CSGV: Practicing Constitutional Law without a Brain.

This one came out yesterday:

CSGV constitutional ooops

And it is true. Dennis v. United States was a case where leaders of the Communist Party of the USA were tried and convicted for  advocating the violent overthrow of the US government and for the violation of several points of the Smith Act. They appealed and the case went all the way to SCOTUS who approved.

But, now we fast forward to 1957 with Yates v. United States which the Supreme Court hobbled Dennis v. United Sates  by deciding that the First Amendment protected radical and reactionary speech, unless it posed a “clear and present danger.” The final nail in that particular insurrectionist coffin came with Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) in which SCOTUS re-affirmed Yates and went on some more by stating that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.

I am guessing that somebody in CSGV went to class with that inspired Constitutional Professor at 1600 Pennsylvania Av.?

3 Replies to “CSGV: Practicing Constitutional Law without a Brain.”

  1. Sounds like this came about by finding the first item some search engine threw up, as opposed to being the end product of even basic legal research. But then, who ever expects CSGV to conduct due diligence before inserting their foot in their collective mouth?




    0



    0
  2. I’ll go with the Declaration of Independence and when, and if, it is ever obvious that our government has become despotic, then it is game on for the replacement of such a government, by force, if necessary.

    A ruling or law of an unjust government so it can prevent its removal has no weight or legal binding just like telling the Jews that they must go into the showers for the good of the German nation has no validity.

    To put it more bluntly to the fools at CSGV…if the government banned all firearms tomorrow, such a decree would be null and void since it is an assault on the Constitution (i.e. Second Amendment). Such an act would be sufficient grounds for the removal by force of the statists who drafted such legislation (or who issued such an Executive Order).

    Progressives need to learn to not play with fire or they will get burned.




    0



    0

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .