Yet Another Blatant Attack on the First Amendment

The practical consequences I would like to see is the US government abiding by the Constitution in the strictest sense possible, not finding all sorts of creative ways to circumvent it.

Justification? How about a clear violation of the First Amendment, is that not "justification" enough for you?

1. Should I create tens of thousands of threads for your benefit because this one is too "minor" for you?

2. In your world the US government violation of the First Amendment is "relatively minor"? In my world this has immense implications/ramifications.

No law overrides the Constitution. The First and the Ninth are not in conflict unless you fail to understand these 2 Amendments. The First is a directive to Congress and the Ninth protects all rights not explicitly stated in the remaining body of the Constitution (which excludes the First). They are both unconditional and non negotiable.

That's a very naive statement. The underlying purpose of most laws is $$$$money$$$$, power and a raison d'etre.

Article I Section 4 Paragraph 2

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year ...

Why do you think the founders put that in? Because they were worried that Congress would not assemble. They never envisioned it to be a full time high paying job. They felt that the Constitution itself was all or most of the law that was necessary. They never imagined that these criminals would spend their time enacting tens of thousands of new laws making every American a criminal 24/7. There are multiple very lucrative industries that profit very handsomely from the (in)justice system in the land of the free.

Absolutely not, it's about making speech a crime under pretense of preventing human trafficking which it would never accomplish anyway.

Correct, see prior response.

 

What the Founders thought then does not matter now.

 

At any cost? I think the implication of your claimed preferred legal status quo would kill millions before the inevitable collapse of the USA.

You can do whatever you like. I just find it odd that you appear to have such a strong fundamental objection to almost the entirety of US federal and state legislation yet you don't seem to make anything of it until a single specific incident occurs that you happen not to like.

No, the stated reason is prevention of human trafficking. It doesn't matter whether it actually was or not here because you'd object to the action even if it was the reason since it'd still be against the constitution from your point of view. There could be actual lives directly at stake but the action would still be a breach of free speech so not permitted.

 

That depends on many things. The intent of the Constitution is presumed to be an extension of our founding document. After all, the primary reason for the revolution was the tyranny of King George III and the quest to establish a nation free from that tyranny. So if we as Americans allegedly desire to espouse American ideology as enshrined in our founding document, we should try to conform to the thoughts of the founders. If not, then we are not following American ideology and will face the consequences of that failure.

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” - Thomas Jefferson

 

only if ruled so, by the supreme court.

 

What, exactly, is being "disguised"? Do you think the DOJ has some ulterior motive to shut down a human trafficking website?

 

There already is, and has been for quite some time. If you are interested, checkout www.rubmaps.com. How that site remains operational is beyond me.

 

That's your opinion. I think this new unconstitutional law will have dramatic effect on chilling freedom of speech and the press. I can easily see website after website shut down (including this one) under pretext of "criminal" activity (i.e. speech crime).

Then you know nothing about me. You merely stumbled on this particular thread I started. I pointed you to another thread I created that suggests various remedies to flagrant violations of the Constitution by the US government. And those are just 2 threads. If you go through my posts in this forum alone you will see many objections to the status quo. I've participated in other forums where I've raised numerous objections over US government criminal activities.

You're right, I stand corrected. The stated purpose is as you say. The actual purpose however is what I strongly believe it is. Regardless, it's a clear violation of the First Amendment, that isn't even arguable (again, "Congress shall make NO LAW ...").

 

But LE in areas where Democrats aren't in control take human trafficking seriously and they use "Backpage.com" to break up human trafficking rings.

Best examples would be the San Bernardino County and Riverside County Sheriffs Departments who use "Backpage" for identifying human trafficking rings, obtaining a search warrant and along with federal LE (ICE, FBI, ATF) move in making arrest and freeing young girls being held in captivity for the purpose of sex.

Sounds like to me law enforcement just lost one tool of breaking up the cartels human trafficking operations.

FYI:
Open border liberals and sanctuary cities and hermit states like California aid and abet the cartels and human trafficking.
One has to wonder who was really behind closing down "Backpage" ?

 

A direct frontal attack on the First Amendment, pay attention.

1. It isn't a "human trafficking website" unless and until proven to be one by a valid court of law.
2. Yes, absolutely without any question, see above.

 

Same is true with those who support sanctuary cities or sanctuary states.

 

Backpage allows sex workers to stay safer by allowing them to find clients without going to seedy parts of town at night. You're not going to destroy the sex industry, you might as well keep the women working in it safe by not punishing them for working more safely.

 

No, an unconstitutional law is null and void from inception, period. SCOTUS rules all sorts of nonsensical garbage. That is not to say there are no proper and some brilliant rulings from SCOTUS but unfortunately a litany of garbage as well. But you are correct in a sense, Americans have long been indoctrinated to accept SCOTUS rulings as truth.

“They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority.” - Gerald Massey

 

Only if ruled so by the SCOTUS.

and this is your opinion, that you are entitled to. but it doesn't change reality.

SCOTUS rulings are the final word on constitutional matters.

 

For you, not for me. SCOTUS doesn't change reality either, corporations (a paper created fiction) are NOT human beings with unalienable rights protected by the Bill of Right no matter how much SCOTUS claims and YOU want it to be so. That is reality, not SCOTUS invented fiction.

But I agree, you are entitled to your opinion and it doesn't change reality.

 

Nope. For you as well

according to the letter of the law, yes they are.

I didn't offer an opinion. I'm explaining constitutional law to you.

 

1. I've answered all your questions directly. You do not like the answers and you have not countered with anything strong enough to support your extreme views.

2. Your "ALL CASES" point doesn't make sense at all. No matter what the Supreme Court rules, the ruling must fall within the confines of the Constitution anyway.

3.The Constitution does not have to literally spell out that a court has to behave as a court or a judge has to behave as a judge (one whose role includes interpreting the law!).

4. Your point of view is dead wrong and impractical and that's why you're crying about insidious this and Marbury v Madison that. Those who got the interpretation CORRECT got the judicial review, the necessary limits on 1A, etc. The hardcore libertarian, hardcore Constitution positions are simply wrong and impractical.

5. I'm dismissing the rest of your points because you wish to ignore THE OTHER Amendments that would trump the 1st in a push come shove matter.

Bottom line: It's like you forgot that the Constitution was for the protection against overbearing/corrupt government, to guarantee basic rights to people, and was NOT designed to protect against corrupt business practices.

 

Well this is one way to see it.

Another way would be the truth and that is law enforcement dragged its ass when complaints rolled in on Backpage site for years and years. That said, law enforcement has busted many traffickers so they do go after them.

 

Well they should be secure so we don't disagree on this.

 

"They" as in law enforcement.

The owners were involved in coverup.

 

The owners were involved in covering up the trafficking at the least. Last I heard the government has more on them than that though.

 

:GASP: Can you imagine if the OP was correct, the federal government wouldn't have had the teeth to fix that. It took the federal gov to fix that because everyone else was ignoring the Constitution.

 

You don't dictate me. I don't bend over to authority unlike you.

Yeah I know. "Everything Hitler did was legal" - Martin Luther King Jr.

You're not explaining anything to me, you're giving me your personal opinion and I don't share it.

 

You know what, this could be right.

If we have corrupt districts, LE will forever run around chasing rings and going after major trafficking sites will be ... fruitless. This country is never serious about stopping the real serious crimes and that's how human trafficking can do so well here. Even on this LE had to all but be begged to look into some of the serious complaints on Backpage.

The big issue for me isn't that LE lost a tool in Backpage. It's that through a site like Backpage serious crimes like child trafficking is pretty profitable and there's so much protections for criminality in this country.

 

You and I have gone around on this elsewhere. Your theory of constitutionalism is not used today. You know it, I know it.