C*****rs, most of what you know about this country probably comes from what you learn from progressive news sources and websites. The fact is that our constitution was mostly concerned with limiting the powers of the federal government, in an interview back in 2001 the then "Constitutional Scholar" Barack Obama bemoaned that our constitution is a charter of negative liberties, in the interview that aired on Chicago Public Radio Obama said the following.....

“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical,” "It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted. And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way – that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted."

Obama was correct in his interpretation of the courts rulings and the court was also correct in its interpretation of the constitution. The constitution is not about the American people it is about our government and it is about the limitations of the power and responsibilities of our government. This is nowhere more clearly expressed than in our 10th amendment,

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The constitution itself is not such a hard document to understand, the constant fight between conservatives and the progressive left is not about black and white or white people and people of color as the left would have you believe but it is more focused on the power and reach of the federal government, when liberals say that they love our constitution their words ring quite hollow on conservatives because they have never loved the constitution specifically because it limits the power of the federal government which for them is the organ which must have expanded reach and power within our society to bring about the society they envision for our country.

You asked me if I am not concerned about the justices that Trump has appointed to the Supreme Court, to some extent I am because I have concerns as to their fidelity to the constitution and the original intent of our founders, liberals want to say that ours is a living constitution that can be molded by the courts to fit the society that we live in today, personally I consider this to be a very dangerous concept. The constitution itself contains an amendment process for which the founders intended to be used to change the constitution, they did not expect the courts to change the constitution's meaning or to give it added meaning that was not previously considered, that is what the amendment process was intended for.

Consider this C*****rs, if 5 unelected government bureaucrats, who are unelected by the people, who can not be held accountable for their decisions because of lifetime appointments, have the power to change our constitution then what guarantee of freedom and democracy does our constitution really offer to the people of this country. Judicial review was never afforded to the court in our constitution, the courts responsibilities were spelled out in the constitution and judicial review was not one of them, when the court assumed this responsibility for itself Thomas Jefferson in 3 separate letters wrote the following...…

"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to wh**ever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

C*****rs, Trump does not scare me and his appointments to the court do not scare me, the only reason they scare the left is because of their professed fidelity to our country's constitution, it is the liberal judges that would be appointed by an Elizabeth Warren or a Bernie Sanders who would lead an assault on our country's constitution.

Blurry, I have to say that the first thing that struck me about your post in reading the quotes of past presidents is TRUMP could NEVER express himself like that. In fact, Trump would NEVER even THINK about such issues because they are NOT ABOUT HIM. Trump MIGHT be able to write a short essay on "How I Spent My Summer Vacation" as they do in grade school, but I fear he might be criticized for using the word "I" or "golf" too often, not to mention the number of speelling miss steaks he would make.

But to the point of the thread...

This story is not about dumb Canadians, as in Canada's laws do not allow freedom of speech; rather, it is about human stupidity, from which my American neighbours are not immune (as I will show later in my post). The teachers mishandled a situation which then got blown totally out of proportion.

This incident highlights to me the hypersensitivity and hyper-reactivity to issues that were not seen as problems when certain laws were first enacted. It shows what happens when people push things to new limits using arguments that at one time were simply unheard of or considered irrational.

Using free speech -- the topic of this thread -- as the example, how do you rationalize the freedom to express your thoughts and feelings with not being allowed to say r****t or h**eful things? Who decides when speech has crossed the grey zone (as in there not being a clear black/white line) and gone too far?

In a different context, why are we not allowed to say Merry Christmas or have a Christmas Party? Why does it have to be Happy Holidays or a Holiday Party? The answer is usually that it may offend other religious groups; yet I might find it offensive that I am not allowed to express my personal choice to use the word Christmas.

I don't have an answer to these issues, but I think they need to be addressed at some time in a manner that placates all concerned.

And if the OP was trying to poke fun at Canada for stupid laws, explain to me the story that was in the news the other day about an American woman who was sentenced to 30 years (but was released after serving 15) for not reporting that her boyfriend had been physically abusing her children, yet he was only jailed for 2 years for the abuse.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/08/us/tondalao-hall-sentence-commuted-trnd/index.html

Only in America, they say.

Well John, in America we can pretty much say anything we want to in most areas of our society, on college campuses across this nation free speech has been curtailed and that is something that I don't understand and on publicly funded campuses it is something that I see as being clearly unconstitutional.

Here we still rely on societal norms to moderate speech, for instance, if I wanted to go stand on a street corner and yell out h**eful things about minorities or religious sects, that is not against the law and I would be free to do so. However, I am pretty sure that I would be shunned because of it and quickly become a pariah in my community, for me this is a much better way for our society to move forward. The first ten amendments to our constitution were considered to be human rights at the time of their adoption, the first two being for most Americans the most important and self evident, the right to free speech and self defense, these were considered natural rights give not by the government to the people but by the creator or the natural order of things to the people, they are innate within each human being. The government has no right to control thought and by extension speech, the same reasoning follows with self defense.

The following amendments some of which deal with the government and restricting the encroachment on freedom and liberty such as search and seizure and right to privacy, the right to a speedy trial and jury by peers, the tenth amendment granting powers to the people and the states, they are not quite the same as the first and second amendments and that is probably why speech and self defense came first as they were the most evident and in accord with the state of being a natural being.

The sentencing of the mother in Oklahoma was completely inappropriate, the release of her boyfriend was almost as bad.

Well John, in America we can pretty much say anything we want to in most areas of our society, on college campuses across this nation free speech has been curtailed and that is something that I don't understand and on publicly funded campuses it is something that I see as being clearly unconstitutional.

Here we still rely on societal norms to moderate speech, for instance, if I wanted to go stand on a street corner and yell out h**eful things about minorities or religious sects, that is not against the law and I would be free to do so. However, I am pretty sure that I would be shunned because of it and quickly become a pariah in my community, for me this is a much better way for our society to move forward. The first ten amendments to our constitution were considered to be human rights at the time of their adoption, the first two being for most Americans the most important and self evident, the right to free speech and self defense, these were considered natural rights give not by the government to the people but by the creator or the natural order of things to the people, they are innate within each human being. The government has no right to control thought and by extension speech, the same reasoning follows with self defense.

The following amendments some of which deal with the government and restricting the encroachment on freedom and liberty such as search and seizure and right to privacy, the right to a speedy trial and jury by peers, the tenth amendment granting powers to the people and the states, they are not quite the same as the first and second amendments and that is probably why speech and self defense came first as they were the most evident and in accord with the state of being a natural being.

The sentencing of the mother in Oklahoma was completely inappropriate, the release of her boyfriend was almost as bad.

I don't think there is much difference in freedom of speech in the US vs Canada. We seem to define h**e speech quite narrowly, and we make it illegal; you guys seem to think it is OK from a legal perspective, but as you say, probably not socially acceptable.

You do, of course, still have some restrictions such as shouting "fire" in crowded public venue as a prank (a classic example often discussed). I also think there might just be something dicey about standing in front of the White House and yelling, "I h**e Trump and I am going to shoot him." This gets a bit beyond simple freedom of speech, but my point is you are NOT totally free to say wh**ever you want without repercussions.

Blurry, I have to say that the first thing that struck me about your post in reading the quotes of past presidents is TRUMP could NEVER express himself like that. In fact, Trump would NEVER even THINK about such issues because they are NOT ABOUT HIM. Trump MIGHT be able to write a short essay on "How I Spent My Summer Vacation" as they do in grade school, but I fear he might be criticized for using the word "I" or "golf" too often, not to mention the number of speelling miss steaks he would make.

But to the point of the thread...

This story is not about dumb Canadians, as in Canada's laws do not allow freedom of speech; rather, it is about human stupidity, from which my American neighbours are not immune (as I will show later in my post). The teachers mishandled a situation which then got blown totally out of proportion.

This incident highlights to me the hypersensitivity and hyper-reactivity to issues that were not seen as problems when certain laws were first enacted. It shows what happens when people push things to new limits using arguments that at one time were simply unheard of or considered irrational.

Using free speech -- the topic of this thread -- as the example, how do you rationalize the freedom to express your thoughts and feelings with not being allowed to say r****t or h**eful things? Who decides when speech has crossed the grey zone (as in there not being a clear black/white line) and gone too far?

In a different context, why are we not allowed to say Merry Christmas or have a Christmas Party? Why does it have to be Happy Holidays or a Holiday Party? The answer is usually that it may offend other religious groups; yet I might find it offensive that I am not allowed to express my personal choice to use the word Christmas.

I don't have an answer to these issues, but I think they need to be addressed at some time in a manner that placates all concerned.

And if the OP was trying to poke fun at Canada for stupid laws, explain to me the story that was in the news the other day about an American woman who was sentenced to 30 years (but was released after serving 15) for not reporting that her boyfriend had been physically abusing her children, yet he was only jailed for 2 years for the abuse.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/08/us/tondalao-hall-sentence-commuted-trnd/index.html

Only in America, they say.

C*****rs, most of what you know about this country probably comes from what you learn from progressive news sources and websites. The fact is that our constitution was mostly concerned with limiting the powers of the federal government, in an interview back in 2001 the then "Constitutional Scholar" Barack Obama bemoaned that our constitution is a charter of negative liberties, in the interview that aired on Chicago Public Radio Obama said the following.....

“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical,” "It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted. And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way – that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted."

Obama was correct in his interpretation of the courts rulings and the court was also correct in its interpretation of the constitution. The constitution is not about the American people it is about our government and it is about the limitations of the power and responsibilities of our government. This is nowhere more clearly expressed than in our 10th amendment,

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The constitution itself is not such a hard document to understand, the constant fight between conservatives and the progressive left is not about black and white or white people and people of color as the left would have you believe but it is more focused on the power and reach of the federal government, when liberals say that they love our constitution their words ring quite hollow on conservatives because they have never loved the constitution specifically because it limits the power of the federal government which for them is the organ which must have expanded reach and power within our society to bring about the society they envision for our country.

You asked me if I am not concerned about the justices that Trump has appointed to the Supreme Court, to some extent I am because I have concerns as to their fidelity to the constitution and the original intent of our founders, liberals want to say that ours is a living constitution that can be molded by the courts to fit the society that we live in today, personally I consider this to be a very dangerous concept. The constitution itself contains an amendment process for which the founders intended to be used to change the constitution, they did not expect the courts to change the constitution's meaning or to give it added meaning that was not previously considered, that is what the amendment process was intended for.

Consider this C*****rs, if 5 unelected government bureaucrats, who are unelected by the people, who can not be held accountable for their decisions because of lifetime appointments, have the power to change our constitution then what guarantee of freedom and democracy does our constitution really offer to the people of this country. Judicial review was never afforded to the court in our constitution, the courts responsibilities were spelled out in the constitution and judicial review was not one of them, when the court assumed this responsibility for itself Thomas Jefferson in 3 separate letters wrote the following...…

"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to wh**ever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

C*****rs, Trump does not scare me and his appointments to the court do not scare me, the only reason they scare the left is because of their professed fidelity to our country's constitution, it is the liberal judges that would be appointed by an Elizabeth Warren or a Bernie Sanders who would lead an assault on our country's constitution.