[City of New York] Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association boss Pat Lynch slashed the maximum number of cards that could be issued to current cops from 30 to 20, and to retirees from 20 to 10, sources told The Post.
The cards are often used to wiggle out of minor trouble such as speeding tickets, the theory being that presenting one suggests you know someone in the NYPD.
The rank and file is livid.
“They are treating active members like s–t, and retired members even worse than s–t,” griped an NYPD cop who retired on disability. “All the cops I spoke to were . . . very disappointed they couldn’t hand them out as Christmas gifts.”
Source: NYPost
The cards, issued for various states and agencies -- such as the DEA -- are available for purchase on eBay for around $100.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:26AM (1 child)
Perhaps you could point to where in the court ruling a Supreme Court justice on the winning side actually said that money is speech? I think you won't be able to do that because "money is speech" is a silly label for paying for speech (which as I've already mentioned is protected by the First Amendment).
Non sequiturs don't mean a thing. By definition. Even if we were to attempt to assume that money is speech those ridiculous conclusions would not follow due to the absence of logic. For example, there's nothing to respond to in your argument that prostitution is like dating because money is like speech.
First Amendment takes priority because it came after. Next.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday January 25 2018, @10:19PM
Clearly that was not the intent of the amendment, or they would have made it explicit. It's part of the same document, written by pretty much the same people at roughly the same time. And they wrote quite a bit about why these documents say what they do. If they intended to make such a substantial change to the original document someone would have mentioned that at some point. In fact, what they wrote was that they did not consider the Bill of Rights to be necessary at all. They believed the existing Constitution constrained the government such that it could not violate any civil rights, and that enumerating some would only endanger those that were not explicitly mentioned. They certainly did not say that they intended the Bill of Rights to alter or correct the existing Constitution.
Found it! Check page 44 of the opinion (emphasis added):
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf [supremecourt.gov]
According to the court, the expenditure -- the act of spending money -- is political speech *by definition*. Or perhaps more accurately, they write as though the two concepts are already synonymous.