Ahhh I guarantee you I've read more history last year then most people have in a lifetime.
I read on average 4 books a week most of them history. You cite cases as proof that the Bill of rights can be invalidated by local authority. When in fact the supreme court has ruled exactly opposite. In 1989 Texas vs. Johnson the court stated "again" that physical actions such as flag burning are considered an act of Free Speech and thus protected by the First Amendment and such laws stating otherwise are invalid.
Yet amazingly you forgot to cite this case. Is it because you were ignorant of it or because it blows a hole in your entire argument?
No matter how you try and wiggle around with your verbal acrobatics the bottom line is State Law nor Town Ordinances can over ride the Bill of Rights.
Its the law of the land.
can =can’t
Now we're getting somewhere. Notice the date: 1989. That was after the postwar Supreme Court power-grab I mentioned (Everson, 1947). Everson was the first time the USSC arrogated to itself the right to overrule had always been considered state matters by claiming that the First Amendment gave them that right. It was a brand-new maneuver for the USSC. Nothing in the Constitution gives them the right to make new state law. Not surprisingly, they'd ruled that they didn't have that right in 1905, in Lochner.
Now, you or I might agree with this or that decision the Court made after that on a Free Speech issue, but it was a violation of states' rights, and because of that, a lot of evil followed. The US Constitution is an agreement among the States, which is why each state has its own state constitution, complete with a First Amendment. After 1947 came a whole host of decisions many conservatives consider wrongly decided and none of the Court's business: the obscenity cases of the 1960s, Miranda, Roe vs Wade, countless decisions creating "special" groups' rights to other people's stuff, Lawrence vs. Texas, which declared invalid a Texas law against sodomy, ObamaCare, and lots more to come, possibly including homosexual marriage, and all unconstitutional.
You're attached to the idea of the USC granting First Amendment rights out in the sticks. I don't like local busybodies either. The only thing worse is . . . Federal busybodies, who don't have to worry about me voting against them or keying their cars. How do we like the Federalization of absolutely everythingwhat gas you can put in your car, what light-bulbs you can buy, what gun you can own, what shed you can build near your stream, and what toilet you can flush? How's that working out for you? The only way I can move away from it is to leave the country. The Founders never designed it this way, because they knew that subsidiarityhandling things at the lowest level possiblewould yield imperfect results, but better results than the rule of minutia from above which is tyranny. We can thank Wilson and Roosevelt for Michelle Obama's fat-butt lectures on what your kids should eat for lunch.
The First Amendment is the law of the land because it's in the US Constitution. Not because the Supreme Court says so. Their job is to apply, not invent. Nowhere in the USC does it say the USSC is the final arbiter of what's Constitutional. Marshall claimed that right, but he had a dog in that fight. The branches are co-equal, and they jostle each other all the time. Obama is trying to take power from both Congress and the Court. The Founders wrote the USC in plain English for a reason: It's up to us, by design, to smack our government in linelocal, state, or Federal.