Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I know it's hard for people to comprehend, but you can indeed read the federalist papers, anti fed papers, and the constitutional debates as well as all of the commentaries on the proposed constitution and come to the realization you understand exactly what the framers wanted. It's not written in sanskrit and it doesn't take a law degree with years as a judge to understand what 'shall make no law' means.
|
So are you saying that anyone who disagrees with what you view as the obvious interpretation of the constitution actually knows that they are wrong, but instead are just lying through their teeth? That any disagreement at all about the constitution arises solely out of bad faith of those who disagree with the apparently obvious definition?
Of course, shall make no law is obvious in its meaning. But what exactly is speech and press are not so clear, as the discussion that started this thread exemplifies. Is donating money to a certain cause or organization speech that is protected by the first amendment? Is espionage speech that should be protected by the first amendment? False drug advertisement? Child pornography?