"By upholding it as constitutional they send someone to jail. So you are wrong."
I am wrong!?!? By the time a case get to the Supreme's the person has already been convicted and sentenced. The subject to said case is not even permitted into the Supreme's presence. Their ruling does not put a person in jail, they can only make it possible for them to be removed from jail, or prison as the case may be.

"History informs the future." Good line! I like that! But that is not what you are doing with your historical references. You are presenting them as fait accompli to the way the nation is now. That is not "informing the future", That is more like the past is the future. That no matter what is learned or how things change what ever happened in the past can never change. Kind of like Your great grand uncle Jake was a cattle rustler so you must have stolen my cows.
What history that you have presented did I not like and how is it possible for me to "shut history down"? I would need access to a black hole to do that!

Quote Originally Posted by SadisticNature View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

The supreme court rules on the constitutionality of a criminal conviction. By upholding it as constitutional they send someone to jail. So you are wrong. History informs the future. Your fundamental argument in this thread is that historic documents should be used with historic interpretations to limit the mandate of government, yet when someone presents history you don't like you attempt to shut it down by being irrelevant due to being not current. It would be equally ridiculous for me to tell you to stop quoting some document from the 18th century in a thread about the 21st.