[jeffersondem]

“The first amendment has no effect on CA, unless there's some magical textual transformation, because it quite specifically, explicitly applies to congress an entity that the State of California does not possess.”

If you believe that the 14th amendment was legitimately adopted, and that the federal courts have interpreted it (the 14th) accurately, then what you are saying is not the current “law.”

Federal courts have ruled that states can not deny to any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws”. Thus, not only can Congress not infringe on the 1st amendment, state government can't either.

[Edward.Fish]

“The first amendment has no effect on CA, unless there's some magical textual transformation, because it quite specifically, explicitly applies to congress an entity that the State of California does not possess.”
If you believe that the 14th amendment was legitimately adopted, and that the federal courts have interpreted it (the 14th) accurately, then what you are saying is not the current “law.”
Federal courts have ruled that states can not deny to any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws”. Thus, not only can Congress not infringe on the 1st amendment, state government can't either.

Federal courts are full of shit — and this is a perfect example: the protection that the first amendment affords is exactly the limitation of the Congress. Period.
To say [oh, sorry, interpret] otherwise is to give the ability of amending the Constitution to the Judiciary, something which is simply not allowed.

What is being said there, by implication (and appeal to authority), is that the Judiciary is superior to the Constitution.