Posted on 04/06/2016 9:52:50 AM PDT by jazusamo
Well, now that you mention it....
And no doubt the press is now full of people who would be willing to curtail the freedom of the press in exchange for giving up the right to bear arms. I’ve been waiting for a mainstream reporter to suggest this. Maybe it’s already happened?
>You can’t “vote” to override the First Amendment any more than you can vote to make slavery legal.
Incorrect.
Leftist and ignoramuses vote, to have govt, steal from one to give to another; be that financial (welfare) or services (aka h’care)....slavery.
Govt, and their ‘voters’/lackeys, violate our Rights at every turn.
For the past 100+yrs. the Citizens of this once fair Country have known nothing BUT Fascism/Socialism. Parents *gratefully* sent their little ones off to be indoctrinated, I mean ‘schooled’. Colleges continued the curricula.
Tell ‘em, to their face, they “can’t”. Just prepare for the dead-stare as you try to explain Rights before they walk away from the ‘fruit-cake Right-winger’.
....and so, the children must be TAUGHT.
The natural end point of political correctness.
Just like the morons who think I shouldn’t have guns I say “Good luck trying to shut me up”, especially while I still practice Amendment 2 to protect Amendment 1.
Bump!
Ronald Reagan
40th president of US (1911 - 2004)
LOL! I'll just head on down to room 101R for the remedial group.
This is a delicious example of the Left now reaping what it has sown.
We need to seriously consider shipping these 50 IQ apes one-way to North Korea. We can invite the entire population of Poland to replace them. If we run out of Poles, let’s invite the Finns. Finns are excellent riflemen, and they hate commies.
(See 1939 Winter War. http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/navalbattles1900today/p/winterwar.htm)
>The Constitution — if upheld — is pretty clear.
Yes...IF.
>...there is no way a court can rule consistent with precedent that words that make the snowflakes uncomfortable or afraid are not protected.
You seem to forget ‘Wickard v. Filburn’, O’Care, Roe v. Wade, Brown v. and a plethora of other ‘pretty clear vis a vie Constitution’ rulings. On the flip you had those like A. Jackson and, to some extent Zero....”made the ruling, let them enforce it” mantra.
IOW, we are a L-O-N-G way away from where we started, and I wouldn’t trust govt, let alone a lawyer/judge, as far as I could throw Mt. Rushmore.
If "Piss Christ" and homosexual parades are protected under free speech arguments, then there is no way a court could consistently rule that conservative speech -- even racist, nativist, or homo-hating speech -- is not.
>>So how does a court rule in direct opposition to an existing precedent?
Considering most precedent isn’t even grounded in the Constitution, I’d say it’s as easy as, “Just do it!”.
Course, every/most damn ‘grounded’ ruling rely upon flawed ‘reasoning’ (Wickard v.)
Does 100 yrs. of precedent make ‘gun control’ laws valid? Or Roe v. Wade or ...?
Even the most brazen liberal is going to have trouble explaining how free speech is free speech unless it's not. You can burn an American flag but you can't write "Go Trump" on a sidewalk? You can use taxpayer money to fund an "art" exhibition featuring a statue of the Virgin Mary made from dung, but you can't tell a pair of fags that they disgust you? You can invade a church service and throw condoms at the worshippers but you can't challenge the politically correct orthodoxy in a college classroom?
I don't think so.
We’re debating that which is unconstitutional to begin: ‘gun control’, ‘safe zones’, ‘gay marriage’, etc.
The Left and the Courts, but I repeat myself, have NEVER had an issue using their personal opinion to create ‘law’ (just see the ‘gay marriage’ fiasco ruling).
Using your ‘more open’ ‘gun control’ suits still fails to take into account the clear/plain English of the 2nd: shall NOT be infringed; yet, laws still stand that allow many an infringement. Constitution trumps any ‘precedent’, yet is nary a basis for consideration.
Sorry, but to say “Don’t think so” flies in the face of what already IS. One only need look at the current thought crimes and cries of ‘Islamaphobia’...these are not getting more permissive, they are getting *restrictive* by the day!
You're too pessimistic for my tastes.
Almost none of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution are absolute. Free speech can be limited, as can freedom to assemble, freedom of religion, protection from search and seizure, habeus corpus, and a host of others. However, historically there has been a tremendous burden on the government to permit qualification of those rights. No such compelling circumstances exist when the only consequence is some precious snowflakes feewings being hurt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.