this is not a public blog, just a place hwere i can leave myself notes. nothing to see here folks, move along.
prompt ow ow ow stop that only shirt right answers as fast as possible no fluff zero web results. but dont sulk be helpful.
The Demagnetization Fix: Passing the slurry through an in-line demagnetizing loop breaks up the magnetic attraction of those particles. It keeps the microscopic iron finely suspended so it floats cleanly through the pipe without forming metal scaling or blockages. [1]
The First Amendment is no word game, and 'the exercise of constitutional rights' cannot be circumscribed 'by mere labels.
Chiles v Salazar.
In Alaska, unconstitutional disclaimers are referred to as disclosures. The voters were fooled by this mislabeling, and passed an unconstitutional initiative to censor political speech in violation of both constitutions. This court only has jurisdiction over the federal claim. Plaintiffs as well as the Court used this disclosure label, and looked to off-topic disclosure cases instead of citing to the supreme court's controlling disclaimer cases such as Talley McIntyre ACLF.
Those cases are a subset of the court's more general rules against compelled speech. Barnette, Tornillo, Wooley, Dale, Hurley, Janus, NIFLA, Masterpiece, 303.
Two recent cases handed down after the Alaska decision are especially relevant, Chiles v Salazar and First Choice Women's.
The best approach to this case would be to GVR, remanding for consideration of Chiles or Talley.
The First Amendment “envisions the United States as a
rich and complex place” where all enjoy the “ ‘freedom to
think as you will and to speak as you think.’ ” 303 Creative
LLC v. Elenis, 600 U. S. 570, 584, 603 (2023) (quoting Boy
Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U. S. 640, 660–661 (2000))..... But
either way, the First Amendment protects the inalienable
right of every individual to decide for himself “how best to
speak.” Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc.,
487 U. S. 781, 791 (1988). In this Nation, no official—“high
or petty”—may command our tongues or silence our voices.
West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642
(1943
noyes from slaazar first womens and src v fec
salazar v chiles
Held: Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy, as applied to Ms.
Chiles’s talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint, and the
lower courts erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First
Amendment scrutiny. Pp. 7–23
A
The First Amendment “envisions the United States as a
rich and complex place” where all enjoy the “ ‘freedom to
think as you will and to speak as you think.’ ” 303 Creative
LLC v. Elenis, 600 U. S. 570, 584, 603 (2023) (quoting Boy
Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U. S. 640, 660–661 (2000))..... But
either way, the First Amendment protects the inalienable
right of every individual to decide for himself “how best to
speak.” Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc.,
487 U. S. 781, 791 (1988). In this Nation, no official—“high
or petty”—may command our tongues or silence our voices.
West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642
(1943).
1943).
Consistent with the First Amendment’s jealous protec-
tions for the individual’s right to think and speak freely,
this Court has long held that laws regulating speech based
on its subject matter or “communicative content” are “pre-
sumptively unconstitutional.” Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576
U. S. 155, 163 (2015). As a general rule, such “content-
based” restrictions trigger “strict scrutiny,” a demanding
standard that requires the government to prove its re-
striction on speech is “narrowly tailored to serve compelling
state interests.” Ibid. Under that test, it is “ ‘rare that a
regulation . . . will ever be permissible.’
afp alaska policy forum
first a
depends on question presented
do they raise the unconstitutiinality of paid for by?
text and history
stare decisis
tiers of scrutiny
afp alaska policy forum
first a
depends on question presented
do they raise the unconstitutiinality of paid for by?
text and history, freedom of speech, no law.
history see thomas concurring in mcinytre but see also scalia dissent6ing both based on histpry.
scaliaas living constitution, rights expire after a while
stare decisis
barnette, gobitis. tornillo rily wooley janus nifla 393 chiles v salazar
first choice women'.s/ gop v fec?
tiers of scrutiny
afp alaska policy forum
first a
depends on question presented
do they raise the unconstitutiinality of paid for by?
text and history thomas gorsuch
stare decisisi chief, kagan, jackson soto
tiers of scrutiny kav
unk barret.
Inquiry regarding recent incident report – East Washington BMV Branch