Supreme Court gets the Constitution right, for once

Actually, they did NOT get it right. The Supreme Court nor the Federal government has any jurisdiction over a States right to limit speech. The Bill of Rights is a document limiting the powers of the Federal Government only.

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.

Remember, the thirteen Colonies/States had their own Constitutions protecting such things as Freedom of Speech, religion and the Right to keep and bear arms. We cannot allow ourselves to misinformed on the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

In Barron V. Baltimore 32 U.S. 243 (1833), Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion stated:

Had the people of the several States, or any of them, required changes in their Constitutions, had they required additional safeguards to liberty from the apprehended encroachments of their particular governments, the remedy was in their own hands, and could have been applied by themselves...
But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.

If a State wants to have an Established Religion (Many did for years after the ratification), if they want to limit speech or Freedom of the Press, it is their prerogative to do so with the consent of their people. If the State of Kansas wants to limit the speech of protesters at Funerals it has every right, as a Sovereign entity, to do so.

As Tenthers we must understand the true meaning of the Constitution and its glorious protection of States Rights if we are to win the battle to restore our Republic to its Constitutional foundation.

In Liberty,

Rick Montes

State constitutions usually have their own protections in them and sometimes even better depending on the specific constitutions.