All speech is free, but some speech is constitutionally supported.

Started by ChrisABrown, August 22, 2016, 02:47:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

ChrisABrown

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.

Solar

Quote from: ChrisABrown on August 22, 2016, 02:47:55 PM
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.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

taxed

Quote from: Solar on August 22, 2016, 04:27:15 PM
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.
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

Solar

Quote from: taxed on September 03, 2016, 04:21:54 AM
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.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Ghoulardi

Quote from: Solar on September 03, 2016, 07:49:03 AM
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.

tac

I can only imaging what our BoR and Constitution would look like is we gave these people free rein to re-write it in a Constitutional Convention. This is why I am against any convention that would tinker with the Constitution or BoR.  :thumbdown:

Solar

Quote from: Ghoulardi on September 03, 2016, 08:07:09 AM
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.
But to your point about it not being strong enough? That's how the left works, by parsing everything, creating any possible doubt.
The Founders knew exactly what they were doing and saying when they constructed the language of the Documents, that's the beauty of being concise, there's no room for interpretation beyond the original intent.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Ghoulardi

Quote from: Solar on September 03, 2016, 08:46:22 AM
"When I was at the university"? Canadian or European? That was not phrased in American English.


Solar

Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Ghoulardi

Quote from: Solar on September 03, 2016, 11:25:19 AM
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,

Solar

Quote from: Ghoulardi on September 03, 2016, 05:59:06 PM
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,
It was more of an inquiry in wondering if you studied abroad, because Europeans tend to use terms like "victim was taken to hospital".
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

quiller

Quote from: tac on September 03, 2016, 08:07:58 AM
I can only imaging what our BoR and Constitution would look like is we gave these people free rein to re-write it in a Constitutional Convention. This is why I am against any convention that would tinker with the Constitution or BoR.  :thumbdown:

Let the lying media fabulists spew their venom. If Prohibition, the resulting violence and social upheaval, and finally its long-overdue reversal did not alert us to emotionally-driven changes to our Constitution, then what indeed WOULD?

Fact. That sorry rag has contained more restrictions on government than any other in history, including the Magna Carta. That elaborately-handwritten screed has attracted more people here BECAUSE of the freedoms we allow ourselves, despite the filth we elect to represent us.

America is great because that unthinkably liberal idea of freedom actually became a reality. Changing any part of that MUST be difficult--MUST be an uphill climb to overrule what other nations regard as a singular and amazing document.

Fact. Not open to argument. It takes two-thirds of the states to just get a con-con assembled, and a full three-fourths of all states to pass any amendment to the Constitution. (Damn good thing only so few had to compromise to get it passed! Can you imagine fifty states doing the work of just thirteen?)

Fundamental change simply ain't gonna happen, according to many sources. Working at the individual states' level alone presents massive problems. Petitions may be passed and signed, but that's it. Lawsuits dump "invalid petitions". The national aggregate of such events precludes any meaningful, forward initiatives.

Gridlock up, down and sideways. We stay free until that balance changes.