"Herb Martin" <news@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:481c8e6a$1$30499$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:x-79C704.11252703052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In article <481c042d$1$30526$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> "Herb Martin" <news@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> "Deadrat" <a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:y%SSj.77$7k7.3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> > "Herb Martin" <news@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>> > news:481bef38$1$30509$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> >> news:x-FCAC73.23181602052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> >>> In article <KEQSj.98422$Er2.66711@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>> >>> Magus <nope@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>>> > Why can't I go to the governor's mansion and protest in his
>>> >>>> > bedroom? I mean, I have the right to free speech, and not
>>> >>>> > letting me speak in his bedroom is a violation of my rights!
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Until it infringes upon the equal rights of another...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Ahhh, so the rights aren't absolute. Got it.
>>> >>
>>> >> Absolutely -- and strict strutiny is the usual CORRECT TEST
>>> >> to determine if a right is being correctly or unconstitutionally
>>> >> infriged.
>>> >>
>>> >> Got it?
>>> >
>>> > I've got it if that's your personal opinion.
>>> >
>>> > Is it the law? If so, could you back up that claim?
>>>
>>> You can easily determine if you honestly care that this is the
>>> correct test for infringing rights.
>>
>> Are you saying it is the "correct" test because SCOTUS has said it is
>> the test to use, or because you think it should be the test used?
>
> Because this is the tests for Rights to be infringed (according to
> SCOTUS) unless or until they declare a new test for such
> infringements.
Cite?
> Still don't have any collective rights, right?
What was wrong with my list?
>
> I really do want that list if it exists....
>
>
>
|
