The Constitution is controlling over all other laws, and the First Amendment specifically says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Any such attempts will quickly go to court, and even conservative judges have tended to be very protective of the First Amendment.

seem to be unknown or misunderstood almost everywhere.

with Voting Rights?

I am not optimistic.

but Shelby County v. Holder had nothing to do with the First Amendment. The issue in Holder was whether Congress' decision to reauthorize a particular section of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, thus violating the Tenth Amendment and Article IV.

It's essentially a "strongly held religious beliefs" law like Pence passed in Indiana on steroids, but, at the Federal level.

They're ready to pass it as soon as the next Congress convenes next year.

Yes, I agree it's unconstitutional... But, who determines that? The SCOTUS, which, by the time a challenge makes it's way through the courts will be under right wing control, also. So, it'll be found fine-and-dandy by a 5 to 4 vote. Just like the old days.

So, there you go... A law "scuttling the First Amendment."

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/09/donald-trump-pledges-sign-anti-lgbtq-first-amendment-defense-act/

After all, didn't they say that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals? Even the otherwise loathsome "Fat Tony" Scalia was almost a First Amendment absolutist. http://abovethelaw.com/2016/11/justice-scalia-originalism-free-speech-and-the-first-amendment/

Unless... But, now "smooth transition" is the phrase of the day among the Democrats.

One Party Nation. (With a severe fascist twist.)

Oh, lookie there it is, the FADA in the docket all ready for it's rubber stamp of passing.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2802

upholding that statute as written; it's got enough constitutional holes in it to drive a Caterpillar 797 mining truck through. For starters, the only religious or moral beliefs it protects are those relating to objections to same-sex marriage. It could easily be shot down by any first-year law student who barely squeaked through Con Law with a C, on the ground that it discriminates against people who hold other religious beliefs by failing to protect those beliefs. This proposed legislation is obviously just a sop to the fundies. Legislatures, including (or even especially) Congress, often try to pass laws they know won't withstand constitutional scrutiny as a means of sucking up to certain constituents (and donors). I'm pretty convinced that this is one such bill.

That's going to change.

but the 4th Amendment didn't do too much to help us against the Patriot Act. I know how the law works, but I'm not sure the Republicans do or care.

at least to my way of thinking, have already established a precedent for further abridgment of both Freedom of Speech and of the Press.
YMMV.

The whole idea comes from the long-established principle that the First Amendment allows for certain time, place and manner restrictions. Regulations creating these restrictions are considered constitutional as long as (1) the regulation serves an important governmental interest; (2) the government interest served by the regulation is unrelated to the suppression of a particular message; (3) the regulation is narrowly tailored to serve the government's interest; and (4) the regulation leaves open ample alternative means for communicating messages. (Ward v. Rock Against Racism) Other federal cases have held that restricting people to free speech zones can't be based on the content of their message.

Most of the "free speech zone" litigation arose during the Bush administration and it remains controversial. No doubt litigation will continue.

They will just open the press to libel laws like Trump said and more importantly when the head office of the news corps gives word to lay off Trump or lose your 6 fighters re paycheck, they will gladly fall in line.

The Supreme Court is not about to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan.

First they have to eliminate the filibuster.
This shit just takes a little time

The Supreme Court decides whether a law is constitutional. Not Congress. Whatever Congress does is subject to scrutiny by the Supreme Court, and even very conservative justices like Rehnquist and Scalia have struck down acts of Congress that violate the First Amendment. If Citizens United and McCutcheon v. FEC don't make that clear, I don't know what will.

The Supreme Court has continued to uphold Roe v. Wade. Their most recent decision was Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt which was issued this June. There the court held that the state of Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create an undue burden for women seeking an abortion. They also refused to hear challenges from Wisconsin and Mississippi where federal appeals courts had struck down similar laws. If another conservative justice is appointed that could change things, but the Supreme Court is very reluctant to overturn its own decisions.

You know the law

DU would be filled to the rafters with people posting actual facts about how nearly impossible that is.

Since a DUer said he wants to do it, it is suddenly well within his power.

being "a nation of laws".
This entire concept is being shredded more and more, day after day.
We are now a nation of simple partisan politics

However, I'm shipping off every cent I can spare to the ACLU, SPLC, Planned Parenthood, and any other legitimate civil rights protecting groups I can come up with... Just in case.

I owe it to future generations of Americans... Oh, Hell. Future generations of Human Beings.

why not educate yourself on how the Constitution is amended?

Might help you.

They would need an amendment.

In actuality they don't plan to follow it. They will just appoint judges, assemble police forces that will ignore it.

Can someone send the GOP some copies of the Constitution because they need to get a clue.

...isn't it bad enough without the hyperbole? That would take a constitutional amendment or at least an extream reinterpretation of existing precedence. Half our SCOTUS is currently right wing, but they're mostly originalists, even without Scalia. For once, that's actually working in our favor.

I would hope you are right.

...the Constitution is rendered null and void and the Republic has fallen. One hint of that and I'm outta here. But I seriously doubt that's the case, even with orange grifter in the white house.

is its strong Constitution and the separation of powers. I predict that before things break down completely, some of the more moderate Republicans in Congress will defect.

....Scarlett (aka Lindsey Graham), Rand Paul and even Cruz unbelievably have nixed Guiliani and Bolton for Sec. State. Of course, is that any worse than Haley for UN Ambassador? That's like the Beverly Hillbillies invade Manhattan.

Apart from a few on the lunatic fringe most judges take their work very seriously. Even Scalia, awful as he was, was trying to apply the Constitution, although his extreme originalism was kind of crazy. Appellate judges tend to believe the courts are the only bulwark against the mindless passions of the masses and will dig their heels in when they believe their role as not only as an equal branch of government but as the sole defender of the Constitution is being challenged. Sometimes they go off the rails (Bush v. Gore in particular comes to mind) but most of the time they don't. One may disagree with the interpretation or analysis but appellate courts are almost never radical, and they take stare decisis very seriously. I worked for an appellate court once, years ago, and they were very serious people who knew they shouldn't fuck around with the law.

I didn't know that, but it makes sense. And it's reassuring.

gun owner ship. Remember when that happened? Neither do I. I do remember when the conservatives said he was going to do it though, and I remember how we ridiculed them for lacking a basic understanding of how the constitution works.

However, a Repub in my home state has already tried to introduce legislation for making some kinds of protests "illegal."

http://www.kiro7.com/news/local/washington-state-senator-seeks-to-criminalize-illegal-protests/467962158

Probably won't go anywhere, but the impetus is there. It always starts small. Of course, most of what this bill addresses is already illegal, as in destroying property and disrupting business activity. But, notice the use of the term "economic terrorism." They are seeding the ground for tightening up permitting processes for organized events.

Sure, we still have constitutional protections, but they're working on it.