State Of The Union

[SadisticNature]

"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 But that is not what you are doing with your historical references.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!

You claim to support the following:

(I) You are entitled to free speech because of the constitution.
(II) The constitution is not a document subject to modern interpretations.

So I've pointed out the most famous ruling where the government stripped a supposive constitutional right to free speech. Do you believe the ruling was outright wrong?

It seems to me you can't argue that the constitution should be interpreted as it was written then argue historical constitutional cases are irrelevant and don't reflect the country now, unless you are claiming the ruling was incorrect in those cases.

[DuncanONeil]

You claim to support the following:

(I) You are entitled to free speech because of the constitution.

The statement is true, but you are thereby postulating and absolute right. That aside you citation is moot.

(II) The constitution is not a document subject to modern interpretations.

Where have I said that? The Constitution requires strict interpretation.

So I've pointed out the most famous ruling where the government stripped a supposive constitutional right to free speech. Do you believe the ruling was outright wrong?

It seems to me you can't argue that the constitution should be interpreted as it was written then argue historical constitutional cases are irrelevant and don't reflect the country now, unless you are claiming the ruling was incorrect in those cases.[/QUOTE]
As stated above the ruling is moot!