|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Jun 4, 2018 19:36:15 GMT -8
Basically just California trying to dictate to the rest of the nation what laws they may pass in their states. CA isn't trying to dictate anything...it's exercising it's free speech...by saying if that's how OK feels about the subject...then CA doesn't want to financially back its stance...it would be tantamount to endorsement if it did...let me put it in conservative terms...it's sort of like kneeling for the anthem...if Colin Kaepernick does not want to do it...then the NFL doesn't have to financially endorse his stance...by offering him a job...get it? Free Speech? I don’t think so, it’s about sovereignty. As a sovereign State CA can engage in plenty of nonsense. The irony being that CA wants to exercise its sovergmity to attack the sovereignty of another State. The melt down in CA if Texas put something similar in place would be deafening.
|
|
|
Post by fowl on Jun 4, 2018 19:57:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Jun 4, 2018 20:14:54 GMT -8
Basically just California trying to dictate to the rest of the nation what laws they may pass in their states. CA isn't trying to dictate anything...it's exercising it's free speech...by saying if that's how OK feels about the subject...then CA doesn't want to financially back its stance...it would be tantamount to endorsement if it did...let me put it in conservative terms...it's sort of like kneeling for the anthem...if Colin Kaepernick does not want to do it...then the NFL doesn't have to financially endorse his stance...by offering him a job...get it? I disagree and your Kaepernick comparison is laughable.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Jun 4, 2018 20:22:23 GMT -8
Equating fellow Americans to oppressive regimes that torture, starve, and kill their citizens is a bit cavalier. I for one grow weary of hearing the cries for tolerance from those that are intolerant of other's views. That being said, I would hope that we could all agree that our state legislature has more important items to address in our own state than striving to impose our views on other Americans. I would be much happier if Sacramento was working instead to address homelessness and mental health issues for one. Hell, their energy would be better spent allowing SDSU to break free of the shackles of the CSU charter. Passing law that does nothing but encumber Californians with more bureaucratic red tape is a waste of time IMO. I suppose if you were the person who was losing rights or opportunities as a result of your state’s policies you may find that state to be oppressive. This is why it is important for State’s not to be cookie cutters, if you feel oppressed and or think your State”s policies is oppressive, you should have options. Leave it to the States to compete...... I think the law fails to accomplish anything meaningful. But the State of CA has a uniqueness to it in terms of how it approaches lgbt, illegal immigrants, marijuana, and other social issues. It would be better served seeking out and recruiting like minded companies and talent to migrate to CA.
|
|
|
Post by azteca on Jun 4, 2018 20:27:55 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Jun 4, 2018 21:56:42 GMT -8
Nobody cares about the politics section, there is one post/week.
This issue directly effects Aztec Sports and it’s business relationships with other Conferences and Universities.
|
|
|
Post by tvright on Jun 5, 2018 0:29:47 GMT -8
The reason is that these states descriminate against their own residents in ways California does not agree with. The hope being that the economic pressure could hopefully make these states see the light. Much the same way the US uses economic sanctions to try and get Iran and North Korea to change their ways. This travel ban is nothing but another poorly thought out political action. It will change nothing and have unintended consequences like the effects on college athletics. While unlikely, could you imagine the stab in the heart it would be to miss a chance to join the Big 12 just because of nonsense like this? FWIW, crap like this is why people in other states hate California. The constant drip of "you must be like us" really pisses people off in other states. I'm proud to live in a state that feels strongly enough about these issues, equality and decency, that it's willing to put it's money where it's beliefs are. I have a son who is a rising senior at Texas and I hear all the chatter about what a disaster California is. I implore all of them to stick to their guns and not move here. I'm born and raised in San Diego and think this city is paradise. I'm happy NOT to argue with those who think we are crumbling into hell.
|
|
|
Post by bnastyaztecs on Jun 5, 2018 4:49:16 GMT -8
CA isn't trying to dictate anything...it's exercising it's free speech...by saying if that's how OK feels about the subject...then CA doesn't want to financially back its stance...it would be tantamount to endorsement if it did...let me put it in conservative terms...it's sort of like kneeling for the anthem...if Colin Kaepernick does not want to do it...then the NFL doesn't have to financially endorse his stance...by offering him a job...get it? I disagree and your Kaepernick comparison is laughable. I know you probably cannot articulate...or you would have...but why do you disagree and why is the comparison laughable?
|
|
|
Post by brokencurse on Jun 5, 2018 6:19:07 GMT -8
This travel ban is nothing but another poorly thought out political action. It will change nothing and have unintended consequences like the effects on college athletics. While unlikely, could you imagine the stab in the heart it would be to miss a chance to join the Big 12 just because of nonsense like this? FWIW, crap like this is why people in other states hate California. The constant drip of "you must be like us" really pisses people off in other states. I'm proud to live in a state that feels strongly enough about these issues, equality and decency, that it's willing to put it's money where it's beliefs are. I have a son who is a rising senior at Texas and I hear all the chatter about what a disaster California is. I implore all of them to stick to their guns and not move here. I'm born and raised in San Diego and think this city is paradise. I'm happy NOT to argue with those who think we are crumbling into hell. I don't think you have to worry about that, many more Californians are moving to Texas than vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jun 5, 2018 6:48:47 GMT -8
Housing is the most pressing issue for CA. www.sacbee.com/news/business/article212449489.htmlCA - needs to find a way to balance development and new housing starts. Or just state the policy is to allow migration out of the State and that having the population reach an apex and recede is preferable to more growth. I hope that is not the new policy (it is the de facto policy right now), as I believe that it would open up CA to lose it's technology base much like it effectively lost the aerospace engineering base.\ But in reality, these policy issues should be not either or propositions. Yes, it seems California's solution to the housing issue is to be so ridiculous that a good chunk of the state's population will want to move to another state. Politicians---who created the housing problem--are not capable of solving it.
|
|
|
Post by aztecanthony on Jun 5, 2018 7:18:42 GMT -8
I disagree and your Kaepernick comparison is laughable. I know you probably cannot articulate...or you would have...but why do you disagree and why is the comparison laughable? California can dictate to Texas about how we have 3 out of the top 5 highest city homeless rates in the Nation. We shouldn’t be dictating anything to anyone IMO
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Jun 5, 2018 12:38:26 GMT -8
Nobody cares about the politics section, there is one post/week. This issue directly effects Aztec Sports and it’s business relationships with other Conferences and Universities. Yes, and it is a decision made by politicians so is, therefore, going to involve a political discussion. Maybe we need a "safe space' forum.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Jun 5, 2018 13:08:14 GMT -8
I disagree and your Kaepernick comparison is laughable. I know you probably cannot articulate...or you would have...but why do you disagree and why is the comparison laughable? Kaepernick makes his own decisions and suffers the consequences of his decisions directly. While he does have the right to free speech that doesn't mean he has unfettered protection from the consequences. His employer or any potential employer is free to decide whether his marginal abilities on the field are worth the BS he brings along with him. California's actions, however, directly affect others who do not agree with their policy, are impacted financially because of them and it remains to be seen if this law is Constitutional since the ability to regulate commerce between states falls on the federal government and not the states individually. As for states having the "right of free speech" please show me where you find that because the most recent court decision U.S. v. American Library Association does not agree with you though the issue has never been properly settled: Appellees argue that CIPA imposes an unconstitutional condition on libraries that receive E-rate and LSTA subsidies by requiring them, as a condition on their receipt of federal funds, to surrender their First Amendment right to provide the public with access to constitutionally protected speech. The Government counters that this claim fails because Government entities do not have First Amendment rights. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S. 94, 211*211 139 (1973) (Stewart, J., concurring) ("The First Amendment protects the press from governmental interference; it confers no analogous protection on the government"); id., at 139, n. 7 ("`The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect private expression'" (quoting T. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression 700 (1970))).scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7891716025089102487Articulate enough for you?
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jun 5, 2018 13:51:44 GMT -8
States have different laws for all sorts of social related issues (~capital punishment, age of consent, concealed carry, assisted suicide, sanctuary city/state, etc. etc.). In my book, if the laws of the state that a college team is visiting are constitutional (and by definition, they are or they will not be on the books), then STHU and get on the bus/plane. The out-of-touch Pols/Faculty/Administrators of California Unis are just playing the petulant 6 year old (See Kaepernick) and trying to impose their moral priorities onto others. Given that the travel ban actually does not stop the travel, it is really just an exercise in self-absorption.
|
|
|
Post by bnastyaztecs on Jun 5, 2018 16:50:46 GMT -8
I know you probably cannot articulate...or you would have...but why do you disagree and why is the comparison laughable? Kaepernick makes his own decisions and suffers the consequences of his decisions directly. While he does have the right to free speech that doesn't mean he has unfettered protection from the consequences. His employer or any potential employer is free to decide whether his marginal abilities on the field are worth the BS he brings along with him. California's actions, however, directly affect others who do not agree with their policy, are impacted financially because of them and it remains to be seen if this law is Constitutional since the ability to regulate commerce between states falls on the federal government and not the states individually. As for states having the "right of free speech" please show me where you find that because the most recent court decision U.S. v. American Library Association does not agree with you though the issue has never been properly settled: Appellees argue that CIPA imposes an unconstitutional condition on libraries that receive E-rate and LSTA subsidies by requiring them, as a condition on their receipt of federal funds, to surrender their First Amendment right to provide the public with access to constitutionally protected speech. The Government counters that this claim fails because Government entities do not have First Amendment rights. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S. 94, 211*211 139 (1973) (Stewart, J., concurring) ("The First Amendment protects the press from governmental interference; it confers no analogous protection on the government"); id., at 139, n. 7 ("`The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect private expression'" (quoting T. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression 700 (1970))).scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7891716025089102487Articulate enough for you? You articulate great...I never doubted you...but....: State Actors as First Amendment Speakers Pgs 9-12: "Moreover, even though these cases parrot the notion that government entities’ speech lacks constitutional status, they each end up vindicating, rather than restricting, the government’s prerogative to speak and they emphasize the importance of government’s contributions to the marketplace of ideas." "Some courts have simply declined to follow majority rule. One district court held (though without any reference to the CBS principle or its progeny) that a “municipal corporation . . . is protected under the First Amendment in the same manner as an individual."Creek vs Village of Westhaven: "Judge Posner suggested that a municipality’s speech rights derive from the aggregated voice of its constituent residents. “ [T]hat a municipality is the voice of its residents—is, indeed, a megaphone amplifying voices that might not otherwise be audible—a curtailment of its right to speak might be thought a curtailment of the unquestioned First Amendment right of those residents[.]”" Even the U.S. Supreme Court has expressed reservations about the CBS principle, stating that whether state actors can exercise First Amendment rights remains an open question.43 Even more, in a variety of instances the Court’s jurisprudence implicitly contemplates speech rights for state actors."poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=843106086008084077089023065097072010017051024001008020124116119123013017071030113091049101001060018038058123066068025066085018081046000047122124023001099119103090061053008019013087111104013125080006090086010068118009071120099125012097113114114098&EXT=pdfAs far as Kaepernick...you fail to make the distinction between his free speech right and that of OK...the state made its own decision and is now suffering the consequences...it does not have unfettered protection...CA is free to determine if spending taxpayer funds in/on OK is worth the BS that comes with it...and the rest you wrote does not apply...good conversation...I appreciate you for it.....
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jun 5, 2018 17:06:21 GMT -8
Kaepernick makes his own decisions and suffers the consequences of his decisions directly. While he does have the right to free speech that doesn't mean he has unfettered protection from the consequences. His employer or any potential employer is free to decide whether his marginal abilities on the field are worth the BS he brings along with him. California's actions, however, directly affect others who do not agree with their policy, are impacted financially because of them and it remains to be seen if this law is Constitutional since the ability to regulate commerce between states falls on the federal government and not the states individually. As for states having the "right of free speech" please show me where you find that because the most recent court decision U.S. v. American Library Association does not agree with you though the issue has never been properly settled: Appellees argue that CIPA imposes an unconstitutional condition on libraries that receive E-rate and LSTA subsidies by requiring them, as a condition on their receipt of federal funds, to surrender their First Amendment right to provide the public with access to constitutionally protected speech. The Government counters that this claim fails because Government entities do not have First Amendment rights. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S. 94, 211*211 139 (1973) (Stewart, J., concurring) ("The First Amendment protects the press from governmental interference; it confers no analogous protection on the government"); id., at 139, n. 7 ("`The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect private expression'" (quoting T. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression 700 (1970))).scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7891716025089102487Articulate enough for you? You articulate great...I never doubted you...but....: State Actors as First Amendment Speakers Pgs 9-12: "Moreover, even though these cases parrot the notion that government entities’ speech lacks constitutional status, they each end up vindicating, rather than restricting, the government’s prerogative to speak and they emphasize the importance of government’s contributions to the marketplace of ideas." "Some courts have simply declined to follow majority rule. One district court held (though without any reference to the CBS principle or its progeny) that a “municipal corporation . . . is protected under the First Amendment in the same manner as an individual."Creek vs Village of Westhaven: "Judge Posner suggested that a municipality’s speech rights derive from the aggregated voice of its constituent residents. “ [T]hat a municipality is the voice of its residents—is, indeed, a megaphone amplifying voices that might not otherwise be audible—a curtailment of its right to speak might be thought a curtailment of the unquestioned First Amendment right of those residents[.]”" Even the U.S. Supreme Court has expressed reservations about the CBS principle, stating that whether state actors can exercise First Amendment rights remains an open question.43 Even more, in a variety of instances the Court’s jurisprudence implicitly contemplates speech rights for state actors."poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=843106086008084077089023065097072010017051024001008020124116119123013017071030113091049101001060018038058123066068025066085018081046000047122124023001099119103090061053008019013087111104013125080006090086010068118009071120099125012097113114114098&EXT=pdfAs far as Kaepernick...you fail to make the distinction between his free speech right and that of OK...the state made its own decision and is now suffering the consequences...it does not have unfettered protection...CA is free to determine if spending taxpayer funds in/on OK is worth the BS that comes with it...and the rest you wrote does not apply...good conversation...I appreciate you for it..... Ah - a fan of the Citizens United ruling I see!
|
|
|
Post by Frantic on Jun 5, 2018 17:26:22 GMT -8
You articulate great...I never doubted you...but....: State Actors as First Amendment Speakers Pgs 9-12: "Moreover, even though these cases parrot the notion that government entities’ speech lacks constitutional status, they each end up vindicating, rather than restricting, the government’s prerogative to speak and they emphasize the importance of government’s contributions to the marketplace of ideas." "Some courts have simply declined to follow majority rule. One district court held (though without any reference to the CBS principle or its progeny) that a “municipal corporation . . . is protected under the First Amendment in the same manner as an individual."Creek vs Village of Westhaven: "Judge Posner suggested that a municipality’s speech rights derive from the aggregated voice of its constituent residents. “ [T]hat a municipality is the voice of its residents—is, indeed, a megaphone amplifying voices that might not otherwise be audible—a curtailment of its right to speak might be thought a curtailment of the unquestioned First Amendment right of those residents[.]”" Even the U.S. Supreme Court has expressed reservations about the CBS principle, stating that whether state actors can exercise First Amendment rights remains an open question.43 Even more, in a variety of instances the Court’s jurisprudence implicitly contemplates speech rights for state actors."poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=843106086008084077089023065097072010017051024001008020124116119123013017071030113091049101001060018038058123066068025066085018081046000047122124023001099119103090061053008019013087111104013125080006090086010068118009071120099125012097113114114098&EXT=pdfAs far as Kaepernick...you fail to make the distinction between his free speech right and that of OK...the state made its own decision and is now suffering the consequences...it does not have unfettered protection...CA is free to determine if spending taxpayer funds in/on OK is worth the BS that comes with it...and the rest you wrote does not apply...good conversation...I appreciate you for it..... Where are you getting those quotes? The quotations are not properly cited, and as one example, Creek v. Village of Westhaven does not contain the language you attribute to it. caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1396335.html And your link to the citation is bad.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jun 5, 2018 18:24:47 GMT -8
"California's actions, however, directly affect others who do not agree with their policy, are impacted financially because of them and it remains to be seen if this law is Constitutional since..."
Replace "California" with "North Carolina" and you have essentially the same issues, with political partisanship reversed (meaning, the NC "bathroom bill").
This is all political bull$#!+ and should be moved to the appropriate forum off the main forum.
|
|
|
Post by azteca on Jun 5, 2018 18:30:54 GMT -8
It seems to happen on this board more regularly than not. Give a poster a little opening and it evolves into a political discussion. It really does get tiresome😮😮
|
|
|
Post by bnastyaztecs on Jun 5, 2018 18:53:48 GMT -8
You articulate great...I never doubted you...but....: State Actors as First Amendment Speakers Pgs 9-12: "Moreover, even though these cases parrot the notion that government entities’ speech lacks constitutional status, they each end up vindicating, rather than restricting, the government’s prerogative to speak and they emphasize the importance of government’s contributions to the marketplace of ideas." "Some courts have simply declined to follow majority rule. One district court held (though without any reference to the CBS principle or its progeny) that a “municipal corporation . . . is protected under the First Amendment in the same manner as an individual."Creek vs Village of Westhaven: "Judge Posner suggested that a municipality’s speech rights derive from the aggregated voice of its constituent residents. “ [T]hat a municipality is the voice of its residents—is, indeed, a megaphone amplifying voices that might not otherwise be audible—a curtailment of its right to speak might be thought a curtailment of the unquestioned First Amendment right of those residents[.]”" Even the U.S. Supreme Court has expressed reservations about the CBS principle, stating that whether state actors can exercise First Amendment rights remains an open question.43 Even more, in a variety of instances the Court’s jurisprudence implicitly contemplates speech rights for state actors."poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=843106086008084077089023065097072010017051024001008020124116119123013017071030113091049101001060018038058123066068025066085018081046000047122124023001099119103090061053008019013087111104013125080006090086010068118009071120099125012097113114114098&EXT=pdfAs far as Kaepernick...you fail to make the distinction between his free speech right and that of OK...the state made its own decision and is now suffering the consequences...it does not have unfettered protection...CA is free to determine if spending taxpayer funds in/on OK is worth the BS that comes with it...and the rest you wrote does not apply...good conversation...I appreciate you for it..... Where are you getting those quotes? The quotations are not properly cited, and as one example, Creek v. Village of Westhaven does not contain the language you attribute to it. caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1396335.html And your link to the citation is bad. 80 F. 3d 186 - Creek v. Village of Westhaven openjurist.org/80/f3d/186/creek-v-village-of-westhavenJust google the title "State Actors as First Amendment Speakers"...and read pages 9-12 to get the quotes if the link is not working for you....
|
|