There's No America....

[PoliticalChic]

....without the Bill of Rights

And, on this date, December 15th, 1791, the first ten amendments were ratified.

"The United States Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 debate over the ratification of the Constitution, and written to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically granted to the U.S. Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those found in earlier documents, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), as well as the English Bill of Rights (1689) and the Magna Carta (1215).[1]"
United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia


They remained in effect until the Democrat Party became dominant, and demanded restrictions on free speech and freedom of conscience.



An example:
“Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. The Founders intended the First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?



Hussein put an anti-first amendment Justice on our Supreme Court.....


...and you can vote Democrat?????

 

[ReinyDays]

The Bill of Rights only applies to the United States ... the rest of America has their own Constitutions ... go up to Canada and deny the Holocaust, see how quick you get deported ...

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Bill of Rights only applies to the United States ... the rest of America has their own Constitutions ... go up to Canada and deny the Holocaust, see how quick you get deported ...

Where did I say otherwise?


The OP referred to the USofA.

 

[ReinyDays]

The Bill of Rights only applies to the United States ... the rest of America has their own Constitutions ... go up to Canada and deny the Holocaust, see how quick you get deported ...

Where did I say otherwise?


The OP referred to the USofA.

Title says America ... maybe edit that ... otherwise folks might think you don't know the difference ...

 

[anynameyouwish]

....without the Bill of Rights

And, on this date, December 15th, 1791, the first ten amendments were ratified.

"The United States Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 debate over the ratification of the Constitution, and written to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically granted to the U.S. Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those found in earlier documents, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), as well as the English Bill of Rights (1689) and the Magna Carta (1215).[1]"
United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia


They remained in effect until the Democrat Party became dominant, and demanded restrictions on free speech and freedom of conscience.



An example:
“Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. The Founders intended the First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?



Hussein put an anti-first amendment Justice on our Supreme Court.....


...and you can vote Democrat?????

the BILL OF RIGHTS that applies to ALL Americans, including LIBERALS and ATHEISTS and HOMOSEXUALS and FEMINISTS and MUSLIMS.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Bill of Rights only applies to the United States ... the rest of America has their own Constitutions ... go up to Canada and deny the Holocaust, see how quick you get deported ...

Where did I say otherwise?


The OP referred to the USofA.

Title says America ... maybe edit that ... otherwise folks might think you don't know the difference ...

The Bill of Rights only applies to the United States ... the rest of America has their own Constitutions ... go up to Canada and deny the Holocaust, see how quick you get deported ...

Where did I say otherwise?


The OP referred to the USofA.

Title says America ... maybe edit that ... otherwise folks might think you don't know the difference ...

Perhaps you should read beyond the title.

Did you miss this?

"The United States Bill of Rights ....."

 

[ReinyDays]

I'm just suggesting consistency is diction is all ... don't take it personally ...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Leftists cannot win the debate of ideas: conservatives eat Liberal’s lunch. That explains the following:

First on the list of targets for Communists, Fascists.....and Liberals......is Free Speech.

Case in point, CNN news-speaker, and grad of..."Yale University, where he obtained an undergraduate degree, and Fordham University where he obtained his Juris Doctor (J.D.). He is a licensed attorney.
He currently works at CNN,[1][2] and has previously been the ABC Newschief law and justice correspondent and the co-anchor for ABC's 20/20."
Chris Cuomo - Wikipedia


One smart Liberal, huh?


With all that supposed education, Liberal Democrat Cuomo said this:

"CNN's Chris Cuomo: First Amendment doesn't cover hate speech
"Hate speech is excluded from protection" under the First Amendment.
— Chris Cuomo on Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 in a Tweet

"Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.

Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.


Cuomo’s tweet, and his stubborn campaign to defend it in the wake of a merciless assault from the Twitterverse, errs in two ways. First, it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."
Chris Cuomo Won’t Walk Back His Ignorant Tweet About Hate Speech



No wonder the majority of Democrats favor ending free speech.....that's CNN's audience.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Bill of Rights only applies to the United States ... the rest of America has their own Constitutions ... go up to Canada and deny the Holocaust, see how quick you get deported ...

Where did I say otherwise?


The OP referred to the USofA.

Title says America ... maybe edit that ... otherwise folks might think you don't know the difference ...

Does Canada refer to itself as 'America'?


How about Mexico?


Read more carefully.

 

[PoliticalChic]

....without the Bill of Rights

And, on this date, December 15th, 1791, the first ten amendments were ratified.

"The United States Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 debate over the ratification of the Constitution, and written to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically granted to the U.S. Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those found in earlier documents, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), as well as the English Bill of Rights (1689) and the Magna Carta (1215).[1]"
United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia


They remained in effect until the Democrat Party became dominant, and demanded restrictions on free speech and freedom of conscience.



An example:
“Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. The Founders intended the First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?



Hussein put an anti-first amendment Justice on our Supreme Court.....


...and you can vote Democrat?????

the BILL OF RIGHTS that applies to ALL Americans, including LIBERALS and ATHEISTS and HOMOSEXUALS and FEMINISTS and MUSLIMS.

Not according to Democrats/Liberals/Progressives/Fascists.

I just proved that vis a vis Justice Kagan and Fredo Cuomo.....


Are you the same guy from Wheel of Fortune who said “is there an ‘f’ as in pharoh?”

 

[anynameyouwish]

Leftists cannot win the debate of ideas: conservatives eat Liberal’s lunch. That explains the following:

First on the list of targets for Communists, Fascists.....and Liberals......is Free Speech.

Case in point, CNN news-speaker, and grad of..."Yale University, where he obtained an undergraduate degree, and Fordham University where he obtained his Juris Doctor (J.D.). He is a licensed attorney.
He currently works at CNN,[1][2] and has previously been the ABC Newschief law and justice correspondent and the co-anchor for ABC's 20/20."
Chris Cuomo - Wikipedia


One smart Liberal, huh?


With all that supposed education, Liberal Democrat Cuomo said this:

"CNN's Chris Cuomo: First Amendment doesn't cover hate speech
"Hate speech is excluded from protection" under the First Amendment.
— Chris Cuomo on Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 in a Tweet

"Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.

Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.


Cuomo’s tweet, and his stubborn campaign to defend it in the wake of a merciless assault from the Twitterverse, errs in two ways. First, it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."
Chris Cuomo Won’t Walk Back His Ignorant Tweet About Hate Speech



No wonder the majority of Democrats favor ending free speech.....that's CNN's audience.

"Leftists cannot win the debate of ideas: conservatives eat Liberal’s lunch"


1. homosexual rights
2. homosexual marriage
3. legalization of pot
4. secular government.
5. womens rights
6. easy divorce
7. interracial relationships
8. atheism/secularism is GROWING
9. religious believers are shrinking
10. secular public schools
11. we just had a black president!
12. women are running for president
13. even conservatives would vote for a black or a women


Thanks for letting me eat your lunch!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Leftists cannot win the debate of ideas: conservatives eat Liberal’s lunch. That explains the following:

First on the list of targets for Communists, Fascists.....and Liberals......is Free Speech.

Case in point, CNN news-speaker, and grad of..."Yale University, where he obtained an undergraduate degree, and Fordham University where he obtained his Juris Doctor (J.D.). He is a licensed attorney.
He currently works at CNN,[1][2] and has previously been the ABC Newschief law and justice correspondent and the co-anchor for ABC's 20/20."
Chris Cuomo - Wikipedia


One smart Liberal, huh?


With all that supposed education, Liberal Democrat Cuomo said this:

"CNN's Chris Cuomo: First Amendment doesn't cover hate speech
"Hate speech is excluded from protection" under the First Amendment.
— Chris Cuomo on Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 in a Tweet

"Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.

Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.


Cuomo’s tweet, and his stubborn campaign to defend it in the wake of a merciless assault from the Twitterverse, errs in two ways. First, it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."
Chris Cuomo Won’t Walk Back His Ignorant Tweet About Hate Speech



No wonder the majority of Democrats favor ending free speech.....that's CNN's audience.

"Leftists cannot win the debate of ideas: conservatives eat Liberal’s lunch"


1. homosexual rights
2. homosexual marriage
3. legalization of pot
4. secular government.
5. womens rights
6. easy divorce
7. interracial relationships
8. atheism/secularism is GROWING
9. religious believers are shrinking
10. secular public schools
11. we just had a black president!
12. women are running for president
13. even conservatives would vote for a black or a women


Thanks for letting me eat your lunch!

This is what you've linked to:

With all that supposed education, Liberal Democrat Cuomo said this:

"CNN's Chris Cuomo: First Amendment doesn't cover hate speech
"Hate speech is excluded from protection" under the First Amendment.
— Chris Cuomo on Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 in a Tweet

Are you defending this view?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Communist/Nazi Angela Merkel favors ending free speech.

There's not even 6° of separation between her view, and that of Democrats.

“Majority of Democrats Support Criminalizing Free Speech
A new poll shows that a majority of Democrats want to limit free speech with laws that would prohibit so-called “hate speech.”

The YouGov poll published Wednesday found that 51 percent of Democrats favor imposing legal limits on free speech while just 26 percent of Democrats oppose the idea.

By a ratio of nearly 2:1, Democrats believe free speech should be curtailed when it involves “hatred” for another group. The exact nature of “hatred” is undefined, but real-world examples demonstrate it can be something as simple as drawing a cartoon of Muhammad.



A clear example of this desire to limit speech can be found in the New York Times editorial board’s reaction to the attack in Garland. In a piece titled, “Free Speech vs. Hate Speech,” the Times criticizes Pam Geller, the organizer of the cartoon contest and the intended victim of the attack. Speaking of Geller, the Times wrote, “she achieved her provocative goal in Garland — the event was attacked by two Muslims.” The Times goes on to argue that no amount of violence—not the Charlie Hebdo attacks, not the theatrical brutality of ISIS, not even 9/11—can justify “provocations” (i.e. cartoons) of Islam. This is the severely limited view of the 1st amendment the left-leaning NYT has already embraced.”
Majority of Democrats Support Criminalizing Free Speech | Breitbart




Hard to tell on Nazi from another......

 

[PoliticalChic]

Leftists cannot win the debate of ideas: conservatives eat Liberal’s lunch. That explains the following:

First on the list of targets for Communists, Fascists.....and Liberals......is Free Speech.

Case in point, CNN news-speaker, and grad of..."Yale University, where he obtained an undergraduate degree, and Fordham University where he obtained his Juris Doctor (J.D.). He is a licensed attorney.
He currently works at CNN,[1][2] and has previously been the ABC Newschief law and justice correspondent and the co-anchor for ABC's 20/20."
Chris Cuomo - Wikipedia


One smart Liberal, huh?


With all that supposed education, Liberal Democrat Cuomo said this:

"CNN's Chris Cuomo: First Amendment doesn't cover hate speech
"Hate speech is excluded from protection" under the First Amendment.
— Chris Cuomo on Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 in a Tweet

"Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.

Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.


Cuomo’s tweet, and his stubborn campaign to defend it in the wake of a merciless assault from the Twitterverse, errs in two ways. First, it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."
Chris Cuomo Won’t Walk Back His Ignorant Tweet About Hate Speech



No wonder the majority of Democrats favor ending free speech.....that's CNN's audience.

"Leftists cannot win the debate of ideas: conservatives eat Liberal’s lunch"


1. homosexual rights
2. homosexual marriage
3. legalization of pot
4. secular government.
5. womens rights
6. easy divorce
7. interracial relationships
8. atheism/secularism is GROWING
9. religious believers are shrinking
10. secular public schools
11. we just had a black president!
12. women are running for president
13. even conservatives would vote for a black or a women


Thanks for letting me eat your lunch!

Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’






"They said they just wanted gay marriage, now we’re being told to accept child drag queens, incest and bestiality"
Every day, our post-Christian culture is demonstrating that to be true. The reason for this is because, without God, our culture has no moral ‘oughts’ and ‘ought-nots’. Actions and behaviours have no meaningful moral basis to conform to if concepts such as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ only exist within our minds.

If there is no God, then we are merely an unintentional and meaningless chemical by-product of time and chance working on matter. ‘Morality’ is ultimately incompatible with such a worldview. What one chemical does to another is morally irrelevant and always will be."
They said they just wanted gay marriage, now we're being told to accept child drag queens, incest and bestiality · Caldron Pool

 

[luchitociencia]

....without the Bill of Rights

And, on this date, December 15th, 1791, the first ten amendments were ratified.

"The United States Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 debate over the ratification of the Constitution, and written to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically granted to the U.S. Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those found in earlier documents, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), as well as the English Bill of Rights (1689) and the Magna Carta (1215).[1]"
United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia


They remained in effect until the Democrat Party became dominant, and demanded restrictions on free speech and freedom of conscience.



An example:
“Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. The Founders intended the First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?



Hussein put an anti-first amendment Justice on our Supreme Court.....


...and you can vote Democrat?????

There are several ways people who imitate Democrats, and groups with special interest will work together to stop the opinions of the rest.

They can use even the court of a State or Federal.

To me, if a killer or a rapist wants to write a book, then the judicial system must not use its power to impede that to happen. The common understanding is that a person like that can't have such opportunity to make profit from his crimes. However, several nations invaded other countries and published their crimes in books of history, and no complaints.

In base of rejecting the fact that in a special circumstance a person is not allowed to free speech, is when the door is open for others to take advantage of that court case, in order to be used as their base, arguing freedom of speech can be also not allowed for others.

Other methods are boycotts. This is very common in forums. Posters communicate between themselves planning against other posters.

At the end, freedom of speech ends subjected to conditions, and you observe this reality when YouTube takes videos out because someone "felt offended". The Facebook "community" cancel accounts because the views of some members are not in accord with others.

The ones who have the reason don't need to use such methods trying to stop others opinions, only losers like Democrats or dictators are the sure candidates for stop freedom of speech by abuse of power or doing their filthy actions under the table.

But "god" is watching them. Lol.