Sun,
The Declaration has no more legal weight than Thomas Paine's pamphlets, Thomas Jefferson's diaries, etc. when interpreting the Constitution. The Constitution is a superseding contract, in legal terms, it is the sum and total of everything we need to look at. Besides, look how much of the Declaration was ignored in the period of, say, 1787 to 1861. No lawyer would agree with your statement about the Declaration.
As I noted, the Constitution only provides protection for certain kinds of speech, other kinds (take commercial speech)is NOT protected by the Constitution. Yes, certain kinds of non-verbal speech should be protected, provided it is within the bounds of what either the founders or REASONABLE interpreters of the Constitution determine to be "free speech."
If a woman should be permitted to "speak" by taking her clothes off, should she be limited to doing it in Harry's Silver Dollar Club; shouldn't she be able to do in on March 15 at the corner of Broadway and 42nd Street? Should we allow the guy next to her to masturbate, provided he doesn't soil anyone? Only if he was born without a lower jaw? What kind of circus show do you think the founding fathers and later stewards of the Republic were really looking out for?
The point again, is we self-govern here.
Time for tennis.
Kb |
