Forcing Cultural Marxism On Lawyers

[PoliticalChic]

So you have no answer. Ok. Let’s start an easier one.

Congress shall pass no law abridging Freedom of Speech.

So what is protected speech? What did the founders envision as protected?

There have been more Supreme Court cases on that single phrase than any other. And the definition of protected, that is to say free speech, has evolved as it is interpreted by the courts and society.

The reason is that you fail to grasp a simple truth. The Constitution enshrines absolutes. Those absolutes include the President being the Commander in Chief of the military. It also contained principles. Those principles include prohibitions on excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Those principles are absolutely open to interpretation. They are supposed to. They are vaguely written to allow the definition to change with social growth. Excessive bail in 1800 would be pocket change today as one example.

It isn’t interpretation of the Constitution that you object to. It is any other interpretation than your own.

Among the things I have read is the Federalist Papers. The clear objective for the Founders was to make a government strong enough to survive against threats that would emerge, and flexible enough to endure.

Perhaps your employers haven’t given you those talking points. It’s a shame. I’d suggest reading it on your own, but that might end your employment as a paid pontificator.

"Congress shall pass no law abridging Freedom of Speech.

So what is protected speech? What did the founders envision as protected?"


I know you can't be quite this stupid, so let's cut to the chase.

Like you, Democrats simply lie and ignore the Constitution.


1. Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors 2of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?


Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.





2. Democrats put anti-free speech individual on the Court.

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"

Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?

Via The Volokh Conspiracy comes this blast from Elena Kagan’s past. The Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant reports: “According to records at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Littl…

thedaleygator.wordpress.com

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia




“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 intendedthe 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?


Any other questions????


Don't you wish to thank me for dissippating your miasma????