You are a bit myopic. The first amendment guarantee of freedom of speech appears to be more of an absolute. But it’s not.
The problem with your ability to rationally discuss these matters is that you start off with an unstated but very much ignorant premise. You seem to assume that there is zero room for interpretation. You’re wrong.
The Constitution, itself, isn’t the product of absolutists or fantasists. The Framers attempted to craft a Constitutional republic of limited power and authority including the enumeration of powers and the reservation of rights to the States and to the People. But they weren’t, in that process, attempting to create a eunuch.
Similarly, official recognition of the right to freedom of speech didn’t entail any “right” to chat with the enemy in time of war to reveal troop movements. And, of course, it didn’t intend to permit falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. This is why the recognized and guaranteed right to bear arms doesn’t apply to felons and can validly come with reasonable and limited requirements for licensing and so forth.
Rules of war aren't in the Constitution, they're included by common law. It's treason to share troop movements with the enemy and treason is in t he Constitution.
And there's no room for interpretation of the explicit limitations in the Constitution.
The 4th Amendment, for instance, protects from unreasonable search and seizures but it defines neither reasonable nor unreasonable. But the use of the word unreasonable proves that the Founders were aware of the concept of reasonable and able to specify it when it was their intent. The result is that the 4th must be interpreted but must be interpreted based on original intent but applied to modern technology.
The 8th Amendment doesn't define excessive bail so it has to be interpreted. We don't apply the same dollar amounts to bail that they did in 1791 but we still apply the level of consideration for what's excessive. For instance 500,000 for the bodega owner in NYC was excessive and it was lowered to 50K.
On the other hand, the 2nd Amendment has no such vagueness. It says "Shall not be infringed". You can interpret that all day long, for 231 years, and it still means "Shall not be infringed". As I proved to you, the Founders understood the concept of reasonable exceptions, as they used it in the 4th Amendment. Had they meant to except reasonable infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, they would have included the same thing in the 2nd Amendment, such as, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be unreasonably infringed." Had they said that, then you might be right but that's not what they said.
The Framers actually weren't
attempting to create a republic of limited power and authority; they actually DID create a republic of limited power and authority.
And though they didn't explicitly authorize yelling fire in a theater, they did explicitly forbid Congress from making it illegal, thus, to this very day, there is no Federal law forbidding yelling fire in a theater, is there?
Are you suggesting that the Founders would have agreed to getting government permission and paying a fee in order to vote? Or getting government permission to speak out against the government?
Maybe you believe that the Founders would have accepted a court fee to have your attorney with you in a trial? Or perhaps a fee in order to have a trial in the first place? If you choose not to pay the fee then the judge makes the ruling of guilt or innocence.
If the right to keep and bear arms doesn't apply to felons, then wouldn't that apply to all rights? There's no specific exception in the 2nd Amendment about felons so it must be inferred so wouldn't it be inferred for all rights? If you're a convicted felon then the next time you're charged with a crime, no lawyer, no jury. If you're a convicted felon, you can be held in chains and beaten daily for 10 years sentence because cruel and inhuman no longer applies to you. So no trial, no jury, and daily beatings for once-convicted felons. Got it.
en.m.wikipedia.org
