't make it true.


Btw, seeing as the Warren Court didn't get rid of the bad precedent of Hans does that make them complicit as well in this 'horrible' reading of the Amendment?