Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Anyone who understands everything that comes out of fortune probably has a problem


arts / rec.arts.tv / Re: Pelosi Claims SCOTUS Draft Does Violence To Constitution

SubjectAuthor
* Re: Pelosi Claims SCOTUS Draft Does Violence To ConstitutionmoviePig
`* Re: Pelosi Claims SCOTUS Draft Does Violence To ConstitutionmoviePig
 `* Re: Pelosi Claims SCOTUS Draft Does Violence To ConstitutionmoviePig
  `* Re: Pelosi Claims SCOTUS Draft Does Violence To ConstitutionmoviePig
   `- Re: Pelosi Claims SCOTUS Draft Does Violence To ConstitutionmoviePig

1
Re: Pelosi Claims SCOTUS Draft Does Violence To Constitution

<auxfK.1454$j0D5.128@fx09.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=142500&group=rec.arts.tv#142500

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Pelosi Claims SCOTUS Draft Does Violence To Constitution
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <t5dtf3$so1$8@dont-email.me>
<b5bc6464-8a7b-4c40-9d42-dfbb7fb4d742n@googlegroups.com>
<atropos-A71AD1.09381212052022@news.giganews.com>
<56e5625a-7784-4032-b643-19aed5ee3f4en@googlegroups.com>
<Readna7yqqU8F-D_nZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d2308238-4566-48db-a669-1d1ff6aa4d6an@googlegroups.com>
<atropos-78AEC3.10150613052022@news.giganews.com>
From: pwall...@moviepig.com (moviePig)
In-Reply-To: <atropos-78AEC3.10150613052022@news.giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <auxfK.1454$j0D5.128@fx09.iad>
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 18:31:34 UTC
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 14:31:32 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2192
 by: moviePig - Fri, 13 May 2022 18:31 UTC

On 5/13/2022 1:15 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <d2308238-4566-48db-a669-1d1ff6aa4d6an@googlegroups.com>,
> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> BTR1701
>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>
>>>> You bitched endlessly about the state of California's covid restrictions
>>>
>>> Yes, because they were unnecessary, illogical, and ineffective, not because
>>> they were unconstitutional.
>>
>> And the same applies to banning abortion.
>
> Yes, abortion bans can be described in all those ways, but like them,
> the bans are not unconstitutional.
>
>>> I never claimed the Constitution forbid Newsom from doing what he did.
>>
>> Nor am I, the issue here is right or wrong, not legalities.
>>
>> Just because a government can legally do something, doesn’t mean
>> it's right for it to do so.
>
> Well, if you'll notice, I'm not arguing the right or wrong. I'm arguing
> the constitutionality and the validity of Roe v. Wade as an exercise of
> federal power.

According to the Constitution, "Constitutional validity" is whatever the
Supreme Court says it is ...which inevitably involves "right or wrong".

Re: Pelosi Claims SCOTUS Draft Does Violence To Constitution

<i0yfK.16281$JSxf.4545@fx11.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=142503&group=rec.arts.tv#142503

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx11.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Pelosi Claims SCOTUS Draft Does Violence To Constitution
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <t5dtf3$so1$8@dont-email.me>
<b5bc6464-8a7b-4c40-9d42-dfbb7fb4d742n@googlegroups.com>
<atropos-A71AD1.09381212052022@news.giganews.com>
<56e5625a-7784-4032-b643-19aed5ee3f4en@googlegroups.com>
<Readna7yqqU8F-D_nZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d2308238-4566-48db-a669-1d1ff6aa4d6an@googlegroups.com>
<atropos-78AEC3.10150613052022@news.giganews.com>
<auxfK.1454$j0D5.128@fx09.iad>
<atropos-149DCE.11424713052022@news.giganews.com>
From: pwall...@moviepig.com (moviePig)
In-Reply-To: <atropos-149DCE.11424713052022@news.giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <i0yfK.16281$JSxf.4545@fx11.iad>
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 19:07:58 UTC
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 15:07:57 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2731
 by: moviePig - Fri, 13 May 2022 19:07 UTC

On 5/13/2022 2:42 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <auxfK.1454$j0D5.128@fx09.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2022 1:15 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <d2308238-4566-48db-a669-1d1ff6aa4d6an@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> BTR1701
>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You bitched endlessly about the state of California's covid restrictions
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, because they were unnecessary, illogical, and ineffective, not
>>>>> because they were unconstitutional.
>>>>
>>>> And the same applies to banning abortion.
>>>
>>> Yes, abortion bans can be described in all those ways, but like them,
>>> the bans are not unconstitutional.
>>>
>>>>> I never claimed the Constitution forbid Newsom from doing what he did.
>>>>
>>>> Nor am I, the issue here is right or wrong, not legalities.
>>>>
>>>> Just because a government can legally do something, doesn’t mean
>>>> it's right for it to do so.
>>>
>>> Well, if you'll notice, I'm not arguing the right or wrong. I'm arguing
>>> the constitutionality and the validity of Roe v. Wade as an exercise of
>>> federal power.
>>
>> According to the Constitution, "Constitutional validity" is whatever the
>> Supreme Court says it is
>
> That judicial power is not actually in the Constitution, so no, that's
> not according to the Constitution.

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme
Court ... The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and
equity, arising under this Constitution..."

Re: Pelosi Claims SCOTUS Draft Does Violence To Constitution

<yizfK.40943$qMI1.29728@fx96.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=142507&group=rec.arts.tv#142507

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx96.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Pelosi Claims SCOTUS Draft Does Violence To Constitution
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <t5dtf3$so1$8@dont-email.me>
<b5bc6464-8a7b-4c40-9d42-dfbb7fb4d742n@googlegroups.com>
<atropos-A71AD1.09381212052022@news.giganews.com>
<56e5625a-7784-4032-b643-19aed5ee3f4en@googlegroups.com>
<Readna7yqqU8F-D_nZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d2308238-4566-48db-a669-1d1ff6aa4d6an@googlegroups.com>
<atropos-78AEC3.10150613052022@news.giganews.com>
<auxfK.1454$j0D5.128@fx09.iad>
<atropos-149DCE.11424713052022@news.giganews.com>
<i0yfK.16281$JSxf.4545@fx11.iad>
<atropos-E6B0AD.12541913052022@news.giganews.com>
From: pwall...@moviepig.com (moviePig)
In-Reply-To: <atropos-E6B0AD.12541913052022@news.giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <yizfK.40943$qMI1.29728@fx96.iad>
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 20:35:42 UTC
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 16:35:41 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3287
 by: moviePig - Fri, 13 May 2022 20:35 UTC

On 5/13/2022 3:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <i0yfK.16281$JSxf.4545@fx11.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2022 2:42 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <auxfK.1454$j0D5.128@fx09.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2022 1:15 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <d2308238-4566-48db-a669-1d1ff6aa4d6an@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTR1701
>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You bitched endlessly about the state of California's covid
>>>>>>>> restrictions
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, because they were unnecessary, illogical, and ineffective, not
>>>>>>> because they were unconstitutional.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the same applies to banning abortion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, abortion bans can be described in all those ways, but like them,
>>>>> the bans are not unconstitutional.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I never claimed the Constitution forbid Newsom from doing what he did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nor am I, the issue here is right or wrong, not legalities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just because a government can legally do something, doesn’t mean
>>>>>> it's right for it to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, if you'll notice, I'm not arguing the right or wrong. I'm arguing
>>>>> the constitutionality and the validity of Roe v. Wade as an exercise of
>>>>> federal power.
>>>>
>>>> According to the Constitution, "Constitutional validity" is whatever the
>>>> Supreme Court says it is
>>>
>>> That judicial power is not actually in the Constitution, so no, that's
>>> not according to the Constitution.
>>
>> "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme
>> Court ... The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and
>> equity, arising under this Constitution..."
>
> "Arising under this Constitution" is not remotely the same as "the
> Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is".

Au contraire, some might say it's *exactly* the same.

Let's ask SCOTUS... or, barring that, Adam...

Re: Pelosi Claims SCOTUS Draft Does Violence To Constitution

<YNAfK.4947$x1Wf.2769@fx10.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=142510&group=rec.arts.tv#142510

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Pelosi Claims SCOTUS Draft Does Violence To Constitution
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <t5dtf3$so1$8@dont-email.me>
<b5bc6464-8a7b-4c40-9d42-dfbb7fb4d742n@googlegroups.com>
<atropos-A71AD1.09381212052022@news.giganews.com>
<56e5625a-7784-4032-b643-19aed5ee3f4en@googlegroups.com>
<Readna7yqqU8F-D_nZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d2308238-4566-48db-a669-1d1ff6aa4d6an@googlegroups.com>
<atropos-78AEC3.10150613052022@news.giganews.com>
<auxfK.1454$j0D5.128@fx09.iad>
<atropos-149DCE.11424713052022@news.giganews.com>
<i0yfK.16281$JSxf.4545@fx11.iad>
<atropos-E6B0AD.12541913052022@news.giganews.com>
<yizfK.40943$qMI1.29728@fx96.iad>
<atropos-C353CE.14144913052022@news.giganews.com>
From: pwall...@moviepig.com (moviePig)
In-Reply-To: <atropos-C353CE.14144913052022@news.giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <YNAfK.4947$x1Wf.2769@fx10.iad>
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 22:17:28 UTC
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 18:17:27 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3898
X-Original-Bytes: 3759
 by: moviePig - Fri, 13 May 2022 22:17 UTC

On 5/13/2022 5:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <yizfK.40943$qMI1.29728@fx96.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2022 3:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <i0yfK.16281$JSxf.4545@fx11.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:42 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <auxfK.1454$j0D5.128@fx09.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 1:15 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <d2308238-4566-48db-a669-1d1ff6aa4d6an@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BTR1701
>>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You bitched endlessly about the state of California's covid
>>>>>>>>>> restrictions
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, because they were unnecessary, illogical, and ineffective, not
>>>>>>>>> because they were unconstitutional.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the same applies to banning abortion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, abortion bans can be described in all those ways, but like them,
>>>>>>> the bans are not unconstitutional.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I never claimed the Constitution forbid Newsom from doing what he did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nor am I, the issue here is right or wrong, not legalities.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just because a government can legally do something, doesn’t mean
>>>>>>>> it's right for it to do so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, if you'll notice, I'm not arguing the right or wrong. I'm arguing
>>>>>>> the constitutionality and the validity of Roe v. Wade as an exercise of
>>>>>>> federal power.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to the Constitution, "Constitutional validity" is whatever the
>>>>>> Supreme Court says it is
>>>>>
>>>>> That judicial power is not actually in the Constitution, so no, that's
>>>>> not according to the Constitution.
>>>>
>>>> "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme
>>>> Court ... The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and
>>>> equity, arising under this Constitution..."
>>>
>>> "Arising under this Constitution" is not remotely the same as "the
>>> Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is".
>>
>> Au contraire, some might say it's *exactly* the same.
>
> Some might say the sun rises in the west... but my kitchen will still
> get the morning light regardless.

Not if you keep your blinds closed.

So, I say they're effectively the same. You say they're not. Looks
like your onus...

Re: Pelosi Claims SCOTUS Draft Does Violence To Constitution

<SQEfK.9426$pqKf.1220@fx12.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=142515&group=rec.arts.tv#142515

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx12.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Pelosi Claims SCOTUS Draft Does Violence To Constitution
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <t5dtf3$so1$8@dont-email.me>
<b5bc6464-8a7b-4c40-9d42-dfbb7fb4d742n@googlegroups.com>
<atropos-A71AD1.09381212052022@news.giganews.com>
<56e5625a-7784-4032-b643-19aed5ee3f4en@googlegroups.com>
<Readna7yqqU8F-D_nZ2dnUU7-V-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d2308238-4566-48db-a669-1d1ff6aa4d6an@googlegroups.com>
<atropos-78AEC3.10150613052022@news.giganews.com>
<auxfK.1454$j0D5.128@fx09.iad>
<atropos-149DCE.11424713052022@news.giganews.com>
<i0yfK.16281$JSxf.4545@fx11.iad>
<atropos-E6B0AD.12541913052022@news.giganews.com>
<yizfK.40943$qMI1.29728@fx96.iad>
<atropos-C353CE.14144913052022@news.giganews.com>
<YNAfK.4947$x1Wf.2769@fx10.iad>
<atropos-DA6C9E.15554713052022@news.giganews.com>
From: pwall...@moviepig.com (moviePig)
In-Reply-To: <atropos-DA6C9E.15554713052022@news.giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <SQEfK.9426$pqKf.1220@fx12.iad>
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 02:53:38 UTC
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 22:53:36 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4690
 by: moviePig - Sat, 14 May 2022 02:53 UTC

On 5/13/2022 6:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <YNAfK.4947$x1Wf.2769@fx10.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2022 5:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <yizfK.40943$qMI1.29728@fx96.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <i0yfK.16281$JSxf.4545@fx11.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:42 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <auxfK.1454$j0D5.128@fx09.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 1:15 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <d2308238-4566-48db-a669-1d1ff6aa4d6an@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> BTR1701
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You bitched endlessly about the state of California's covid
>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictions
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, because they were unnecessary, illogical, and ineffective, not
>>>>>>>>>>> because they were unconstitutional.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And the same applies to banning abortion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, abortion bans can be described in all those ways, but like them,
>>>>>>>>> the bans are not unconstitutional.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed the Constitution forbid Newsom from doing what he
>>>>>>>>>>> did.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nor am I, the issue here is right or wrong, not legalities.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just because a government can legally do something, doesn’t mean
>>>>>>>>>> it's right for it to do so.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, if you'll notice, I'm not arguing the right or wrong. I'm
>>>>>>>>> arguing the constitutionality and the validity of Roe v. Wade as
>>>>>>>>> an exercise of federal power.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to the Constitution, "Constitutional validity" is whatever
>>>>>>>> the Supreme Court says it is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That judicial power is not actually in the Constitution, so no, that's
>>>>>>> not according to the Constitution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme
>>>>>> Court ... The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and
>>>>>> equity, arising under this Constitution..."
>>>>>
>>>>> "Arising under this Constitution" is not remotely the same as "the
>>>>> Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is".
>>>>
>>>> Au contraire, some might say it's *exactly* the same.
>>>
>>> Some might say the sun rises in the west... but my kitchen will still
>>> get the morning light regardless.
>>
>> Not if you keep your blinds closed.
>>
>> So, I say they're effectively the same. You say they're not. Looks
>> like your onus...
>
> (1) No, you don't get to sneak that 'effectively' in there and pretend
> that was your claim all along.

Actually, the 'effectively' has no effect. If you're more comfortable
ignoring it in your "rebuttal", have a ball.

> (2) I have the text of the actual Constitution on my side. I win.

You win if your "analysis" consists of non-identical texts. But if it
addresses logical content, well, enjoy your participation trophy...

(Or, you *could* try to back up your claim of a "difference".)

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor