“The courts have never, ever understood the First Amendment to be absolute and unrestricted. “
So you believe in a “living constitution”, one that means whatever a particular court decides.
“fifth and fourteenth amendment’s statement that nobody can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
Those prohibitions apply to the state not private citizens or entities. Criminal laws are the jurisdiction of the states and federal government, and any of them are fine as long as they don’t go against some explicit” right” in the constitution, such as the right to exercise your religion.
I think you're the only person I've ever met who thought that the guarantee of free speech in the First Amendment was absolute and unrestricted. I take it you think that laws against child pornography are unconstitutional?
Those prohibitions apply to the state not private citizens or entities.
A government which routinely allows private citizens to murder other private citizens is obviously not preventing those murder victims from being deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law. That language is not just a negative prohibition but also imposes a positive obligation on government. That's what federal civil rights laws are all about.
any of them are fine as long as they don’t go against some explicit” right” in the constitution, such as the right to exercise your religion.
So you're seriously proposing that someone can shoot up a school and kill a bunch of kids, and expect to be let off on constitutional grounds by claiming that shooting innocent kids is part of his religion?
Yeah, right. Thanks for playing.