Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby
That means the government can clarify, and it wouldn't violate the constitution.
|
This logic also says the government can clarify what types of free speech you can have and it wouldn't violate the constitution.
They could say you can use a quill and ink on parchment, a printing press, or a specific place in a town squares but nothing modern like a forum called TOTV, email, TV, paper, etc.
The Supreme Court exists to stop people from imposing such obviously violations of our rights.
For example, to create a limit on the second amendment, a government wishing to place restrictions on firearm ownership must “affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.”
Your desired violations clearly do not meet that standard.