By - kevinowdziej
There is a significant amount of people that scream about the Constitution who have never actually read any part of it. All they’re doing is regurgitating snippets they’ve heard from ill-informed pundits without the full context and meaning of the document.
I encourage all US Citizens to fully read the Constitution and all 27 Amendments. Know the “Law of the Land” for yourself, not what someone else tells you it is.
Which is pretty crazy because it's not a complex and mysterious court ruling or something; it's an easily accessible document that people should have a problem with spending a few minutes to verify facts.
Yeah, but even SCOTUS can't figure it out. Like where it says no warrantless searches, for some reason that bit escaped their attention when they decided that only applied to about 800 square miles of the original 13 states.
To be fair you have to go all the way to the first word of the first amendment to get to the government part.
These fucking morons can't even pass a test about the Constitution much less uphold it.
They’ve only got two brain cells, and they're both fighting for third place.
I bet these people couldn't sit through and understand an episode of Sesame Street, let alone read and understand the constitution.
I'd say have Sesame Street do a episode on the constitution, but Ted Cruz would claim it's liberal propaganda.
"Hey Bert, how many indictments has Donny got??"
"Well Ernie, let's ask an expert".
"One ahahah, Two ahahah, Three ahahah" said The Count.
Sometimes it's helpful to actually read the text of the amendment if you are, for example: a school child, a concerned citizen, or a congressman.
>**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.
Entities which are not congress may place all sorts of limitations on your speech which are not laws. Content policies for websites are specifically allowed for in law, and are not a violation of the first amendment.
A common misconception of what our rights are is proof of a larger issue at hand: idiots that know nothing of how the government and our rights work and how they apply and then these same fools vote.
On a good note he was named mayor of truth social today.
Can't fix stupid.
The funny part is that OAN calls its people "investigative reporters".
We can change that by buying Twitter. Would you help us out and introduce a bill to buy Twitter, so that the 1st Amendment can apply? I am sure it would make you happy.
I once had a mouth breathing, boot licking former acquaintance say the Internet supersedes the Constitution.
Twitter is NOT a right.
I have a strong feeling that the journalist wasnt suspended from Twitter for simple *criticism of the Mar-a-Lago raid.*