The Thread Where People Argue About Kneeling in the NFL (merged)

[n_huffhines]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOYmmr2QGrg[/youtube]

 

[ClearwaterVol]

If its an act of Congress its not reviewable, the statute can be as to whether its constitutional but that is pretty much the end of it. Congress is a political body, they give favors and benefits to some while taking more from others.

Your point on property issues could be a problem, but that is enforcement I would say -- so some part of the executive branch is unconstitutionally enforcing a otherwise constitutional act. That is not what is happening here.

The courts can't tell Congress what to do, they can void a statute or even parts of one, but they really have no say so as to what Congress does other than that -- political favors are given and with them there is a loser somewhere else.

Generally, the Courts judicial review the situation i.e. facts they may review the statute as to whether its constitutional -- but if Congress wants to screw A and give a benefit to B, well good luck with that.

I'm sure every other large corporation would love the NFL's anti-trust exemption.

If the statute is being unconstitutional enforced than that could be a problem -- but why would they need to do that if they can re-write it, add taxes, or remove exemptions?

A person or entity can contest whether the statute is constitutional or the enforcement is, if you believe the statute is already constitutional -- I fail to see where remedy would exist, if the executive branch was enforcing in an unconstitutional manner than that can be challenge but the NFL would not exist in its present form without the exemption so its moot -- all those contracts would have to go the way of the dinosaur.

Congress is a political body of the U.S. government, with that they give benefits to some and take from others -- ask Elon Musk. He has benefited just as the NFL has -- political favors to billionaires. The NFL shouldn't be crying if this ever comes to be -- I suspect it won't anytime soon, but nobody thought the Orange man would win last year either.

You've attempted to make coherent arguments, so I will give a serious reply. There are two different challenges that can be made regarding the constitutionality of an act of Congress. The first is a facial challenge. Simply put the law is unconstitutional, as written. If this challenge is upheld the law will be struck down.

The second type of challenge and the one to which I've repeatedly referred in this thread is an as applied challenge. An as applied challenge says the law is unconstitutional as applied to this particular client or under this particular set of circumstances. In this case, Congress has passed (amended) a law to remove a tax break enjoyed by the NFL and others. This law is facially constitutional, but in this circumstance the law was passed in response to the NFL exercising its free speech rights. The argument will be that this law was passed to chill the exercise of free speech and it will likely be found as unconstitutional as applied to the NFL.

If you want to read a similar case, i recall a case involving the national endowment for the arts that was decided by SCOTUS.

BTW, you may apologize for the name calling and incorrect assertions now.

 

[Septic]

He's been dumbing down this thread for 2 weeks. He's not worth it. He claims to not care much about the issue but he's completely obsessed with it. Plot twist, he also thinks authoritarian law enforcement is a huge problem in America.

/thread

 

[LSU-SIU]

You've attempted to make coherent arguments, so I will give a serious reply. There are two different challenges that can be made regarding the constitutionality of an act of Congress. The first is a facial challenge. Simply put the law is unconstitutional, as written. If this challenge is upheld the law will be struck down.

The second type of challenge and the one to which I've repeatedly referred in this thread is an as applied challenge. An as applied challenge says the law is unconstitutional as applied to this particular client or under this particular set of circumstances. In this case, Congress has passed (amended) a law to remove a tax break enjoyed by the NFL and others. This law is facially constitutional, but in this circumstance the law was passed in response to the NFL exercising its free speech rights. The argument will be that this law was passed to chill the exercise of free speech and it will likely be found as unconstitutional as applied to the NFL.

If you want to read a similar case, i recall a case involving the national endowment for the arts that was decided by SCOTUS.

BTW, you may apologize for the name calling and incorrect assertions now.

The second one does not apply as the law will be enforced equally, at least in theory. You are arguing something else.

There is nobody to sue, which is why I asked you to name the defendant. Congress doesn't need a court's permission... if its being applied in an unconstitutional manner meaning they are not following the statute, yes, there could be remedy. In this instance, neither one applies.

There simply is nobody to sue for relief, really what you are doing is setting up a strawman. If the executive branch was enforcing the statute with an uneven hand -- that would be a problem but in this case, in theory that wouldn't be a problem.

Doesn't matter who is sued, FRCP Rule12(b)(6). Everything Congress does is with an uneven hand, see income tax laws. The Court has no jurisdiction to decide how or should Congress comes up with new statutory law. There is nothing a Court could do, now if the executive branch is not enforcing the statutory law correctly -- remedy maybe available, maybe not.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

The second one does not apply as the law will be enforced equally, at least in theory. You are arguing something else.

There is nobody to sue, which is why I asked you to name the defendant. Congress doesn't need a court's permission... if its being applied in an unconstitutional manner meaning they are not following the statute, yes, there could be remedy. In this instance, neither one applies.

There simply is nobody to sue for relief, really what you are doing is setting up a strawman. If the executive branch was enforcing the statute with an uneven hand -- that would be a problem but in this case, in theory that wouldn't be a problem.

Doesn't matter who is sued, FRCP Rule12(b)(6).

I'm not arguing something else. The law we discussed can be evenly applied and applied pursuant to the language of the law. Despite this the law can be unconstitutional as applied to this particular entity. In other words, it was passed to chill the free speech of this entity.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I'm not arguing something else. The law we discussed can be evenly applied and applied pursuant to the language of the law. Despite this the law can be unconstitutional as applied to this particular entity. In other words, it was passed to chill the free speech of this entity.

Again, you are setting up a strawman. Yes, a law can be applied unconstitutional -- that means the executive branch is complying with law.

In other words, it was passed to chill the free speech of this entity.

Beyond the scope of the Courts. Only if the law itself stops freedom of speech, why Congress decided to remove an entity from a exempt list is immaterial.

People go to jail and/or are penalized actually in this country for exercising their free speech -- insider trading, unauthorized disclosure of classified material, campaign finance law, etc. I have no idea what you are even talking about.

What you are talking about is nonsense, which why you can't tell me even who is going to be sued or even served.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

The NFL had a night with no major political developments, no disasters of a natural or unnatural nature, and the halftime playing of a trailer for the next Star Wars movie, and yet, their ratings tanked again.

The Vikings and Bears clashed on Monday Night Football, a game the Vikings won, but the league lost. According to Deadline, “Snaring a 7.0 in metered market results, last night’s MNF was down double digits from last week’s Kansas Chiefs’ 29-20 victory over the Washington Redskins. Down 17% in the ratings, that’s actually a regular game season low for the ESPN broadcast game and matches the MM result of the second game of the doubleheader MNF opener on September 11.

“That comes a day after Sunday Night Football also hit a season low with its ratings down too.”

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell sent out a memo to league executives on Tuesday, saying that it was time to move “past the anthem controversy.”

 

[NashVol11]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOYmmr2QGrg[/youtube]

Everyone should watch this

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Again, you are setting up a strawman. Yes, a law can be applied unconstitutional -- that means the executive branch is complying with law.



Beyond the scope of the Courts. Only if the law itself stops freedom of speech, why Congress decided to remove an entity from a exempt list is immaterial.

People go to jail and/or are penalized actually in this country for exercising their free speech -- insider trading, unauthorized disclosure of classified material, campaign finance law, etc. I have no idea what you are even talking about.

What you are talking about is nonsense, which why you can't tell me even who is going to be sued or even served.

What you've described are exceptions to free speech where the actual speech is harmful and made illegal.

I've discussed a Dec action post passage of the law. The intent of the law was to silence free speech. Not constitutional as to the silenced entity.

 

[ice]

Spitting on the flag and National Anthem is not the right way to handle the problem with police. Eventually the whole country will turn against the players and might destroy pro sports as we know it today.
If the players want to make a REAL difference, they should work to reduce crime by blacks. Then everyone will be more accepting of black people and not fear them.
It is hard to blame the police. Blacks are trying to kill them. I know a few cops are bad, but believe they are in the minority.
The last FBI uniform statistics I saw said that blacks make up approximately 13% of the US population but, young black men age 18-34 are commiting 80% of the violent crimes in this country. That includes murder, rape, robbery, serious assault, etc.
If young black men want acceptance and be treated fairly, STOP ALL THESE CRIMES. Then, and only then, will black people be looked on with favor.
As far as taking a knee at ball games, this does not make sense. Why not do it in front of police stations or the city hall?.
I think is is sad that so many "so called peace full protest," turn violent with people burning cities and looting.
It is hard to take these peoples concerns and demands serious.
At the same time these liberal mayors tell the police to stand down and let the cities burn.
This is insane.
To put things into perspective, pro football players are making millions of dollars off of the public and this great nation.
No, this nation is not perfect and probably never will be.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

Michael Wilbon compares Jerry Jones to a slave owner - Washington Times



lol: The gift that keeps giving. I don't even know who these ESPN people are. lol:

It’s almost like Jones owns the company and can tell his employees what to do.

Wait a second...

 

[LSU-SIU]

What you've described are exceptions to free speech where the actual speech is harmful and made illegal.

I've discussed a Dec action post passage of the law. The intent of the law was to silence free speech. Not constitutional as to the silenced entity.

WTF is "harmful" or "illegal", they passed a statutory law which involves the "public right", they can regulate said "public right" just like they can regulate corporations which are involved in "anti-trust" behavior, which is what the NFL does --- which is why they need an exception to the law. And yes, they can regulate speech, although in this instance that is not what they are doing. Go to your nearest Church, tell them you want to speak during a Church event and that you want all their members to vote for someone other than Trump -- see what happens when this is reported to the IRS.

What you are talking about is complete nonsense, who is the NFL going to sue? Let me guess, Congress. LOL

Congress is a political body, the Courts have no say so as to how they run their business -- however, Congress could eliminate all the federal courts except the one Supreme Court, see US Constitution.

Next stupid thing you are going to tell me is the United States can't withdraw ad dollars from the NFL. lol:

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Go to my nearest church? Private action vs government.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

There was a story on the local news last night about a guy who didn’t stand for the anthem at a boxing tournament. When his boss found out he fired him. The news interviews the employee, he says how can a white man tell me, an African American, what to do.

Derp.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

+

 

[NashVol11]

I'll say it again: when a minority group says it is being marginalized, punishing them into silence does not typically work out well. If you think the protest is turning people against the players, then why not let them continue?

 

[volfanhill]

There was a story on the local news last night about a guy who didn’t stand for the anthem at a boxing tournament. When his boss found out he fired him. The news interviews the employee, he says how can a white man tell me, an African American, what to do.

Derp.

Wait you are good with that? A guy at a non work event?

 

[LSU-SIU]

Go to my nearest church? Private action vs government.

Wtf are talking about? The church can't allow you to use them as a platform in political speech or you know what - chance of them losing their tax exemption. Jesus dude.

 

[volinbham]

I'll say it again: when a minority group says it is being marginalized, punishing them into silence does not typically work out well. If you think the protest is turning people against the players, then why not let them continue?

Punishing them into silence? Any of them have more outlets to express themselves than any non-athlete would ever have. Even the Commish offered any number of different ways to address the issues important to these players. One owner has offered to match dollar for dollar any cause a specific player on the team has.

I think the whole thing is silly and your post is one more in the silly pile. No one is being silenced in any meaningful way.

 

[LSU-SIU]

There was a story on the local news last night about a guy who didn’t stand for the anthem at a boxing tournament. When his boss found out he fired him. The news interviews the employee, he says how can a white man tell me, an African American, what to do.

Derp.

lol:

Pretty crazy these people are this dumb. The answer is - you were fired for having rocks for brains.

 

[volbeast33]

I'll say it again: when a minority group says it is being marginalized, punishing them into silence does not typically work out well. If you think the protest is turning people against the players, then why not let them continue?

Nobody is stopping them besides the NFL bc they realize they are losing money.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I'll say it again: when a minority group says it is being marginalized, punishing them into silence does not typically work out well. If you think the protest is turning people against the players, then why not let them continue?

Technically, not anyone's call here directly, in reality indirectly the NFL can't survive without public support so the public has somewhat of a voice.

I say they should continue the ****fest, so we can witness more destruction.

 

[NashVol11]

Punishing them into silence? Any of them have more outlets to express themselves than any non-athlete would ever have. Even the Commish offered any number of different ways to address the issues important to these players. One owner has offered to match dollar for dollar any cause a specific player on the team has.

I think the whole thing is silly and your post is one more in the silly pile. No one is being silenced in any meaningful way.

“You’re getting cut if you kneel” absolutely is punishment.

 

[volfannbama]

You realize the players could force the owners hand. Ban the protest and the players could unite and that would be the end. If Dak Prescott, Dez Bryant and Zeke Elliot kneeled we'd find out how strong Jerry's resolve really was. I imagine we'd find out it was mostly show.

The players are then breeching the CBA they agreed to.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Wtf are talking about? The church can't allow you to use them as a platform in political speech or you know what - chance of them losing their tax exemption. Jesus dude.

Absolutely wrong.