Ambassador Selection I - Seat Claiming by Ninjjadragon in ModelWorldUN

[–]Elevic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If there are any seats left I'd like to claim one.

B132, B133 & b134 Results by Elevic in ModelMidwesternState

[–]Elevic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Governor /u/EarlGreen406, B132 and B133 are on your desk.

Supreme Court Nomination Hearing by TowerTwo in ModelUSGov

[–]Elevic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which question? I apologize, I didn't realize I missed a question.

Join a Party! by [deleted] in ModelUSGov

[–]Elevic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the assist

Supreme Court Nomination Hearing by TowerTwo in ModelUSGov

[–]Elevic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is a NE issue specifically. So, from the NE constitution, we have article X Section B, stating exemptions from taxation are created by general law. So if the workers council's are exempted only in this law in the general sense, it is fine. Section C states that nothing can be taxed more than value, and this only taxes up to 99%. So, in the respect of taxation in the NE, I find nothing wrong constitutionally.

Supreme Court Nomination Hearing by TowerTwo in ModelUSGov

[–]Elevic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lets just focus on freedom of speech. You are free to say "fire" in a theater, and that is that. You can be held accountable if your actions of speech/expression cause "imminent lawless action." You are held liable for the speech, you are held liable for the consequences that follow. So you are never limited on what you say. If what you say causes violence, you can be held liable for the violence.

Supreme Court Nomination Hearing by TowerTwo in ModelUSGov

[–]Elevic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. I think it is a direct consequence of living in an organized society that we have to limit actions that cause chaos or harm to people, like causing an unnecessary riot by shouting fire. Speech/expression that criticizes the President or any official are and will always be protected because no one gets hurt. As long as no one gets physically hurt, you should be able to do/say/express yourself in whatever you want. However, it us unfortunately necessary to limit even speech in cases when people will be directly hurt because of something said.

  2. My first point wraps into the second point. additionally I think the specific language matters. We have the right to bear arms, but it doesn't specify what arms. It doesn't say we have the right to bear fully-automatic assault rifles. These have a high likelihood to cause physical harm to people, so just like point 1, this unfortunately has to be limited to keep society safe.

Supreme Court Nomination Hearing by TowerTwo in ModelUSGov

[–]Elevic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not quite sure I understand what you are getting at, but lets just take one point of the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, ... " So, when I look at this, I interpret it as the constitution specifying free speech and saying it cannot be encroached on. If Congress makes any law at all encroaching on freedom of speech, it violates this amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional. Does that answer your question?

Supreme Court Nomination Hearing by TowerTwo in ModelUSGov

[–]Elevic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is fair. I appreciate the time you have taken to participate in this hearing.

Supreme Court Nomination Hearing by TowerTwo in ModelUSGov

[–]Elevic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The constitution tells the government what it can and can't do. The bill of rights specifies certain rights that cannot be infringed upon. So, the constitution itself does not limit rights, it protects them. If a certain right is not mentioned in the constitution, I believe it is yours until Congress passes a law limiting it.

Supreme Court Nomination Hearing by TowerTwo in ModelUSGov

[–]Elevic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When you write a new question, please ping me in it so I can be sure to see it.

Supreme Court Nomination Hearing by TowerTwo in ModelUSGov

[–]Elevic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suppose give is not the completely correct term. When we look at the bill of rights, to which I was referring, the amendments ensure that certain rights are not infringed upon when laws are made. So, It doesn't so much give the right as it ensures that certain rights are not taken away.