The First Amendment....
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How and when did the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition the Government for a redress of grievances" become the right to shut down city streets, interstate roads and bridges?
Blurryeyed wrote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How and when did the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition the Government for a redress of grievances" become the right to shut down city streets, interstate roads and bridges?
Only when the reason suits the Democratic Socialist Left Wing corrupt agenda.
I love the part stating, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Of course the Left Wingers here still agree churches should have been closed during C***d and that church goers should have been arrested for practicing their religion.
The Left loves the Constitution right up until it interferes with their corrupt agenda. Then all bets are off.
Dennis
Triple G wrote:
It's what SCOTUS says that counts - correct? br ht... (
show quote)
The ONLY restriction on the First Amendment I am aware of is the well known, yelling FIRE in a theater. Of course I fully agree with that restriction. I know of no others as determined by the Founding Fathers. Do you? What are they?
As for peaceful assemblies, l agree with you right up until theynare not peaceful or other violations are encountered as you state. But then what about recently when the Brooklyn Bridge was closed due to, from what I have heard, 7 protestors closing off the bridge. IF that is true then where were the police to enforce the rights of others to cross the bridge?
I will have to look up the SCOTUS decisions you posted.
Dennis
dennis2146 wrote:
The ONLY restriction on the First Amendment I am aware of is the well known, yelling FIRE in a theater. Of course I fully agree with that restriction. I know of no others as determined by the Founding Fathers. Do you? What are they?
As for peaceful assemblies, l agree with you right up until theynare not peaceful or other violations are encountered as you state. But then what about recently when the Brooklyn Bridge was closed due to, from what I have heard, 7 protestors closing off the bridge. IF that is true then where were the police to enforce the rights of others to cross the bridge?
I will have to look up the SCOTUS decisions you posted.
Dennis
The ONLY restriction on the First Amendment I am a... (
show quote)
Yup, police should have made arrests. Preventing my right to use roadways completed with tax dollars is not a "peaceful" assembly even if it is not violent.
Police handled it!
https://brooklyneagle.com/articles/2023/10/29/pro-palestinian-marchers-shut-down-the-brooklyn-bridge/
dennis2146 wrote:
Only when the reason suits the Democratic Socialist Left Wing corrupt agenda.
I love the part stating, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Of course the Left Wingers here still agree churches should have been closed during C***d and that church goers should have been arrested for practicing their religion.
The Left loves the Constitution right up until it interferes with their corrupt agenda. Then all bets are off.
Dennis
According to your interpretation of the 1st, it's OK to yell FIRE in a crowded theater. Prohibition of gathering of large groups of people was to prevent the spread of C***D. If you're not smart enough to realize that, you must be a F*****t Republicant.
dlwhawaii wrote:
According to your interpretation of the 1st, it's OK to yell FIRE in a crowded theater. Prohibition of gathering of large groups of people was to prevent the spread of C***D. If you're not smart enough to realize that, you must be a F*****t Republicant.
Yeah smart guy then how do you explain the B*M protests which took place during the same time that governors like Newsome were closing down beaches and Witless Whitmer was shutting down boating on Lake Michigan? The shutting down of churches and synagogs was a definite result of the left's intolerance of the Jewish and Christian religions.
Blurryeyed wrote:
Yeah smart guy then how do you explain the B*M protests? The shutting down of churches was a definite result of the left's intolerance of the Jewish and Christian religions.
Well, myopic. You obviously are a C***D denier. That's YOUR problem, not mine.
dlwhawaii wrote:
Well, myopic. You obviously are a C***D denier. That's YOUR problem, not mine.
No, you are obviously full of caca... bet you have brown eyes. That is your problem which probably affects all those around you.
dlwhawaii wrote:
According to your interpretation of the 1st, it's OK to yell FIRE in a crowded theater. Prohibition of gathering of large groups of people was to prevent the spread of C***D. If you're not smart enough to realize that, you must be a F*****t Republicant.
First off where does the F*****t come in? Explain that for us. I am asking why not equal rights for ALL. It is you who accepts some businesses being open while others are forced to close, you who accepts some groups prohibited from mingling but not other groups who support the Left. Now that sounds like F*****m to me. You SAY???
I have never said that was OK nor have I ever thought it was acceptable. Please show me specifically where I said yelling fire in a crowded theater was acceptable.
I realize full well why prohibition of large groups was stated by the Left. But maybe you will have noticed large groups spouting bulls**t FOR the Left was not prohibited. Perhaps you can explain to me why some businesses were closed such as hair salons but not bars or liquor stores. Why is that?
Are you unable to see the difference in policies, church goers are spreading C***d while Left Wing protestors are not. Those who go to a hair salon might spread C***d while those who purchase alcohol or spend time drinking in a bar do not spread C***d. Surely you can explain why one was acceptable while the other not so much. You can explain can't you hiawatha?
Dennis
dlwhawaii wrote:
Well, myopic. You obviously are a C***D denier. That's YOUR problem, not mine.
And you DEFLECT when you are obviously lying or pushing your corrupt Left Wing Socialist agenda as you just did. Blurry posted nothing about denying C***d. How do you deny something that affected the entire world? Please explain your unintelligible comments. They make you look and sound like a FOOL.
Dennis
Denise, I was refuting YOUR interpretation of the 1st. You state religious rights were abridged by refusing to allow people, religious or otherwise, to gather. I stated that refusing to allow people, religious or otherwise, was to prevent the spread of C***D. Myopic ignored that completely and brought up B*M. What that had to do with the 1st, I don't know. F*****m is a mass political movement that emphasizes extreme nationalism, militarism, and the supremacy of both the nation and the single, powerful leader over the individual citizen. Yet you feel justified in calling me a liar and pushing my corrupt Left Wing Socialist agenda as I just did. ???? Self recognition is interesting, fool.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.