Skip to main content

One of the great things about The First Amendment is that political speech is protected

     It would definitely look like I am doing something wrong in posts here were it not the fact that we have a United States Constitution which is "the supreme law of the land," (see Article VI of the U.S. Constitution) in which the First Amendment (part of what is also known as the "Bill of Rights) expressly outlines basic freedoms of U.S. citizens that are not to be violated by the government. Citizens' right of "political speech" has long been understood as a bullet-proof component of First Amendment rights, and so therefore is sometimes listed in "exclusions" to behavior that can be prosecuted under penal code. The Supreme Court ruled on a case involving political speech even a year ago (in 2016) in Heffernan v. City of Patterson.
    My previous few posts here fall within the boundaries of political speech. There is nothing anyone can say to my detriment, shame, (or even incrimination) over it, as least in legal terms.
   I stand for the U.S. Constitution and people's rights such as freedom of speech. My adversaries, whom are often bullyish unbelievers with no point, usually do not. Opposed to such freedoms as what the Bill of Rights outlines, they themselves have the potential for acts of treason, as they find themselves in diametric opposition to constitutional principles and freedoms by trying to oppose me and my position in the legal battle which I have fought long and hard. They so soon and often forget that Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the principles and freedoms set forth therein are on my side of many arguments. Argue with me on said points and you will be arguing against a position that has Constitutional authority.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nice Dissenting Opinion on the Fairness of the Criminal Justice System

   I was recently having a conversation with someone about the possibility for unreliability and/or unfairness in the criminal justice system. I was reminded of this quote from a Supreme Court case which is from Justice Harry Blackmun's dissenting opinion. The case was Darden v. Wainwright 477 U.S. 168 (1986). Obviously he's talking about the Supreme Court level, but if this could be said about their accuracy, then how shall we communicate about fairness at the trial court level? "JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE MARSHALL, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting. Although the Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant only "a fair trial [and] not a perfect one,"  Lutwak v. United States,   344 U. S. 604 ,  344 U. S. 619  (1953);  Bruton v. United States,   391 U. S. 123 ,  391 U. S. 135  (1968), this Court has stressed repeatedly in the decade since  Gregg v. Georgia,   428 U. S. 153  (1976), that ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Personality Types and the Fall of Man Argument

   There will be some who will want to say that I was being illogical or unbiblical when I wrote the post about how personality differences get misunderstood.  Their argument is basically that differing personalities are a consequence of the Fall of Man- a consequence of the DNA getting disordered.  Therefore, they will say, that people who don't fit the "perfect personality" are sinful. God created one man, they will say, with a perfect personality (Adam).  In truth, they can cite Adam, Eve, and Jesus.  That argument is not correct, and I will stand my ground on this.    The reason why they are not correct is because they are making the unwarranted assumption all of Adam's descendants would have had the same personality had the Fall never happened. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that had the Fall never happened, there would have been different kinds of people with different personalities, it just would have been a more perfect world. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

We Have Freedom of Speech, right?

   How come everyone seems so afraid to speak against the real politik in our country? We used to have lively political discussion and dissent, and now people with minority opinions seem scoffed at and outcast. This is a bad trend, don't go in that way. The first amendment was set up with one of the intentions being that people would be able to criticize those in charge. It is unbelievable that people could say that a scenario happened like Pearl Jams' "Dissident" describes, and these things happen on American soil?    The 1992 Presidential election is something to look to consider the way things used to be. Third party independent candidate Ross Perot was considered as having equal weight as the two other candidates. There was a strong freedom of the thought in the political spectrum. Perot's money went a long way for him. All things considered, though, billionaires still exist. Where are the Ross Perots of our time, then, who are not afraid to jump in and shake...
Post a Comment
Read more