Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Supreme Court Rules 1st Amendment Unconstitutional

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Supreme Court Rules 1st Amendment Unconstitutional

    Well, thanks to the usual five idiots on the Supreme Court, Stevens, O'Connor,Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, another ruling has moved us another step closer to the Union of Soviet States of America. Freedom of speech is now dead in this country. All I can say is thank God that the Court did not grant cert. to the 2nd Amendment cases or else we would be in double deep sh*t.

    Breaking News, Latest News and Current News from FOXNews.com. Breaking news and video. Latest Current News: U.S., World, Entertainment, Health, Business, Technology, Politics, Sports.


    The court also upheld restrictions on political ads in the weeks before an election. The television and radio ads often feature harsh attacks by one politician against another or by groups running commercials against candidates.

    Bush is really getting on my nerves. First he signed this piece of anti-constitutional law. Then he creates huge new federal programs for education, Medicare, and homeland security. If (and probably when) he signs the new assault weapons ban, I and I’m sure many others will be voting 3rd party in the next election even if it means a DemoCrap might win. At least with Dean we would know what we’re getting. A liberal who isn’t afraid to admit it and supports screwing over the Constitution.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. -Constitution of the United States, Amendment One

  • #2
    Re: Supreme Court Rules 1st Amendment Unconstitutional

    If (and probably when) he signs the new assault weapons ban, I and I’m sure many others will be voting 3rd party in the next election even if it means a DemoCrap might win.
    I support the assault weapon ban...I mean, really, who needs to have an M-16 or AK-47 in their home? What are you going to use it for, hunting? The only people who need these weapons are people in the military or law enforcement officers, and even they should be restricted from owning an assault weapon in their home.
    Fly Raleigh-Durham International, with direct flights on Air Canada, AirTran, American Airlines, American Eagle, America West, Continental Airlines, Continental Express, Delta Airlines, Delta Connection, jetBlue, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Express and US Airways to:

    ATL, AUS, BWI, BOS, CHS, CLT, MDW, ORD, CVG, CLE, DFW, DTW, FLL, BDL, HOU, IND, LAS, LAX, LGW, MEM, MIA, MSP, BNA, EWR, MSY, JFK, LGA, ORF, MCO, PHL, PHX, PIT, STL, SLC, TPA, YYZ, DCA and IAD.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Supreme Court Rules 1st Amendment Unconstitutional

      Edit- Double post!
      Fly Raleigh-Durham International, with direct flights on Air Canada, AirTran, American Airlines, American Eagle, America West, Continental Airlines, Continental Express, Delta Airlines, Delta Connection, jetBlue, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Express and US Airways to:

      ATL, AUS, BWI, BOS, CHS, CLT, MDW, ORD, CVG, CLE, DFW, DTW, FLL, BDL, HOU, IND, LAS, LAX, LGW, MEM, MIA, MSP, BNA, EWR, MSY, JFK, LGA, ORF, MCO, PHL, PHX, PIT, STL, SLC, TPA, YYZ, DCA and IAD.

      Comment


      • #4
        The so called "assault weapons ban" doesn't ban anything. All it does is force the gun to have some cosmetic changes and pistols cannot have larger than 10 round magazines. I can still buy an AR-15, AK-47/74, or any other semi-auto weapon I wanted. Fully automatic weapons have required permits for decades and have not been available for sale before or after the AWB.

        Comment


        • #5
          As much as you love free speech, you have to consider this:

          1) Lately, campaigns are all about smearing the other guy without proposing anything. X candidate will say Y candidate is a sleazebag, and that'll have some shock value, but not much else. Candidate X won't feel the need to market him/herself as the better alternative. We need to make campaigns what they're supposed to do: promote what's good from a determinate candidate.

          2) Most of these late-minute ads are paid for by "commitees", which are nothing more than fronts for lobby groups and unions, so soft money is involved there. Want campaign finance reform? Get lobbies and unions out of politics!!!


          A Colombian guy moved by the winds of fate to St. Louis, MO

          Comment


          • #6

            Supreme Court Rules 1st Amendment Unconstitutional
            OK, I gotta mention this: the Supreme Court cannot rule a part of the constitution unconstitutional!
            AIRIGAMI.NET
            http://www.airigami.net - The next generation of paper airliner modeling.

            Comment


            • #7
              Sadly, that is basically what they did. They gutted the 1st Amendment by allowing Congress to decide when the public is allowed to speak on political matters.

              What is to stop Congress from passing a law saying X-Religion is illegal because it is corrupt or a threat to national security? What will stop Congress from closing down certain parts of the media because they do not like what is being reported? What is to stop Congress from making it illegal to protest the government?

              Nothing anymore. According to the Supreme Court, as long as it is in the name of “fighting corruption” or the “public good” Congress can do anything, Constitutional or not and the Court will up hold it. What we have now is a cheap, easy way to amend the Constitution without the needed 2/3 majority of Congress and ¾ of the states.

              I'm reminded of a poem that was written by a man imprisioned in Dachau by the Nazis.

              "First they came for the Jews
              and I did not speak out -
              because I was not a Jew.

              Then they came for the communists
              and I did not speak out -
              because I was not a communist.

              Then they came for the trade unionists
              and I did not speak out -
              because I was not a trade unionist.

              Then they came for me
              and there was no one left
              to speak out for me."

              Comment


              • #8
                B757300, my previous post was all about semantics ... essentially I was just being anally retentive. :P

                The Supreme Court can broaden or narrow interpretation of particular part(s) of the constitution, but it cannot actually declare a part of the constitution unconstitutional. It can declare a law or a ruling by a lower court 'unconstitutional' but it is a factual impossibility to find part of the constitution itself 'unconstitutional'. It would be like declaring a passage of the bible "unbiblical". The mere fact that something is in the constitution makes it constitutional, just as the mere fact that something in the bible makes it biblical.

                Only a 2/3 majority of Congress and 3/4 of the states can *effectively* declare part of the constitution 'unconstitutional' by choosing to remove it. Removal of a component of the constitution is quite separate from changing interpretation of it. The result may be similar, but technically they're whole different animals.

                (Law school makes a person anally retentive like this!!!)
                AIRIGAMI.NET
                http://www.airigami.net - The next generation of paper airliner modeling.

                Comment

                Working...
                X