notoriousxmr on Nostr: I'm probably not the first person to notice this, but every single law has a loophole ...
I'm probably not the first person to notice this, but every single law has a loophole even if words are strictly defined.
Take the burning of the U.S flag, for example. If the government wanted to punish someone for it for hate speech, it would fail as a free speech issue (see Texas v. Johnson [1989]). However, if say the burning of the flag violated a burning ordinance due to pollution emitted, then it wouldn't be illegal because of hate speech, it would be illegal because it harms the environment, and therefore is outside the scope of the first amendment.
Meaning that the government could create a loophole to penalize free speech by passing legislation making it illegal due to the emissions caused by the fire.
My point is that the Constitution is a failure since it can be bypassed so easily such as like the example I just gave.
Here's another example: The word "arms" vs. "firearms."
"Firearms" is a commerce term that was created and is not found anywhere in the Constitution. This word is what gives the government the ability to impose restrictions on guns such as banning felons from owning guns, gun-free zones at schools and other buildings, etc. This is because guns are not viewed from a second amendment angle. They are viewed from a commerce clause angle.
It's so wild how the United States can have one of, if not, the most restrictive governing documents that so many developing states use as inspiration in their own documents, but can be overturned so easily by a single change of perspective.
What do you think?
#Thoughtstr #Grownstr #Politicstr #Agorism #CryptoAnarchy #Antistate #Statism #Bitcoin #Monero #1A #2A #Constitution
Take the burning of the U.S flag, for example. If the government wanted to punish someone for it for hate speech, it would fail as a free speech issue (see Texas v. Johnson [1989]). However, if say the burning of the flag violated a burning ordinance due to pollution emitted, then it wouldn't be illegal because of hate speech, it would be illegal because it harms the environment, and therefore is outside the scope of the first amendment.
Meaning that the government could create a loophole to penalize free speech by passing legislation making it illegal due to the emissions caused by the fire.
My point is that the Constitution is a failure since it can be bypassed so easily such as like the example I just gave.
Here's another example: The word "arms" vs. "firearms."
"Firearms" is a commerce term that was created and is not found anywhere in the Constitution. This word is what gives the government the ability to impose restrictions on guns such as banning felons from owning guns, gun-free zones at schools and other buildings, etc. This is because guns are not viewed from a second amendment angle. They are viewed from a commerce clause angle.
It's so wild how the United States can have one of, if not, the most restrictive governing documents that so many developing states use as inspiration in their own documents, but can be overturned so easily by a single change of perspective.
What do you think?
#Thoughtstr #Grownstr #Politicstr #Agorism #CryptoAnarchy #Antistate #Statism #Bitcoin #Monero #1A #2A #Constitution