of course not! Do you actually think they support the Constitution? We see the second fourth and fifth Amendment violated all the time. Of course these raving left-wingers would violate the first
Not merely "would," but
they're actively trying:
"The amendment, which is favored by Harry Reid and most Senate Democrats, would give Congress unprecedented power to limit debate on public issues in the context of elections."
"Many observers have noted that if the Udall amendment became law, Congress could set ridiculously low contribution and spending levels, so as to virtually guarantee the re-election of incumbents. This is true–campaign finance “reform” has always been largely about incumbent protection. But I think the proposed amendment is even worse than that. Given its appallingly poor draftsmanship, I don’t see any reason why Congress couldn’t permit a high level of spending on behalf of incumbents (or no limit at all), while setting low limits for spending on behalf of challengers, or prohibiting such contributions altogether." -
Source
Not exactly. Remember that the 1st Amendment protects laws from being created to limit speech. But it does not say that everybody must put up with what you say, how you say it, where you say it, or when you say it. So, Bill is exercising his free speech rights, but that doesn't prohibit the insurance company from exercising their rights by denying him as a customer.
Of course not. It's why they're doing it that's so troubling. People do have the right to share their opinion, even publically, just as others have the right to turn the channel. They do not, however, have the right to file one frivolous lawsuit after another at a business like Whittle's simply because they either don't like what he's saying or worse, they're maliciously trying to shut him up. That's the failure in our society, the declining ability or willingness of judges to toss frivolous lawsuits. They're letting more and more of these injurious violations against our system of justice make it into the courts, where they rob honest, law-abiding victims of serious portions of their equity for legal fees.
This debacle reminds of the reason behind Heinlein's future history element where society solved most of their problems by getting rid of the lawyers. Permanently.
Here's a good article on Cracked. It's a bit on the adult side (with reference to language), but well researched and spot-on as far as I can tell.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-everyone-gets-wrong-about-free-speech/
I enjoyed the article, and agreed with all of its points. The problem is, none are applicable to what's going on behind the scenes, as I described above. It's a a gift, an artificially created, parasitic con scheme whereby lawyers and judges lacking appropriate levels of integrity allow things into court which never should have been given access to our system of justice in the first place. Their marks include you, I, and anyone else who gets caught in the crossfire of political correctness.
How do you feel about being taken for a ride, jackrockbic?
I may not like walking through a park while hearing two or three people standing on a soapbox and orating their view of the world, but it's eminently preferable to a world where people face the choice of either paying "insurance" (also part of the scam) or risking massively expensive yet frivolous lawsuits being illegitimately allowed into the courts by thieving lawyers and judges who care more about perpetuating their "profession" than they do about protecting our system of justice.
