Comment: "Should I understand it that

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: So what are you just saying (see in situ)

"Should I understand it that

"Should I understand it that you're for slavery, keeping corrupt officers breaking their oaths in office, that the corrupt States can imprison you without due process and completely deny you any rights? That's what you mean?"

Apparently to you, the abolition of slavery demanded FEDERAL intervention and meddling in the rights of states guaranteed via the 10th amendment. After all, the very REASON for the existence of STATE constitutions is to address the issues of "imprisonment without due process by STATE officials"... LoL ;)

I'll say it again since you obviously missed it the first time:

"Since I don't respect the reconstructive amendments that were FORCED onto the republic as a condition for reinstatement of the seceded states, i.e. the 13th or 14th, to the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights is solely a restriction on the actions of the FEDERAL government, not the states."

"So clearly any "law" abridging free speech in Virginia is not a law at all, because even if there would be such "law" it is clearly not enacted under authority given to the State of Virginia and is therefore null. So no need to repeal such texts, because they're not laws at all."

So clearly, you might try explaining your objections to the police who arrested, err, detained Raub without due process for 30 days under this state law. ;)