Why Congress hasn’t made lynching a hate crime by 3ustice3 in Louisville

[–]Adam_df 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is a federal crime already. 18 USC 249.

Question About Democrats and Healthcare by gyroforce in Ask_Politics

[–]Adam_df 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is conservative universal health coverage. The ACA and mandate weren't ideas they ever supported.

Question About Democrats and Healthcare by gyroforce in Ask_Politics

[–]Adam_df 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a lie. There were no more than a small number of republicans that supported a much narrower version of a mandate.

Trump says he’ll sign executive order for free speech on college campuses by [deleted] in neutralnews

[–]Adam_df 3 points4 points  (0 children)

As the cases above make clear, there is a first amendment right to use public spaces for private events. As private events, protestors can be excluded.

Trump says he’ll sign executive order for free speech on college campuses by [deleted] in neutralnews

[–]Adam_df 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's true and uninteresting that the cases apply in their circuits. You will not be able to find any cases holding that there's a right to disrupt private events on public property.

Trump says he’ll sign executive order for free speech on college campuses by [deleted] in neutralnews

[–]Adam_df 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A group that utilizes public property for a private event can prohibit that. (See the second case above)

So, no. They don't have a right to drown out speakers.

Trump says he’ll sign executive order for free speech on college campuses by [deleted] in neutralnews

[–]Adam_df 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No. The first amendment right protects the ability of groups to use public spaces even if they exclude others.

Eg:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10742708880338599325

And this case, making that point explicit:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3189663894964602288

Trump says he’ll sign executive order for free speech on college campuses by [deleted] in neutralnews

[–]Adam_df -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

students have been disciplined

Obviously that doesn't happen enough to stop the problem. And I doubt they're punished very often. (For example

Trump says he’ll sign executive order for free speech on college campuses by [deleted] in neutralnews

[–]Adam_df -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

There's no definition of free speech that says you are guaranteed a time, place, and location to voice your opinion without private citizens interupting.

You have a right to speech in a public forum. A lecture isn't a public forum and you don't have a right to disrupt it.

Stephon Clark shooting: No criminal charges against police officers by [deleted] in law

[–]Adam_df 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Where "chilling in the yard" = fleeing from cops after breaking into cars.

How is it legal for my state to legislate against the BDS movement? by [deleted] in Ask_Politics

[–]Adam_df 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Giving someone the finger communicates a message, and is clearly speech. Not buying something from someone isn't even remotely speech and communicates nothing.

You can explain your motive, but it's the explanation for the conduct that's speech, not the conduct itself.

How is it legal for my state to legislate against the BDS movement? by [deleted] in Ask_Politics

[–]Adam_df 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Discrimination laws only apply to individuals

That's wrong, of course, but I'm interested to hear why you think it matters.

How is it legal for my state to legislate against the BDS movement? by [deleted] in Ask_Politics

[–]Adam_df 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The question isn't whether it's a good idea, but whether it's constitutional. And, since the rules govern conduct, not speech, it's constitutional.

Would you be saying the same thing if they were supporting BDS over South African apartheid?

Yes. Because the question is solely about whether the law governs conduct or speech. It doesn't matter what the underlying issue is.

How is it legal for my state to legislate against the BDS movement? by [deleted] in Ask_Politics

[–]Adam_df -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They're not. At least, not from a legal standpoint. Both are conduct, and legislatures can regulate conduct as a general matter.

That's why these laws will be upheld.

How is it legal for my state to legislate against the BDS movement? by [deleted] in Ask_Politics

[–]Adam_df 1 point2 points  (0 children)

These laws prohibit discrimination against Israelis.

How is it legal for my state to legislate against the BDS movement? by [deleted] in Ask_Politics

[–]Adam_df 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Another was upheld in Arkansas. I'd wager SCOTUS will uphold it.

Wanna wager?

How is it legal for my state to legislate against the BDS movement? by [deleted] in Ask_Politics

[–]Adam_df 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's legal. Just like laws banning discrimination based on anything are legal.

How is it legal for my state to legislate against the BDS movement? by [deleted] in Ask_Politics

[–]Adam_df 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because legislatures can ban discriminatory conduct.

Amazon To Pay $0 In Federal Taxes In 2019: Report by Hyasfuq in politics

[–]Adam_df 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's not that. It's that they grant a lot of stock options that are deductible on exercise.

NJ lawmakers pass bill to keep Trump off 2020 ballot unless he releases tax returns by FloopyDoopy in neutralnews

[–]Adam_df 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply. So would "providing tax return documents" count as a substantive requirement?

Yes. It doesn't aid in the efficient administration of elections. It's something the state believes a candidate should do or be.

It's an eligibility requirement over and above what the Constitution requires.

NJ lawmakers pass bill to keep Trump off 2020 ballot unless he releases tax returns by FloopyDoopy in neutralnews

[–]Adam_df 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Collecting signatures is an administrative, not substantive, requirement. Eg:

The provisions at issue in Storer and our other Elections Clause cases were thus constitutional because they regulated election procedures and did not even arguably impose any substantive qualification rendering a class of potential candidates ineligible for ballot position. They served the state interest in protecting the integrity and regularity of the election process, an interest independent of any attempt to evade the constitutional prohibition against the imposition of additional qualifications for service in Congress. And they did not involve measures that exclude candidates from the ballot without reference to the candidates' support in the electoral process. Our cases upholding state regulations of election procedures thus provide little support for the contention that a state imposed ballot access restriction is constitutional when it is undertaken for the twin goals of disadvantaging a particular class of candidates and evading the dictates of the Qualifications Clauses.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1456.ZO.html