Of course you just happen to ignore the body that the constitution says is supposed to decide these issues if they don't agree with you.
If you are talking about SCOTUS, where does the Constitution say they get to rule on what's Constitutional?
If you are talking about SCOTUS, where does the Constitution say they get to rule on what's Constitutional?
What bothers me more, the SCOTUS has ruled on laws and has ADMITTED that they violate the constitution, yet allow then to stand in spite of that admitted fact.
So what's the fucking point if having a Bill of Rights if our infallible SCOTUS rules that laws which violate our rights are still enforceable?
What bothers me more, the SCOTUS has ruled on laws and has ADMITTED that they violate the constitution, yet allow then to stand in spite of that admitted fact.
So what's the $#@!ing point if having a Bill of Rights if our infallible SCOTUS rules that laws which violate our rights are still enforceable?
That is a crappy example, and it is NOT illegal to do so.
Lol. The ol yelling fire in a theater BS. I believe I heard politicians saying the same thing trying to ban magazines.
Because life is complicated, nothing is perfect,and we don't live life in a vacuum. Not being able to yell fire in a crowded theater violates my freedom of speech but you also have to look at the consequences of doing so and how big of a violation it is compared to the needs of society.
To falsely shout fire is against the law. Speak designed to cause panic and or obscenity is not protected speech even though I have a constitutional right to free speech. I'm not surprised you find it a bad example, because it pop's your little bubble. I think it makes my point just fine.
Just stop it bones!! You are making too much sense. You are confusing the militia "group-think".
But shouting fire in itself, is not against the law. It becomes a legal issue when it violates the rights of someone else, in this case, right to life. If you are creating a situation that endangers an innocent persons life you are breaking the law because you have no right to do that.
They are using that logic to uphold weapons bans as well as other infringements. In the case if guns, they are saying that you owning the gun endangers someone's life. That is like saying that having the ability to yell "fire" should be banned because someone might do it in order to cause a panic and hurt people.
At any rate, it is illegal to cause a panic for no reason, not yell "fire" in a theatre. If it were, we would need a defense to prosecution for cases in which there was an actual fire.