Comment: He is incorrect, because yelling FIRE in a theater is not speech

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Schumer "no amendment is absolute" (see in situ)

He is incorrect, because yelling FIRE in a theater is not speech

it is a form of communication that can be used to violate the liberties/rights of others via fear and terror. Speech is the idea of free expression and exchange of ideas, even at the risk of offending others but does not allow for the violation of others liberties, and it is absolute. Yell FIRE at the rifle range or on a CB radio and the difference between speech and communication is clear.

By using this legal jargon he then tries to say that no amendments are absolute under the same pretense, which is also incorrect. This is why the framers decided to state that "Congress shall make no law", because it means just that but the people allow their methodical attempts to slowly erode this right by using tactics such as the theater theory.

You may not infringe on the rights of others under the constitution, while the empty suits and self serving sit on their thrones in Washington nothing has changed, instead of doing the work of the people they concentrate most of their time figuring ways to chip away at every aspect of every right, always looking for ways to exert more power, because they obviously know whats best for us, and we find more and more frequently that many are focused on using force to make us act in a specific way, or in plain language fascism.

I am of the opinion that speech used in Washington today that attacks the constitution should be outlawed, because by continuously working to erode the civil rights of Americans will surely result in the harm of said citizens, in turn violating or at the least risking their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which is the opposite of the oath they took.

In closing I would like to remind Mr. Schumer of one Supreme court excerpt:
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void." Chief Justice Marshall

Sounds like chief justice Marshall knew not only the importance of the constitution, but what the text actually meant. My greatest fear is that this will one day be challenged (Marbury Vs. Madison) and put in the hands of the present supreme court, as I feel many on the bench enjoy their benefits from supporting lobbyists far more than the constitution on the court and the people they are there to represent are left to fend for themselves.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an