Well, I think they have.
Duh. The point isn't what Congress has done, the point is what Congress may do. That's what the Constitution is all about. Congress has enacted so-called campaign finance reform, too, that doesn't mean that it legitimately can. Laws restricting the expenditure of funds to promote a political cause infringe the Constitutionally-protected freedom of speech. Now tell me: do laws against libel, laws against slander, laws against inciting to riot also violate this Constitutional guarantee? No!, because "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" isn't quite the ironclad absolute it sounds to the simple-minded.
But what property does any of that stuff damage?
Where does the First Amendment mention property damage?
Whose rights are infringed by those actions?
If the government forbids me from saying to you, "Let's you and me go kill Bob", and criminally prosecutes me for conspiracy for doing so, it has infringed my right to say that. And properly so.
I'm not really sure that those should necessarily be federal crimes.
Don't you understand that it's not about what the law should be but about what it legitimately may be? The Constitution isn't a collection of good ideas, it's a rulebook. Whether you think the federal government should criminalize conspiracy is entirely beside the point. Do you think that federal laws against conspiracy or slander or publication of national secrets violate the First Amendment? If not, why do you make the poor word "shall" work so hard in the Second Amendment and let it take a nap in the First?
From what you've said, you seem to be one of those emotion-driven people I try not to talk to. Later.
I'm not emotion-driven in the slightest, but I do have a sense of humor, so thank you for tickling it by calling me emotion-driven. Sorry to see you leave (run away with your tail between your legs) but if you don't mind, before you go would you mind pointing out one single solitary statement of mine that could be fairly characterized as "emotion-driven"? Thanks.
That statement you made about being for gun control because of your fear of muslims with machine guns seems pretty much emotion-based to me.
(run away with your tail between your legs)
So that is what you call having to drive home, huh? And I don't think I'll reply to you again because I don't see the point talking to people with whom I can't even agree on the definition of "infringe". Besides, I have work to do.
The Constitution is a specific LIMIT ON THE POWER AND AUTHORITY GRANTED TO GOVERNMENT. It spells out what government (mostly but not strictly limited to FedGov) is ALLOWED to do. Then the Tenth Amendment says that if some authority is not specifically granted to FedGov, then that authority is NOT THEIRS TO EXERCISE, period. Simple. Easy to understand. But 90% of the power exercised by FedGov (and the States) is usurped and unconstitutional. And your buddy, Rudy, is just another big government usurper.