Posted on 03/28/2017 10:10:09 PM PDT by DavidThomas
LOS ANGELES, CA — A Pierce College student Tuesday filed suit against the school and the Los Angeles Community College District, alleging policies that restrict student free speech rights to tiny zones are unconstitutional and infringe on First Amendment rights.
Kevin Shaw, 27, contends the Woodland Hills community college violated his civil rights when he was barred from passing out copies of the U.S. Constitution because he wasn't in the free speech zone -- an outdoor area roughly the size of three parking spaces -- and because he hadn't applied in advance to use it.
PS: Pierce College is one of the Los Angeles Community Colleges (a public school).
FYI.
In the absence of any other support, I might agree.
However, the First Amendment refers to "the freedom of speech", which, like the reference to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment, could be read to refer to an existing right.
I don't agree with the Supreme Court's focus on "due process", but I view the "privileges and immunities" of United States citizens to include an immunity from abridgement of the freedom of speech as well as an immunity from infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
Given the various interpretations of the Constitution which we commonly see, we would be living in anarchy if there wasn't a way to "settle" issues with interpretation in a way which prevents civil war every time factions disagree.
For the most part I think our nation has done pretty well despite the limitations of a two hundred year old Constitution. Had Hillary won the election I wouldn't feel nearly as good about it.
You're talking about Incorporation — even if it were true and correct, then applying the First Amendment to the states would change nothing: they don't have congresses. To assert that the fourteenth does cause the first to restrict the States is to admit that incorporation would have to functionally alter the text of the Constitution, but to do that would necessitate a assertion that the fourteenth can/did (and was meant to) alter Article 5 of the Constitution — something that is absurd on its face.
Moreover, to accept this proposition is to set the Supreme Court above the Constitution that established that very court, for it would need to be they that determine what incorporation actually does. — This notion is too absurd to be held as a serious, legitimate legal calculus: a servant is not greater than his master, nor the messenger of more authority than the one commissioning him.
(The irony of the reality of the current legal landscape does not escape me; however, it does not mean that we should accept such a fundamentally flawed argument [much less foundation!].)
Actually it did not establish judicial review -- it said that the court had a duty to recognize/prioritize the Constitution because, should a normal legislative action contrary to the Constitution be held valid then the Constitution would be meaningless, and because of this requiring the court to act as if the contrary law were of equal or higher import would be, well, insane.
And, I would argue that it's every branch of government's job to read, understand, and ensure that the Constitution is being followed (w/i their own legitimate spheres of authority)... but even moreso, it's the Citizens job to read/understand the Constitution.
Ridiculous.
Had it been some anti-Trump or pro-abortion pamphlets, it would have been just fine.
But educating people on the Constitution somehow that’s a problem?
I just propaganda is okay but learning about the birth of America is somehow a problem.
Go back dressed in a burka
I bet nobody bothers him
Gotta stop them Constitution-boys in their tracks, else you’ll get people thinkin’ maybe they have some kind of “rights” or somethin’....might even start thinkin’ they oughta be “free”!!! /s;)
Ironically everyone who takes Literature 101 knows that when critiquing any writing from the past, it must be done within its historical context and meaning. Except for the constitution.
Deconstructionism has now become what was once Literature 101. The aim of Deconstructionism is to demonstrate the arbitrary and hypocritical nature of historical context and meaning.
You probably should get a copy of the Constitution, and read it. It still allows slave labor, it just restricts it. Notice that the sixth word of the 13th Amendment is "EXCEPT".
Stop giving these leftist colleges and universities money.
Oh, I'm already doing that! :D
You’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Have a nice day.
You’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Get a hobby.
Better than sitting around spouting ignorance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.