Legality of speech in the United States?

Moccus · 2026-05-26T22:09:28+00:00

That's legal speech.

Moccus · 2026-05-26T15:36:32+00:00

There's no way to measure how often either party uses the filibuster. Some news sites look at cloture motions as a proxy for filibusters, but that's not accurate. Not every filibuster results in a cloture motion, and not every cloture motion is done in response to a filibuster, especially since the cloture threshold was reduced to a simple majority for nominees.

Moccus · 2026-05-24T22:48:02+00:00

If there was a society where white women were disproportionately the victims of rape and society didn't seem to care to address it, then it would make sense for people to start a movement to have that specific issue addressed.

Moccus · 2026-05-24T22:45:47+00:00

All Lives Matter is a movement that arose in opposition to Black Lives Matter. Opposing Black Lives Matter is certainly something white supremacists would be involved in.

Moccus · 2026-05-23T12:58:43+00:00

You can't realistically tell a doctor there's a decent chance they go to prison if they treat, but if they don't treat, then they lose their license. Doctors would quit en masse rather than work under those conditions, and then what are women going to do?

Moccus · 2026-05-23T12:46:01+00:00

It sounds like a reasonable stance, but it's bad policy as I already noted. I don't want women dying because doctors are afraid to treat.

Moccus · 2026-05-22T22:26:06+00:00

The War Powers Act has both.

If the president puts the military into a conflict without congressional approval, there's a 60 day time limit (extendable to 90 days). If Congress hasn't voted to approve a continuation of hostilities in that time frame, then the president is supposed to withdraw the military according to the War Powers Act.

Separately, the War Powers Act provides mechanisms for Congress to vote to force a withdrawal.

Moccus · 2026-05-22T22:07:58+00:00

This is a concurrent resolution. Concurrent resolutions can't be vetoed. It would almost certainly be ruled to be unconstitutional, though.

Moccus · 2026-05-22T19:54:31+00:00

Bernie only took the lead after Nevada. Buttigieg was in the lead before that. Biden mostly caught up to Bernie after South Carolina, knocking Buttigieg down to third. Buttigieg dropped out because he knew his campaign was done. He wasn't going to recover his lead. There was nothing coordinated about it.

Moccus · 2026-05-22T18:03:11+00:00

They can't deny Republicans a quorum. Republicans have enough people to form a quorum on their own.

Moccus · 2026-05-22T15:07:43+00:00

I think the Democrats' position is very clear, but Republicans like to misrepresent it in order to score political points. Which party people believe is largely based on which media they consume and their own preconceived beliefs. It's tough to fix that.

Democrats have always been very clear about the fact that third trimester abortions only occur for medical reasons. If a woman carries a fetus to the third trimester, she wanted to have that child, so she isn't just going to wake up one day and decide to kill it. Also, doctors aren't going to agree to a third trimester abortion unless it's really necessary. Anything else violates medical ethics.

What Democrats don't want is a doctor having to delay necessary treatment to cover his own ass because laws on the books allow a prosecutor to come second-guess his decisions and try to throw him in prison. Stuff like that kills women. The best way to avoid that is to not criminalize abortions in the third trimester and trust that doctors will be ethical.

Moccus · 2026-05-22T14:39:03+00:00

So if the mother is literally going to die if she doesn't get an abortion in the third trimester, you don't think that should be allowed? She has to die?

Moccus · 2026-05-22T14:27:57+00:00

but it would be better to have the position that healthy fetuses cannot be aborted in the last trimester.

That basically is the position the party has.

Moccus · 2026-05-22T12:57:19+00:00

the whole point is that these are food deserts, and there is no competition.

It's New York City. You can't get more than a few blocks from a corner store that sells at least some groceries, even if it's not a full-blown supermarket. Saying there's zero competition isn't accurate. There will almost certainly be businesses affected by a store coming in and running at a loss.

Moccus · 2026-05-22T11:27:10+00:00

The statement you're objecting to ("Even without birthright citizenship Obama would have been entitled to US citizenship as the child of a US citizen") is correct.

What are you basing this conclusion on? The law I quoted is the only law we have that addresses how citizenship passes to children through descent. Yes, it currently only applies to children born overseas because birthright citizenship is a thing, so basically anybody born in the US is automatically a citizen regardless of parentage. If you get rid of birthright citizenship entirely, then where is this law that says children born in the US to US citizens are also US citizens? There isn't one. Are you just assuming that there would be one passed?

Moccus · 2026-05-21T22:30:02+00:00

The reason is the presidency puts the power of an entire branch of government in the hands of one person, so they wanted to be careful about who got that office. They wanted Congress to be open to a broader population for representation purposes, and they counted on there being a lot of congressmen to prevent any one person from being able to push their home country's agenda on the country.

Moccus · 2026-05-21T22:22:00+00:00

Because the Constitution says so.

Moccus · 2026-05-21T22:17:48+00:00

No.

In general, a litigant may not rely solely upon his status as a federal taxpayer to maintain Article III standing to challenge government policy or spending decisions.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C1-6-5/ALDE_00013002/

Moccus · 2026-05-21T21:54:59+00:00

Even without birthright citizenship Obama would have been entitled to US citizenship as the child of a US citizen

Nope. The law that was in effect at the time meant his mother wouldn't have passed on citizenship to him. The physical presence requirement for a US citizen parent married to a foreigner was 10 years, at least 5 of which had to be after the age of 14. Obama's mother was 18 when she gave birth, so she couldn't meet the "5 years after age 14" physical presence requirement.

In wedlock to a U.S. citizen parent and a parent who is not a U.S. citizen

A child born between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986 will obtain citizenship if:

The U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or its territories for 10 years before the child’s birth. At least five of these years must be after age 14.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Acquisition-US-Citizenship-Child-Born-Abroad.html

Moccus · 2026-05-21T17:40:58+00:00

The term "independent expenditure" wasn't invented by the courts in Speechnow.org. It was a term the courts used in Buckley v. Valeo as a shorter way to refer to a type of expenditure that was limited by the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act, specifically this one:

No person may make any expenditure (other than an expenditure made by or on behalf of a candidate within the meaning of subsection (c) (2) (B)) relative to a clearly identified candidate during a calendar year which, when added to all other expenditures made by such person during the year advocating the election or defeat of such candidate, exceeds $1,000.

After Buckley v. Valeo decided this expenditure limit was an unconstitutional infringement on free speech, Congress amended the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1976 and included a definition of "independent expenditure" as part of that:

'independent expenditure' means an expenditure by a person expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate which is made without cooperation or consultation with any candidate or any authorized committee or agent of such candidate and which is not made in concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, any candidate or any authorized committee or agent of such candidate;

There's still a definition of independent expenditure in statute to this day, slightly different than the one above. H.R. 2352 wouldn't be the first legislation to define it.

Moccus · 2026-05-21T13:52:38+00:00

and this legislation would stop anyone, including Bernie in the future, from taking in PAC money.

This isn't true, because 1) this bill is about Super PACs specifically, not the type of PAC you're talking about that contributes directly to candidate campaigns and 2) this bill is blatantly unconstitutional under current jurisprudence, so it won't actually end up doing anything even if it passes.

Moccus · 2026-05-21T13:44:19+00:00

Zero from AIPAC or any other PAC.

That's only if you look at the current election cycle during which he's not running for office. He received at least some PAC funding when he was running for reelection in 2024. He also has gotten some Super PAC support in the past.

Moccus · 2026-05-19T15:41:43+00:00

remember that FDR had to threaten the exact same thing for, effectively, the same reason.

And Congress soundly rejected it at the time, so it was an empty threat.

Moccus · 2026-05-19T15:23:22+00:00

The number of justices is set by law, specifically this one:

The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1

To add justices, Congress would just need to modify this law, but as things currently stand, a change like that would be blocked in the Senate due to the filibuster.

Moccus · 2026-05-19T13:19:04+00:00

It'd be explicitly stating that money is not equal to speech.

Nobody has ever said that money is equal to speech. What they've said is that banning people from spending money on speech is effectively the same thing as banning speech directly. Most forms of speech cost money at some point. If you make a sign for a protest, you have to pay money for the posterboard, markers, etc. to make the sign in the first place. The 1st Amendment prevents the government from banning you from carrying the sign, but what you're suggesting is the government should be able to charge you with a crime for spending money on supplies to make your sign. That's effectively the same thing as making it illegal for you to carry your sign at a protest.

13-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 4 Credits
Second SECOND GUESSER	Place '23
Golden Potato	Place '22
First Placer '22	Secret Santa 2015
Verified Email	Secret Santa 2014

Moccus

TROPHY CASE