Inflation? What Inflation - LOL

AZVAJKU said:
Well said Mike!

The Bill of Rights is not ‘living and breathing’ like some politicians believe or wish. The BoR is a contract between the citizens and the Gov that the citizens created. It’s a concept known as ‘Consent of the Governed’.

Imagine if your car or house loan were ‘living and breathing’ and could be changed without your consent. Your $700 monthly payment would soon become $70,000.
Click to expand...
It was a 700 dollar monthly payment years ago but there is no way the bank could have foreseen this level of inflation. It should be a 70,000 monthly payment now. It's common sense.
 
Spazbyt said:
It was a 700 dollar monthly payment years ago but there is no way the bank could have foreseen this level of inflation. It should be a 70,000 monthly payment now. It's common sense.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
“ It’s a common sense increase, there’s no way we could have seen this high of an inflation rate coming (that we created). It’s for the children. Why do you hate children?” 😂🤣
 
AZVAJKU said:
Well said Mike!

The Bill of Rights is not ‘living and breathing’ like some politicians believe or wish. The BoR is a contract between the citizens and the Gov that the citizens created. It’s a concept known as ‘Consent of the Governed’.
Click to expand...
True, but again, the language itself requires interpretation. The 1A does not clearly define what is or is not “speech”. So, courts are forced to interpret and apply often undefined concepts to a given set of facts. Those interpretations sometimes change over time (for good and for bad). How is that avoidable when key terms and concepts are not defined?

If you had a contract to buy a “car” for $700 per month, some court is going to have to determine what the parties meant by the use of the word “car”… and it is entirely possible for reasonable minds to disagree about the intent.
 
Sharkey said:
True, but again, the language itself requires interpretation. The 1A does not clearly define what is or is not “speech”. So, courts are forced to interpret and apply often undefined concepts to a given set of facts. Those interpretations sometimes change over time (for good and for bad). How is that avoidable when key terms and concepts are not defined?

If you had a contract to buy a “car” for $700 per month, some court is going to have to determine what the parties meant by the use of the word “car”… and it is entirely possible for reasonable minds to disagree about the intent.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry I’m not following your train of thought. Speech is speech. Either written or spoken. What needs to be interpreted? That some courts have interjected their obtuse thoughts and meanings into things doesn’t make their points valid.
 
AZVAJKU said:
‘Reasonable minds’ that disagree about the intent of ‘buy’ or the word ‘car’ are not reasonable. That’s the problem.
Click to expand...
Pintos and Porsches are both cars, yet hardly the same thing. A JLUR is quite different than a JL…yet both are cars. An RC Car is a car.

Would you really sign a contract to buy a “Jeep” with no further description of what you were buying? Of course not, you are highly intelligent and would make damn well sure that the Jeep you were purchasing was clearly defined down to the model, options, etc. Words and details matter.

Ambiguity exists all of the time, in every contract. Sometimes it’s material and some times it is not. If everything was as black and white as you would like it to be, why would there be a need for Article III courts? Wouldn’t all Constitutional violations be self-evident?
 
NPC 6060⁸42 said:
I’m sorry I’m not following your train of thought. Speech is speech. Either written or spoken. What needs to be interpreted? That some courts have interjected their obtuse thoughts and meanings into things doesn’t make their points valid.
Click to expand...
Is silence speech? What about other non-verbal actions? I’m quite glad that an Article III court has decided that I can wear a shirt that reads “Let’s Go Brandon” without fear of reprisal from the government. For that to happen though, a court had to decide that passive silence is actually a form of protected “speech” in a way that doesn’t meet your definition above.

What about donating money to my favorite political action committee, party, or politician? Should that be a form of protected “speech”? Can a corporation “speak” and should it enjoy the protections of the Constitution? (Check out the Citizens United case if you want to go down that rabbit hole).

I imagine you are glad that some forms of written or spoken speech are not protected (e.g. child porn, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, claiming to have a bomb on a plane, etc.). If everything was black and white, these forms of speech would be protected by the clear words of the Constitution. It is through interpretation of intent that laws have been passed, and upheld as Constitutional, that limit what would otherwise be permissible based on the “black and white” words written in the Constitution.

Maybe you are an absolutist and believe that the BoR have no limitations at all. More power to you if you are. I’m not trying to knock anyone’s beliefs…I’m just trying to point out that things may not always be as binary or black and white as we would like them to be.
 
Sharkey said:
Is silence speech? What about other non-verbal actions? I’m quite glad that an Article III court has decided that I can wear a shirt that reads “Let’s Go Brandon” without fear of reprisal from the government. For that to happen though, a court had to decide that passive silence is actually a form of protected “speech” in a way that doesn’t meet your definition above.

What about donating money to my favorite political action committee, party, or politician? Should that be a form of protected “speech”? Can a corporation “speak” and should it enjoy the protections of the Constitution? (Check out the Citizens United case if you want to go down that rabbit hole).

I imagine you are glad that some forms of written or spoken speech are not protected (e.g. child porn, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, claiming to have a bomb on a plane, etc.). If everything was black and white, these forms of speech would be protected by the clear words of the Constitution. It is through interpretation of intent that laws have been passed, and upheld as Constitutional, that limit what would otherwise be permissible based on the “black and white” words written in the Constitution.

Maybe you are an absolutist and believe that the BoR have no limitations at all. More power to you if you are. I’m not trying to knock anyone’s beliefs…I’m just trying to point out that things may not always be as binary or black and white as we would like them to be.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. It does give me something to think about but I’m definitely more of an absolutist especially when it comes to the BOR. The only instance above where I’m unsure would be child porn but I believe laws against exploitation of minors would eliminate the speech issue? Interestingly I looked up yelling fire in a crowded theater and that seems to be an old misinterpreted myth. It is fascinating though and I’d love to sit down and talk over a beer or three sometime.
 
NPC 6060⁸42 said:
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. It does give me something to think about but I’m definitely more of an absolutist especially when it comes to the BOR. The only instance above where I’m unsure would be child porn but I believe laws against exploitation of minors would eliminate the speech issue? Interestingly I looked up yelling fire in a crowded theater and that seems to be an old misinterpreted myth. It is fascinating though and I’d love to sit down and talk over a beer or three sometime.
Click to expand...
I am of the belief that the only way we grow is by stripping away ego and emotion and having thoughtful, intelligent, and insightful conversation. Discourse should be about growth, not about who is right or wrong.

The fire example could be a myth but it popped into my head. Regardless, I enjoy the thoughtful debate about the subject.

Truly, our Constitution is amazing and the founders were nothing short of geniuses in that regard. The fact that we are still talking about it, and it still has relevance, is a testament to their brilliance.

I would enjoy few things more than solving the world’s problems through good conversation by a fire…and a beer or four (I raised you one).
 
Sharkey said:
Pintos and Porsches are both cars, yet hardly the same thing. A JLUR is quite different than a JL…yet both are cars. An RC Car is a car.

Would you really sign a contract to buy a “Jeep” with no further description of what you were buying? Of course not, you are highly intelligent and would make damn well sure that the Jeep you were purchasing was clearly defined down to the model, options, etc. Words and details matter.

Ambiguity exists all of the time, in every contract. Sometimes it’s material and some times it is not. If everything was as black and white as you would like it to be, why would there be a need for Article III courts? Wouldn’t all Constitutional violations be self-evident?
Click to expand...

Straight forward subjects are often made complicated by individuals who are dissemblers. Not everything in life is crystal clear, however much of the complication in reference to the Constitution is purposefully manufactured. Most times when an individual makes a straightforward subject complicated they have an agenda. Usually it’s about taking your freedom, your money, or trying to justify an action that the average person would consider wrong.
 
Some great info here on the First Amendment.

It contains a video and transcript of the video.

Some key points:

Jefferson’s Bill sets out four reasons why government can make no law that constrains our freedom of speech, conscience, or opinion. Those four reasons were summed up by Justice Brandeis in Whitney, and they have been further developed by the Supreme Court since then:

1. Freedom of conscience is an unalienable right because people can only think for themselves;

2. Free speech makes representatives accountable to We the People;

3. Free speech is necessary for the discovery of truth and the rejection of falsehood;

4. Free speech allows the public discussion necessary for democratic self government.

Full article here:

From Jefferson to Brandeis: The First Amendment, the Declaration, and the Constitution | Constitution Center

Remarks delivered by Jeffrey Rosen in celebration of the newly installed marble First Amendment tablet at the Constitution Center.
constitutioncenter.org
 
NPC 6060⁸42 said:
I’m sorry I’m not following your train of thought. Speech is speech. Either written or spoken. What needs to be interpreted? That some courts have interjected their obtuse thoughts and meanings into things doesn’t make their points valid.
Click to expand...
A rainbow banner or flag obviously constitutes "speach". Virtually any "expression" constitutes "speach".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom