United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: State Proposes Bold Law to Treat Pot Like Tobacco And Expunge All Records of Marijuana “Crimes”
Source:
Activist Post
URL Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2016/09 ... -records-marijuana-crimes.html
Published: Sep 27, 2016
Author: Claire Bernish
Post Date: 2016-09-28 07:51:26 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 27959
Comments: 181
Bold legislation introduced in New Jersey last week would not only treat cannabis like tobacco — legalizing it — but would expunge records for individuals previously convicted of certain marijuana-related ‘crimes.’ Should the bill, A4193, pass, convenience stores would be permitted to sell cannabis alongside cigarettes — available to anyone aged 19 and older. “This bill would legalize marijuana by removing all criminal liability associated with marijuana from the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice … as well as its regulation as a controlled dangerous substance under the New Jersey Controlled Dangerous Substances Act,” the proposed law states. Sponsored by Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll — once deemed the state Legislature’s “Most Conservative” member, as the Newark Patch pointed out — the legislation “[l]egalizes marijuana and provides for records expungement for certain past marijuana offenses; treats marijuana products similar to tobacco products, including the use of civil penalties for providing marijuana to persons under 19 years of age.” Carroll’s bill audacious thumbs its nose at the DEA’s vehemently criticized decision this year not to reschedule cannabis from its current inexplicable designation as a dangerous substance of no medical value, akin to heroin or cocaine. “To me it’s just not a big deal,” Carroll told Politico. “It’s already ubiquitous. Anybody who thinks this is somehow going to increase the availability of marijuana has never been 19. If that’s the case, then what’s the big deal about having it available at the local 7-Eleven?” Alcohol, after all, is a standard fixture at convenience stores and gas stations, with store owners facing fines and other civil penalties for underage distribution. “The whole point here is to get the government out of the business of treating at least marijuana use as a crime and treat it instead as a social problem,” Carroll continued, adding he’s never tried cannabis, personally. “You’re talking to the world’s most boring, straightest guy,” he said. “I’ve never popped a pill, never smoked a joint, nothing. I’ve never quite understood the all the allure of this stuff.” Apparently, though, he doesn’t feel his personal views concerning substances should override contrary opinions and choices. On the surface, the right-wing lawmaker would seem the last person sponsoring legislation taking such a radical departure from federal law — but on issues of personal freedom, his stances align most closely with libertarian philosophy. Carroll not only co-sponsored New Jersey’s medical cannabis legislation, in April he proposed lowering the state’s drinking age to 18, saying, according to the Patch, If you’re old enough to make the determination you want to enlist in the Marines, you’re old enough to determine if you want to have a beer. Despite an overwhelming public perception cannabis should at least be decriminalized and growing national disillusionment with the failed drug war — with the resultant largest prison population in the world, gang violence, strengthening of Mexican cartels, epidemic-level police violence, and inability of those in need to get life-saving medical cannabis treatment — the Drug Enforcement Agency opted to maintain marijuana prohibition this year. Should the proposed law indeed pass, New Jersey would join Alaska, Colorado, Washington, and Oregon in legal, recreational weed. In fact, degrees of decriminalization and legalization — mostly for medical use — exist in half the states in the nation. November’s election will likely expand those numbers. Ballot measures could potentially legalize recreational use in varying degrees in California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, and Nevada — and although they aren’t all expected to pass, the segment of the population arguing against legalization shrinks seemingly by the month. New Jersey lawmakers are attempting a multi-pronged approach to legalizing weed. Another bill, A2068, filed in January by Assemblyman Reed Gusciora — ironically, one of the most liberal members of the state Legislature — and State Sen. Nicholas Scutari would legalize cannabis and treat it akin to alcohol. A third is expected after several legislators, including Gusciora and Scutari, return from an information-gathering field trip examining legalization in Colorado in October. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — whom Carroll refers to as “the Fat Man” — will almost certainly veto any legislation concerning cannabis. But his tenure in office draws to a close just over a year from now. “We would like to get the ball rolling, even with this governor and even if he vetoes it, the choice then could be made to put it on the ballot through the Legislature or set the groundwork for the next administration,” Gusciora told Politico. “I think it’s only a matter of time.” Claire Bernish writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-140) not displayed.
.
.
.
#141. To: misterwhite (#139)
(Edited)
So if I said "Killing two birds with one stone" I must be referring to a murder, a bird or a stone? You must be referring to multiple objectives accomplished. How is "suicide pact" nonhumorously applicable even idiomatically to anything whose outcome is orders of magnitude less serious than death? Can you supply examples (not from you or your **** buddy Roscoe) in support of your apparent position that it is so used idiomatically? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I'm already down to single-syllable words. I suppose I could switch to a rebus and see if that works.
Might work.
[misterwhite:] That's not against the law. "Nobody said it was, strawbeater." [crickets] "Sez you - the requirement for successful prosecution is proof beyond REASONABLE doubt not ANY CONCEIVABLE doubt." What proof? Where's your proof he crossed the border with the pot? Where's your proof that the pot is even from Colorado? "The Colorado seller testifies." [crickets] For those keeping score at home. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Sure. That's a piece of cake. See? I did it again. I already gave you an example in my post #116. And he's referring to people making a pact with a document, not other people. So the phrase, "The U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact" must be taken as an idiomatic expression.
[misterwhite:] Because you say so. "No basis was offered, hence baseless; that a governmental assertion of authority is self-serving, is self-evident." [crickets] "That's not the question until we've agreed that a USSC-approved federal action is unconstitutional and then passed on to the followup question, 'What is to be done?'" Again, who says that a federal law, ruled constitutional by the USSC, is unconstituional? You? "Honest and unprejudiced readers of the Constitution - in other words, conservatives." [crickets] For those keeping score at home. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You mean he confesses to the crime. That's how the states are going to stop interstate transportation. Those who do so will confess. Well, OK. If you say so. Now give the computer back to the adult.
To which I already replied: 'anarchy, unlike pot legalization, WOULD lead to a great many deaths (though not of "everyone in the US") - so the judge's use of the term "suicide pact" was, unlike yours, appropriate.' A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I think he likes taking beatings.
You mean he confesses to the crime. Who says he committed a crime? He didn't take any pot across the Colorado border. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. No basis was offered, hence no basis was offered. It doesn't mean it's baseless. "that a governmental assertion of authority is self-serving, is self-evident." The governmental assertion of authority is predicated on the findings. Whether or not that authority is self-serving is moot. "Again, who says that a federal law, ruled constitutional by the USSC, is unconstitutional? You?" Sure. If we can tear them away from watching Family Feud or listening to the Sean Hannity show, perhaps we can get them to memorize obscure legal cases and to compose clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367. We don't need the courts to do that!
The Colorado seller testifies to what?
That he sold pot to the guy who soon after showed up in a neighboring state with Colorado plates and pot in the car. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Accomplice
The judge was referring to a "suicide pact" with the Bill of Rights. How can that be "appropriate"? A suicide pact is between people. It's obvious his was an idiomatic expression. As was mine.
Because you say so. "No basis was offered, hence baseless;" No basis was offered, hence no basis was offered. It doesn't mean it's baseless. Double-secret bases also have no evidentiary weight in the forum of reasoned debate. Moot only if there's an evidentiary basis - which asserted "findings" are not. Your snide contempt for conservatives is noted. Back to gnawing on that red herring, I see; the need for courts is not the question until we've agreed that a USSC-approved federal action is unconstitutional and then passed on to the followup question, 'What is to be done?' A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Not unless he knew about the intent to cross the state border. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Simply false - the judge said 'it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."' The parties to the pact would be the citizenry. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Oh. THAT Colorado seller. First of all, the feds have no authority to question a guy with Colorado plates in a neighboring state. Or search his car. He has broken no law. Second, even if he accidentally opens his trunk and the feds see the marijuana, they can take no action. Their authority is limited to drugs crossing the border. Interstate commerce. Right? So, how in the world are they going to be able to find the name of the Colorado retailer who sold him the pot? Even if they could, the driver of the car could say he took that pot home. The stuff in the trunk is not Colorado pot. The bottom line is that your law is federally unenforceable.
RICO
Yep. "Drugs like marijuana are fungible commodities." --Justice Scalia,
Which differs not a whit from the current situation. To repeat: The DEA has the power to turn him over to the state authorities and thereby facilitate the initiation of a federal investigation. And a jury can decide if that possibility constitutes REASONABLE doubt. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You mean this RICO? 'A recent brochure from the National Federation of Independent Business Legal Defense Fund depicts a business man, dressed in a jail-type orange jumpsuit, sitting opposite his lawyer in a prison visiting room. The caption reads, "This could be your next business conference!" 'It's no joke. Increasingly, business people in the United States are being targeted by Congress, federal enforcement agencies and government prosecutors. [...] 'Some have been treated like "Mafia kingpins," subjected to Racketeering- Influences Corrupt Organizations (RICO) prosecution for matters that have nothing to do with the original purpose of that law, which was supposed to pertain to criminal syndicates.' - Edwin Meese III, www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2008/08/jail-could-be-the- location-of-your-next-business-meeting A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Nope. Drug pushers.
But only if his trunk acidentally opens. Yeah. Your version of the law will work fabulously.
But only if his trunk acidentally opens. They would have no fewer ways than they have now to discover possession of marijuana, your cavorting and misdirection notwithstanding. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. The feds would have far fewer ways. They could, for example, have reasonable suspicion that there are drugs in the trunk. But they can't act because they lack authority. You've limited them to interstate transactions only, remember?
Regarding the Constitution, the parties are States. Carrying out a suicide pact would result in dissolution of the Union. There was no threat of anarchy and Justice Jackson's dissenting opinion was shot down by the majority who wrote for the Court. It is rhetoric not adopted by the Court. The majority opinion in Terminiello has been reaffirmed many times. It was not an entirely new idea of Justice Jackson. It was more of contemporary rhetorical flourish of an idea expressed by Abraham Lincoln in his July 4, 1861 Special Address to Congress, 4 Collected Works at 429-431. When reading Lincoln, it should be noted where he refers to "the Commanding General," that was not Lincoln (the C-in-C) but the Commanding General of the Army. The CG was authorized to suspend the privilege of the right of habeas corpus at his discretion, or to delegate said power down the chain of command, which he did. In the famous case of John Merryman (Ex parte Merryman) the privilege of the writ was suspended in Maryland by General Keim who was in Pennsylvania. Lincoln's word salad obfuscating the suspension of the privilege of the writ in the Union states by military officers, rather than Congress, claimed some exception based lest "the government itself go to pieces." That exception to law is the same type of "suicide" asserted by Justice Jackson, which was denied by the majority of the Court.
They didn't shoot down his dissent because he misused the phrase "suicide pact". They shot it down because the Chicago ordinance was overly broad. My only point in bringing it up was that he used the phrase as an expression to describe a situation where a literal interpretation of the Bill of Rights (free speech) results in harm to the citizens -- even though it may not include death or involve everyone. "The majority opinion in Terminiello has been reaffirmed many times." Selectively. Burning the American flag is protected speech. But waving the Confederate flag is not. What's next? The "knockout game" is protected speech? Riots are nothing more than freedom of expression?
First of all, the feds have no authority to question a guy with Colorado plates in a neighboring state. Or search his car. He has broken no law. In the current situation, the DEA can search the trunk of your car if a drug- sniffing dog indicates that it may contain drugs. Under your situation, they could only do that at the border as the drugs are crossing.
And it wouldn't be enough for just the vehicle to be straddling the state line. The actual package of drugs would have to be directly above the border at some point.
They shot down his dissent. History has proven, beyond all doubt, that no suicide resulted. Selectively. Burning the American flag is protected speech. But waving the Confederate flag is not. Your argument is bogus. Waving the Confederate flag is not prohibited. Flying it on government property can be prohibited. A state government can choose whether or not it will allow the Confederate flag to be flown on state property. The standard has not changed. Terminiello, as I have mentioned previously, did not reach that question. The Court in Terminiello: Subsequent decisions: See also Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), citing Terminiello. Held: Absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense. Pp. 22-26. 1 Cal. App. 3d 94, 81 Cal. Rptr. 503, reversed. See also Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) The prima facie evidence provision, as interpreted by the jury instruction, renders the statute unconstitutional. Because this jury instruction is the Model Jury Instruction, and because the Supreme Court of Virginia had the opportunity to expressly disavow the jury instruction, the jury instruction's construction of the prima facie provision "is a ruling on a question of state law that is as binding on us as though the precise words had been written into" the statute. E.g., Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949) (striking down an ambiguous statute on facial grounds based upon the instruction given to the jury); see also New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 768, n. 21 (1982) (noting that Terminiello involved a facial challenge to the statute); Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U.S. 947, 965, n. 13 (1984); Note, The First Amendment Overbreadth Doctrine, 83 Harv. L. Rev. 844, 845-846, n. 8 (1970); Monaghan, Overbreadth, 1981 S. Ct. Rev. 1, 10-12; Blakey Murray, Threats, Free Speech, and the Jurisprudence of the Federal Criminal Law, 2002 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 829, 883, n. 133. As construed by the jury instruction, the prima facie provision strips away the very reason why a State may ban cross burning with the intent to intimidate. The prima facie evidence provision permits a jury to convict in every cross-burning case in which defendants exercise their constitutional right not to put on a defense. And even where a defendant like Black presents a defense, the prima facie evidence provision makes it more likely that the jury will find an intent to intimidate regardless of the particular facts of the case. The provision permits the Commonwealth to arrest, prosecute, and convict a person based solely on the fact of cross burning itself. It is apparent that the provision as so interpreted "`would create an unacceptable risk of the suppression of ideas.'" Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., supra, at 965, n. 13 (quoting Members of City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 797 (1984)). The act of burning a cross may mean that a person is engaging in constitutionally proscribable intimidation. But that same act may mean only that the person is engaged in core political speech. The prima facie evidence provision in this statute blurs the line between these two meanings of a burning cross. As interpreted by the jury instruction, the provision chills constitutionally protected political speech because of the possibility that the Commonwealth will prosecute — and potentially convict — somebody engaging only in lawful political speech at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect. See also City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461-63 (1987), citing Terminiello. "Speech is often provocative and challenging. . . . [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest." Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 4 (1949). In Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U. S. 130 (1974), for example, the appellant was found to have yelled obscenities and threats at an officer who had asked appellant's husband to produce his driver's license. Appellant was convicted under a municipal ordinance that made it a crime Id. at 415 U. S. 132 (citation omitted). We vacated the conviction and invalidated the ordinance as facially overbroad. Critical to our decision was the fact that the ordinance "punishe[d] only spoken words," and was not limited in scope to fighting words that, "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.'" Id. at 415 U. S. 133, quoting Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518, 405 U. S. 525 (1972); see also ibid. (Georgia breach-of-peace statute not limited to fighting words held facially invalid). Moreover, in a concurring opinion in Lewis, JUSTICE POWELL suggested that even the "fighting words" exception recognized in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942), might require a narrower application in cases involving words addressed to a police officer, because The Houston ordinance is much more sweeping than the municipal ordinance struck down in Lewis. It is not limited to fighting words nor even to obscene or opprobrious language, but prohibits speech that "in any manner . . . interrupt[s]" an officer. The Constitution does not allow such speech to be made a crime. The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.
Wave it at a Black Lives Matter protest and then tell me you wouldn't be arrested. No different than burning the American flag in front of patriots.
They can if they have reasonable suspicion that the pot crossed state lines, e.g., Colorado plates. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Round and round we go. How can they prove it's Colorado pot? They can't. And the driver sure as hell isn't going to admit it. They got nothing ... except a possible harassment lawsuit.
Round and round indeed: "the driver of the car could say he took that pot [to his purchase of which the Colorado seller testified] home. The stuff in the trunk is not Colorado pot." "And a jury can decide if that possibility constitutes REASONABLE doubt." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. How in the world did the feds find that "Colorado seller"? Why would they even look for the seller when the driver can simply say he took it home? Where do the feds get the authority to do all this when the only "proof" they have is out-of-state plates? Where did they get the authority to search the trunk? This case would never get in front of a jury because any sane judge would laugh it out of the courtroom.
Wave it at a Black Lives Matter protest and then tell me you wouldn't be arrested. Waving the Confederate flag is not unlawful per se. Inciting to riot is unlawful. Breaching the peace or communicating fighting words is unlawful. Going to a BLM gathering and giving them all the finger might get you arrested. Giving the finger where you do not incite to riot would not be a crime. If your behavior is likely to incite to riot, it is not protected free speech. If you do it at a BLM gathering, you would probably be lucky to have a nearby police officer arrest you.
How does law enforcement find anyone who has information relevant to an investigation? It's always a task with no guarantee of success, but it often bears fruit. Asked and answered. More straw men - it's not about proof but reasonable suspicion. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Yet burning the American flag in front of patriotic citizens is protected.
'that an idiom is not literal does NOT mean it is completely unrelated to the literal meaning. If Joe and Jim each agree to eat a forkful of rutabaga if the other does, only in a purely humorous sense ought one call that a "suicide pact."'
#142. To: Roscoe (#140)
#143. To: misterwhite (#142)
#144. To: All (#113)
"He's got Colorado plates so he did cross a border."
#145. To: ConservingFreedom (#141)
"Can you supply examples (not from you or your **** buddy Roscoe) in support of your apparent position that it is so used idiomatically?"
#146. To: All (#111)
"Which makes it worth noting that they're baseless and self-serving"
#147. To: ConservingFreedom (#144)
"The Colorado seller testifies."
#148. To: misterwhite (#145)
I already gave you an example in my post #116.
#149. To: misterwhite (#145)
So the phrase, "The U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact" must be taken as an idiomatic expression.
#150. To: misterwhite (#147)
"The Colorado seller testifies."
#151. To: ConservingFreedom (#146)
"No basis was offered, hence baseless"
"Honest and unprejudiced readers of the Constitution - in other words, conservatives."
#152. To: ConservingFreedom (#150)
#153. To: misterwhite (#152)
The Colorado seller testifies to what?
#154. To: ConservingFreedom (#153)
#155. To: ConservingFreedom (#148)
"so the judge's use of the term "suicide pact" was, unlike yours, appropriate.'
#156. To: misterwhite (#151)
"Baseless self-serving "findings" have no evidentiary weight in the forum of reasoned debate." [...] "Which makes it worth noting that they're baseless and self-serving"
"that a governmental assertion of authority is self-serving, is self- evident."
The governmental assertion of authority is predicated on the findings. Whether or not that authority is self-serving is moot.
"That's not the question until we've agreed that a USSC-approved federal action is unconstitutional and then passed on to the followup question, 'What is to be done?'"
Again, who says that a federal law, ruled constitutional by the USSC, is unconstituional? You?
"Honest and unprejudiced readers of the Constitution - in other words, conservatives."
Sure. If we can tear them away from watching Family Feud or listening to the Sean Hannity show,
perhaps we can get them to memorize obscure legal cases and to compose clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367.
We don't need the courts to do that!
#157. To: Roscoe (#154)
Accomplice
#158. To: misterwhite (#155)
The judge was referring to a "suicide pact" with the Bill of Rights.
#159. To: ConservingFreedom (#153)
"That he sold pot to the guy who soon after showed up in a neighboring state with Colorado plates and pot in the car."
#160. To: ConservingFreedom (#157)
#161. To: misterwhite (#159)
The bottom line is that your law is federally unenforceable.
#162. To: misterwhite (#159)
First of all, the feds have no authority to question a guy with Colorado plates in a neighboring state. Or search his car. He has broken no law.
Second, even if he accidentally opens his trunk and the feds see the marijuana, they can take no action.
the driver of the car could say he took that pot home. The stuff in the trunk is not Colorado pot.
#163. To: Roscoe (#160)
RICO
#164. To: ConservingFreedom (#163)
#165. To: ConservingFreedom (#162)
"To repeat: The DEA has the power to turn him over to the state authorities"
#166. To: misterwhite (#165)
"To repeat: The DEA has the power to turn him over to the state authorities"
#167. To: ConservingFreedom (#166)
"They would have no fewer ways than they have now to discover possession of marijuana"
#168. To: misterwhite, ConservingFreedom (#108)
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a common expression and does not mean everyone dies. Get a f**king grip.
Soon after the first call for militia, it was considered a duty to authorize the Commanding General, in proper cases, according to his discretion, to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; or, in other words, to arrest, and detain, without resort to the ordinary processes and forms of law, such individuals as he might deem dangerous to the public safety. This authority has purposely been exercised but very sparingly. Nevertheless, the legality and propriety of what has been done under it, are questioned; and the attention of the country has been called to the proposition that one who is sworn to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'' should not himself violate them. Of course some consideration was given to the questions of power, and propriety, before this matter was acted upon. The whole of the laws which were required to be faithfully executed, were being resisted, and failing of execution, in nearly one-third of the States. Must they be allowed to finally fail of execution, even had it been perfectly clear, that by the use of the means necessary to their execution, some single law, made in such extreme tenderness of the citizen's liberty, that practically, it relieves more of the guilty, than of the innocent, should, to a very limited extent, be violated? To state the question more directly, are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken, if the government should be overthrown, when it was believed that disregarding the single law, would tend to preserve it? But it was not believed that this question was presented. It was not believed that any law was violated. The provision of the Constitution that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it,'' is equivalent to a provision — is a provision — that such privilege may be suspended when, in cases of rebellion, or invasion, the public safety does require it. It was decided that we have a case of rebellion, and that the public safety does require the qualified suspension of the privilege of the writ which was authorized to be made. Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power. But the Constitution itself, is silent as to which, or who, is to exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it cannot be believed the framers of the instrument intended, that in every case, the danger should run its course, until Congress could be called together; the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by the rebellion.
#169. To: All (#167)
(Edited)
#170. To: nolu chan (#168)
"There was no threat of anarchy and Justice Jackson's dissenting opinion was shot down by the majority who wrote for the Court."
#171. To: ConservingFreedom (#162)
Which differs not a whit from the current situation.
#172. To: misterwhite (#171)
Under your situation, they could only do that at the border as the drugs are crossing.
#173. To: misterwhite (#170)
They didn't shoot down his dissent because he misused the phrase "suicide pact".
The majority opinion in Terminiello has been reaffirmed many times."
What's next? The "knockout game" is protected speech? Riots are nothing more than freedom of expression?
The argument here has been focused on the issue of whether the content of petitioner's speech was composed of derisive, fighting words, which carried it outside the scope of the constitutional guarantees. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 310. We do not reach that question, for there is a preliminary question that is dispositive of the case.
Appellant was convicted of violating that part of Cal. Penal Code 415 which prohibits “maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct,” for wearing a jacket bearing the words “Fuck the Draft” in a corridor of the Los Angeles Courthouse. The Court of Appeal held that “offensive conduct” means “behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn disturb the peace,” and affirmed the conviction.
The Supreme Court of Virginia has not ruled on the meaning of the prima facie evidence provision. It has, however, stated that "the act of burning a cross alone, with no evidence of intent to intimidate, will nonetheless suffice for arrest and prosecution and will insulate the Commonwealth from a motion to strike the evidence at the end of its case-in-chief." 262 Va., at 778, 553 S.E. 2d, at 746. The jury in the case of Richard Elliott did not receive any instruction on the prima facie evidence provision, and the provision was not an issue in the case of Jonathan O'Mara because he pleaded guilty. The court in Barry Black's case, however, instructed the jury that the provision means: "The burning of a cross, by itself, is sufficient evidence from which you may infer the required intent." App. 196. This jury instruction is the same as the Model Jury Instruction in the Commonwealth of Virginia. See Virginia Model Jury Instructions, Criminal, Instruction No. 10.250 (1998 and Supp. 2001).
Second, contrary to the city's contention, the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.
"'for any person wantonly to curse or revile or to use obscene or opprobrious language toward or with reference to any member of the city police while in the actual performance of his duty.'"
"a properly trained officer may reasonably be expected to 'exercise a higher degree of restraint' than the average citizen, and thus be less likely to respond belligerently to 'fighting words.'"
#174. To: nolu chan (#173)
"Waving the Confederate flag is not prohibited."
#175. To: misterwhite (#167)
They could, for example, have reasonable suspicion that there are drugs in the trunk. But they can't act
#176. To: ConservingFreedom (#175)
"They can if they have reasonable suspicion that the pot crossed state lines, e.g., Colorado plates."
#177. To: misterwhite (#176)
Round and round we go. How can they prove it's Colorado pot?
#178. To: ConservingFreedom (#177)
"to his purchase of which the Colorado seller testified"
#179. To: misterwhite (#174)
"Waving the Confederate flag is not prohibited."
#180. To: misterwhite (#178)
How in the world did the feds find that "Colorado seller"?
Why would they even look for the seller when the driver can simply say he took it home?
Where do the feds get the authority to do all this when the only "proof" they have is out-of-state plates? Where did they get the authority to search the trunk?
#181. To: nolu chan (#179)
"If your behavior is likely to incite to riot, it is not protected free speech."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]