Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia dissented on the grounds that the law as written by Congress was "hopelessly vague."
"Fuzzy, leave-the-details-to-be-sorted-out-by-the-courts legislation is attractive to the congressman who wants credit for addressing a national problem but does not have the time (or perhaps the votes) to grapple with the nitty-gritty. In the field of criminal law, at least, it is time to call a halt," Scalia wrote. He has consistently objected to criminal laws that do not clearly spell out the crime.
"[T]he fact that Congress might have acted with
greater clarity or foresight does not give courts a carte blanche
to redraft statutes in an effort to achieve that which Congress
is perceived to have failed to do." United States v. Locke, 471
U.S. 84, 95 (1985). This admonition takes on a particular
importance when the Court construes criminal laws. United
States v. Granderson, 511 U.S. 39, 69 (1994)
HERE IS "ANOTHER PERSON" & THE "PERSON OF ANOTHER."
"In matters of statutory construction . . . it makes a great deal of difference whether you start with an answer or with a problem." Felix Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, 47 Colum. L. Rev. 527, 529 (1947).
See also Lamie v. U.S. Tr., 540 U.S. 526, 534, 124 S.Ct. 1023, 157 L.Ed.2d 1024 (2004) (“It is well established that ‘when the statute's language is plain, the sole function of the courts-at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd-is to enforce it according to its terms.’ ” (quoting Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1, 6, 120 S.Ct. 1942, 147 L.Ed.2d 1 (2000)))
"Heresy is only another word for freedom of thought." - Graham Greene, British novelist
See United States v. Twine, 853 F.2d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding that an "intent to threaten" requires "a showing of specific intent"); United States v. Ross, 206 F.3d 896, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2000)
"This lovely image graced the home page of the Sacramento County Republican Party. As Andrew Sullivan describes it: "Not a lone protestor or crowd member. Not a fringe nut on Free Republic" on the official Republican website in the state capitol of the most populous state in the Union.
We were not primarily concerned with constitutional questions, but we observed that “[a] ‘true’ threat,where a reasonable person would foresee that the listener will believe he will be subjected to physical violence upon his person, is unprotected by the first amendment.” Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d at 1266. Again, our reference to a “reasonable person” seems to suggest that the First Amendment permits punishing a threat made with only negligence as to the statement’s threatening character.
A statute making it a criminal act to utter threats as to citizens generally might well be open to constitutional challenge. Assuming arguendo that a statute might not be sustained if applied to any threat toward any one of 200 million Americans(1), the statute here in question  must be judged by different standards(2), limited as it is to the Chief Magistrate of the nation and his constitutional successors.
1 Such as the one’s charged in the instant case.
2 This is the core-issue why 875(c) is unconstitutional, it provides no "intelligible” or “clear " standard to guide citizens, officers, prosecutors or judges as to how to define the statute as to a threat. Furthermore, the statue makes no mention of a “false” threat or “true” threat. This turns it into an “I’ll know it when I see it” subjective standard. In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "This quote, and the intent behind it, is well known as summarizing the irony and difficulty in trying to define obscenity. For at least fifty years, the Supreme Court has been struggling with defining what speech is "obscene". The same goes for the definition of a “true” threat.
Judge A. Howard Matz never once examined whether the First Amendment prohibited the prosecution of an individual for the charged acts, given that pure speech was involved. Instead he assisted the prosecutor to create conduct.
WRONG: DID YOU NOTICE THE "SECRET" ELEMENTS KNOWN ONLY TO HIM? BESIDES, THERE WAS NEVER ANY VIOLENCE "COUPLED" IN MY CASE.
"So I want the lawyers to underst and that without reciting everything that's already clearly Ninth Circuit precedent that's at page 1075, I am applying the Ninth Circuit's test and, in a nutshell, the only intent requirement for a true threat is that the defendant intentionally and knowingly communicate the threat once it's been defined to be a threat."
WRONG: WHAT IS A THREAT HAS NEVER BEEN DEFINED UNDER THE LAW. AND THAT IS A FACT! AND THE TEST HE APPLIED IS WRONG, TOO. IBID. HIS MIND WAS MADE UP.
EVEN THE PROSECUTOR HAS DOUBTS. REASONABLE ONES, TOO!
"These bastards like Clark and Kerry and that incipient ass, Dean, and Gephardt and Kucinich and that absolute mental midget Sharpton, race baiter, should all be lined up and shot." ~From a friend and former Delta Force member, who has been observing American politics from the trenches:
Saying that a great genius is mad, while at the same time recognizing his artistic worth, is like saying that he had rheumatism or suffered from diabetes. Madness, in fact, is a medical term that can claim no more notice from the objective critic than he grants the charge of heresy raised by the theologian, or the charge of immorality raised by the police.
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a).
The commentary for the § 2L1.2 Offenses Involving Immigration,
Naturalization, and Passports definition of "crime of violence" includes a
list of enumerated crimes as well as "any other offense under federal,
state, or local law that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened
use of physical force against the person of another." U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.2(b)(1) cmt. n.1(B)(iii).
The definition of "crime of violence" in § 4B1.2 on career offenders
reads "any offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment
for a term exceeding one year, that . . . (1) has as an element the use,
attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of
another, or (2) . . . involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another." U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a).
"A statute making it acriminalact to utter threats as to citizens generally might well be open to constitutional challenge." A.K.A. Words, making it a criminal act to use words is redundent. And most likely mentally challenged, too.
In the aftermath, an online law enforcement message board, LeoAffairs.com, exploded with opinions, many threatening toward Officer Watts. Read more:
§ 875's predecessor, 18 U.S.C. § 408d (1934). See
Act of May 18, 1934, Ch. 300, 48 Stat. 781
This case presents the question whether a person indicted for violating a federal statute has standing to challenge its validity on grounds that, by enacting it, Congress exceeded its powers under the Constitution, thus intruding upon the sovereignty and authority of the States.
"As in any case of statutory construction, our analysis begins with 'the language of the statute.' And where the statutory language provides a clear answer, it ends there as well." Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 438 (1999)
875(c) is unconstitutional, since it allows "false" threats. Not to mention selective threats. Or that it is used as a political tool to attack pure-speech when used out of it's context. It was meant to protect babies and children from retards kidnapping them and calling another person and threatening to kill the person of said other. The speech must be directed against "that person of another person," speaking about "the person of the other person."
If anyone in America wishes to argue the point, beyond my experience, I would say then that your argument falls on its on weight, in that it is, again, unconstitutionally Vague. And that you're guessing, too. And no means no. And that killer means killer. Or does it?
"I am going to come and burn the f**king house down... but you will blow me first. You look like a f***ing pig in heat, and if you get raped by a pack of n***ers, it will be your fault." ~Mel Gibson to his wife, Oksana, July 01, 2010
Beginning in February, a San Francisco man made at least 48 threatening, obscene and harassing phone calls to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over her support for a healthcare reform bill, according to federal court records unsealed Thursday.
Gregory Lee Giusti, 48, was charged in federal court Thursday in San Francisco with making harassing phone calls to a government official.
An amended criminal complaint, along with a supporting affidavit by an FBI agent, allege that Giusti made many of the calls to Pelosi's homes in San Francisco and Washington, D.C. He is charged with using a VOIP, or voice over Internet provider service, to make calls using a non-San Francisco area code, the records show.
Nine calls made to Pelosi's Washington residence were recorded, according to the court records, which contain excerpts of some of the messages that warned the congresswoman not to act on the bill.
"If you pass this freaking healthcare plan don't bother coming back to California cause you ain't gonna have a place to live," Giusti said on March 25, according to the court records.
"The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits," Roberts wrote. "The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it."
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was the lone dissenter.
[T]his Court has long recognized the“basic principle that a criminal statute must give fair warning of the conduct that it makes a crime.” Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347, 350 (1964). There is a serious argument that §1346 is nothing more than an invitation for federal courts to develop a common-law crime of unethical conduct. But "the notion of a common-law crime is utterly anathema today," Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U. S. 451, 476 (2001) (SCALIA, J., dissenting), and for good reason. It is simply not fair to prosecute someone for a crime that has not been defined until the judicial decision that sends him to jail. “How can the public be expected to know what the statute means when the judges and prosecutors themselves do not know, or must make it up as they go along?” Rybicki, supra, at 160 (Jacobs, J., dissenting).
"If Mr. Assange is arrested on the recently announced Interpol warrant, I hope [he] receives a fair trial and due process of law." ~Tom Flanagan
Flanagan said U.S. President Barack Obama "should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something."
Tom Flanagan says he 'wouldn't be unhappy' if WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange 'disappeared.'(CBC)
"I think Assange should be assassinated, actually," Flanagan said with a laugh, and when asked to expand upon his answer, added that he "wouldn't be unhappy" if Assange "disappeared."
When the CBC's Solomon commented that his position was "'pretty 'harsh' stuff," Flanagan, who is known for his off-the-cuff sense of humour and often brings props to panel interviews, replied: "I'm feeling very manly today, Evan." Read more:
Contemptible police tactics - Cops raid the home of a licensed medical marijuana provider in Washington, handcuff the fourteen year old son and put a gun to his head, and search the nineteen year old daughter and take the contents of her mickey-mouse wallet.
How To Survive Traffic Stops in America, Submit, Instantly! - What the cops want is immediate obedience and submission. Many cops are ex-military and view the civilian motorists of America about like they viewed the hapless peasants of Iraq and Afghanistan, that is, with contempt, not as fellow citizens deserving of civility and respect. It is a possibly lethal mistake to do anything other than submit, instantly and obey! Or be ready to shoot first. But aim high.