"(O)r one's expression of support for any given dogma of any given party should be in like manner protected or covered by one or both of the previous amendments of our Constitution or it should have a seperate Amendment for itself."
A separate Amendment is not required as you so ably stated such is already covered.

Originally Posted by
denuseri
If one reviews the previous posts one can seee where and why I started back in with my preceptions that had only previously been exchanging with steelish on the side bar and why.
Doth Sir think me to not be educated, (since I did figure that I lay in the "do not know" catagory) I had to wonder as I formulated my posts...grins.
So I pointed out that it is not wrong or uneducated to say that the USA could indeed be claimed to be a Democracy, and be proud of it.
Furthermore, back to the main topic:
That of Obama being a Socialist or not a socialist and if so who cares or doesnt care etc...
I believe that in The United States of America, that as with religion and ones freedom to practice it without fear of harm, threat, reprisal or interference in any way outside of one's practice violating those laws that we all hold to be sacred and in conjuction with one's right to freedom of personal speach in like manner; that one's membership in any given political party or other such afiliation, or one's expression of support for any given dogma of any given party should be in like manner protected or covered by one or both of the previous amendments of our Constitution or it should have a seperate Amendment for itself.