If that were true, the court wouldn’t be limiting censorship on the wealthy and then turning around and imposing censorship on protestors and those of normal means.
“Corporations are people.”
If that were true, Corporations could vote in elections and would be held criminally liable for breaking laws.
As for the third one, please point to the section of the Constitution that grants the government power to dictate that citizens must purchase anything.
Thanks in advance.
Just saying it is a constitutional consideration does not make it so. All three of those rulings had very little to do with the Constitution at all.
The fact is, Ohio has its own State Constitution and bill of rights. And the case should never have found its way into the United States Supreme Court.
Under Ohio’s Bill of Rights, we find:
I.11 Freedom of speech; of the press; of libels (1851)
Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of the right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech, or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury, and if it shall appear to the jury, that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives, and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted.
Additionally, the first ten amendment to our federal Constitution, which includes freedom of speech, were directed at the federal government and did not grant any authority to allow the federal government to enter the states and make them enforceable upon the various state governments.
Well Allan? Are you unwilling or too proud to admit you are wrong?
JWK
The primary function of a Supreme Court Justice is to be obedient to the text of our Constitution, and give effect to its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.
I suggest you actually read the 7th Amendment which also requires Supreme Court Justices to follow “the rules of the common law”.
Do you know one of the most fundamental rules of the common law? It requires an adherence to legislative intent.
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.