Skip to main content
6 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 18, 2019 at 21:37 comment added A.fm. To be clear, only a select few individual rights are contained in the Constitution; it largely concerns itself with dividing and limiting the government’s power. Individual rights begin appearing front and center with the First Amendment. M
Nov 18, 2019 at 17:15 comment added Mark Amery That's why I specified that we should consider a hypothetical law that purports to protect rights that are already unambiguously established as protected by the Bill of Rights via existing rulings. I don't see what's "wrong" or "unreasonable" about that hypothetical; it seems to me like it's perfectly possible for such a law to be created.
Nov 18, 2019 at 16:51 comment added user6726 The problem is that your stipulation is not reasonable. We can only understand what things flow from the 1st Amendment by reading SCOTUS rulings. Law is an interconnected system: the initial supposition is wrong.
Nov 18, 2019 at 16:39 comment added Mark Amery (I felt like I did everything I could to be clear about this; I devoted most of my second paragraph just to stressing that point!)
Nov 18, 2019 at 16:37 comment added Mark Amery This seems like it answers a different question to the one I asked. I can easily believe there is an imperfect overlap between the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment and by the recent bill in Ohio, but that's incidental to what I'm asking. I'm trying to figure out whether, in the case of a law that actually only protects rights already guaranteed by the Constitution, the law has any effect (e.g. on the available remedies for violations of those rights). The only point here that addresses that question is the hypothetical scenario about the First Amendment being repealed or amended.
Nov 18, 2019 at 16:24 history answered user6726 CC BY-SA 4.0