And that is the only change to the 1st amendment I advocate. All speech remains free, but speech which alerts states citizens to the destruction of unalienable rights by government or by anyone else, is promoted IMMEDIATELY by government power in the interests of states citizens.
Read the Bill of Rights, Dumb Ass! It doesn't need abridging. However, you on the other hand could use a brain addition.Now, go away and find some kids your own age to pester.
It seems pretty simple. Why would anyone have any confusion over it? Amazing.
Boggles the mind, doesn't it?He's a good example of college students today, a little brainwashing goes a long way.He was taught that our Founding Documents were fluid and alive, but never made the connection that the Bill of Rights was a ban on govt interference.As simple as these Documents are, these kids want to destroy them by expanding their meaning. They need no new interpretation.
When I was at the university, the argument was that the no clauses were not strong enough. If the founding fathers had meant no, they would have wrote "absolutely no."My counter argument: What does "no" mean? No means no.
"When I was at the university"? Canadian or European? That was not phrased in American English.
Wasn't a correction, rather an observation. Apparently you don't know the difference?
Apparently, I don't. I went to a US university. If I told you which one, you'd recognize the name immediately.I was presuming you were alluding to the double negative,