New York Times: How conservatives weaponize the first amendment (McCain, drug, Feingold)

[rebeldor]

Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment

Sure they did, since they didn't want to risk offending the king, the pope or whoever else had the power to beat down individuals that criticized them.

The U.S. had a king in 1791?

This is what happened in 1791:

Whiskey Rebellion

Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment

It exists only when whoever is in power agrees that it exists. And constitutional governments are best way humans figured out to create those conditions.

Constitutional government is still tyranny.

2000 years of Celtic anarchy wants a word with you.

[The Dark Enlightenment]

Originally Posted by rebeldor

The U.S. had a king in 1791?

Huh?

If that's your idea of debate, I can see why you're frustrated that people don't want to engage.

[wutitiz]

It appears that the NYT considers 'weaponize' and 'uphold' to be synonyms. As does Elena Kagan.


wutitiz's law: Those who use terms for which they can't supply a definition, literally don't know what they're talking about.

[wutitiz]

Originally Posted by cttransplant85

1A, 2A, 9A and 10A are CONSTANTLY under attack by the left and 4A & 6A are increasingly under attack. Very dangerous people. They essentially want to get rid of the entire bill of rights and constitution and start all over. The best legal documents in the history of mankind they want gone.

Back when Iraq was trying to hammer out a new constitution, Jay Leno said (paraphrase) "why not let them have ours? After all, we're not using it."

[rebeldor]

Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment

Huh?

If that's your idea of debate, I can see why you're frustrated that people don't want to engage.

Slowly...

No_Recess said:

Before 1791 people used to have zippers on their lips...apparently.

You said:

Sure they did, since they didn't want to risk offending the king, the pope or whoever else had the power to beat down individuals that criticized them.

I then pointed out that he was pointing out that the Whiskey Rebellion happened in 1791, and was basically the end of the liberty that the colonists fought the British to achieve.

Makes sense now?

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by rebeldor

The best legal documents in history were the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution.

The Constitution was a usurpation of power from the individual into the hands of the government.

We might actually agree on that one.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by stremba

I think they've already killed the Tenth, actually. Most people don't even understand the system of federalism anymore, and almost everyone would tell you that state law is in all cases superseded by Federal law.

Boy have you got that one right.

[katygirl68]

Originally Posted by rebeldor

Free speech laws are redundant and pointless, as that right exists with or without government.

Only in America. People are prosecuted for speech now in most first world countries.

[Spartacus713]

Originally Posted by katygirl68

Only in America. People are prosecuted for speech now in most first world countries.

If the Democrats get their way, people will be prosecuted for their not "Politically correct" free speech here.

[Goodnight]

Originally Posted by Tall Traveler

It's a weapon only to conservatives because it's only fascist liberals that are trying to usurp the constitutional rights of conservatives. When you're being attacked by a murderous hate filled mob is when you need a weapon.

I guess corporations donating limitless sums of money to elections is now a 1st amendment right, I never quite thought of it in that respect. I always thought it meant free speech, this is new territory.