For constitutional fundamentalists

[Westside Steve]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

 

So for anyone who regards the US contitution as the last word, I found this interesting.

We can take each part of the bill of rights and ask ourselves (honestly if possible) if that's the way the founders planned it or not.

Or if it relates to modern day reality.

 

As the old saying goes "everything before the 'but' is bullshit."

 

WSS

[Mr. T]

I will need a month to read all of the Annotations

 

 

Clear and Present Danger .--Certain expression, oral or written, may incite, urge, counsel, advocate, or importune the commission of criminal conduct; other expression, such as picketing, demonstrating, and engaging in certain forms of ''symbolic'' action may either counsel the commission of criminal conduct or itself constitute criminal conduct. Leaving aside for the moment the problem of ''speech-plus'' communication, it becomes necessary to determine when expression that may be a nexus to criminal conduct is subject to punishment and restraint. At first, the Court seemed disposed in the few cases reaching it to rule that if the conduct could be made criminal, the advocacy of or promotion of the conduct could be made criminal. 77 Then, in Schenck v. United States, 78 in which defendants had been convicted of seeking to disrupt recruitment of military personnel by dissemination of certain leaflets, Justice Holmes formulated the ''clear and present danger'' test which has ever since been the starting point of argument. ''The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.'' 79 The convictions were unanimously affirmed. One week later, the Court again unanimously affirmed convictions under the same Act with Justice Holmes speaking. ''[W]e think it necessary to add to what has been said in Schenck v. United States . . . only that the First Amendment while prohibiting legislation against free speech as such cannot have been, and obviously was not, intended to give immunity for every possible use of language. We venture to believe that neither Hamilton nor Madison, nor any other competent person then or later, ever supposed that to make criminal the counseling of a murder within the jurisdiction of Congress would be an unconstitutional interference with free speech.'' 80 And in Debs v. United States, 81 Justice Holmes was found referring to ''the natural and intended effect'' and ''probable effect'' of the condemned speech in common-law tones.

[Westside Steve]

What I think it underscores is that the bill of rights is not as immutable as we'd like to think.

 

The list of exceptions seems limitless, and the original wording, having been shaped changed and tailored for different generations sensibilities. is barely recognizeable today.

 

So I hardly think that my wish to tailor the right to remain silent in cases where an innocent life is in peril makes me a traitor.

 

WSS

[Mr. T]

That is because for the pasy years we have been acting upon case law and not constitutional law.

 

To many opinions have misinterperted some of the wording to bend the true meanings of what has been written.

 

 

 

Its like trying to get instructions from a pack of old hens. Soon you are hen pecked to death.

[calfoxwc]

Our Constitution doesn't matter to progressives when THEY have power.

 

They always want more power.

 

With them, like Heck as the perfect example...

 

there aren't values or principles... there are politically expedient postures.

 

And those postures will change to the exact opposite, depending on

 

whether or not it benefits their idealogy.

 

Like, they whined desperately about their rights being violated by the Privacy Act

 

when Bush was pres.

 

But now that Obamao is in there... not a word. They don't care.

 

Like the tragic deaths of some of our American SOLDIERS in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

They used to come on here, and when they were losing any argument, they'd pony up

 

the current KIA number and bash Bush again, changing any subject at hand, again.

 

But now? Not one freakin word. Just a gigantic "who gives a frack?" silence on their part.

 

Shep used to talk about tragic "frightening, dark days" back when Bush was pres.

 

Now?

 

Beats me. I guess when you don't want ot bash YOUR guy, there isn't any reason to be here,

 

to certain whining progressives/socialists/whatevertheHECKtheyare.... @@

 

I bashed Bush for not fixing the security threat on our boarders, illegal immigration.... his whole second term.

 

I bash Obamao for the same thing.

 

That's a principle - we need to be safe in our own country.

 

Progressives? They based Bush for it. Now they WANT those illegals in here, apparently.

 

Some of these progressives are calling for Obamao to be MORE DICTATORIAL.

 

Odd, you'd think they wouldn't want ANY pres to be "more dictatorial".

 

Not so odd, when you figure that if it's "THEIR" pres, why sure, they want him to

 

be a dictator. They want THEIR "Chavez". They would be outraged if it's a pres THEY DON'T LIKE.

 

See? There isn't principle or values.... there are politically expedient postures.

 

They want to reverse the "rules" when it suits them.

 

That is why the libs/progressives don't make much sense at all.

 

It isn't politically expedient - they emote, depending on how they feel at any given time.

 

Common sense, our Constitution, Bill of Rights, our freedom, our troops, you name it...

 

doesn't matter if they don't want it to.

 

And that, folks, is the saddest thing to realize about them. They never really cared about what they SAID

 

and whined for years about.

 

It was all for defending their blindly held, vague idealogy of "if it's good and decent American values and principles, we're AGAINST IT"

[VaporTrail]

Some of these progressives are calling for Obamao to be MORE DICTATORIAL.

 

Odd, you'd think they wouldn't want ANY pres to be "more dictatorial".

 

Not so odd, when you figure that if it's "THEIR" pres, why sure, they want him to

 

be a dictator. They want THEIR "Chavez". They would be outraged if it's a pres THEY DON'T LIKE.

 

Cal, how do you take yourself seriously? We say the US government shouldn't torture. Then, you say we want him to be more "dictatorial." How does that make sense to you? You guys want the Bill of Rights to be repealed in some cases, and we're the ones that want a dictator? Jesus H. Christ.

[calfoxwc]

I said SOME OF.

 

Not you. Some of.

 

Some......of.

 

Part of the whole.

 

You want me to post some links of those "SOME" who

 

are ASKING for Obamao to be dictatorial?

 

Let me know.

 

Meanwhile, how the hell do you take YOURSELF seriously, when you

 

didn't actually READ and COMPREHEND my statement in it's entirety?

 

Some of, is not all.

 

Therefore, you should say you're sorry, dammit.

 

And have a cookie and some tea. Or crumpets. Whatever.

[Westside Steve]

It's gotta be frustrationg for the harder left to watch the window of opportunity slowly close on their plans.

 

I'd be pissed if the guy I voted for on the basis of any policies I'd actually like implemented dropped the ball with this massive majority.

WSS