Honk Honk

>the bill of rights is unconstitutionnal
>The first amendment is unconstitutionnal

I'm speechless.

>latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-chemerinsky-gillman-trump-free-speech-college-201903222-story.html

Attached: 3a0.jpg (710x532, 140K)

At this point, nothing really surprises me. It's only natural that if they go after the 2nd Amendment, the 4th Amendment, and the 5th Amendment, they'd go after the 1st as well. These are the same people who've said they want to abolish the Supreme Court, the Senate, the Executive, and the electoral college. So basically they want to abolish the USA entirely.

Just embrace it, it's a clown world afterall

Attached: 1554316683575.gif (836x796, 109K)

God speed...
Accelerate this trash heap into the fire.
I unironically have no issue with this

Attached: fire_rises.png (275x251, 135K)

Props to the founding fathers, they knew that 1st amendment cannot exist without the second.

>I'm speechless
That's unconstitutional too

Props to the french republic for the ideas

The founding fathers are rolling in their graves

>A California Lawyer

And I stopped caring there, those fags make up shit.

Checked and honkpilled

These are the people that can't figure out who "the right of the people to X" applies to.

Good point. Once seen, it's impossible to unsee

I thoughts exactly

What's even worse is that Chemerinsky is the author of a book called "Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies." That book is the basis for a lot of constitutional education in American law schools. It is THE single most popular reference and review textbook for "conlaw" students.

Attached: s-l1600[1].jpg (1200x1600, 243K)

so pretty much they want a tyrannical dictator to rule over them

Did we flood Berkeley with Crack like the old days?

Attached: Crackheads.jpg (225x225, 6K)

Yep. Libshits want a communist dictatorship, and the Jews controlling the libshits want permanent Jewish control. That means everything whitey built on this strip of land has to go. That's why they want you childless, gunless, jobless, and impotent.

I actually read the article. After some weak points, he reached for his real arguments:
> At what point does speech that attacks people on the basis of race, nationality, sex, religion and other legally-protected categories become sufficiently “severe or pervasive” to create a discriminatory learning environment under federal law? When does speech over social media constitute harassment that can be the basis for discipline? How much do campuses need to spend to ensure safety when there are controversial speakers?

Same old argument. They want to be the judge of what is allowed speech. They want to allow terrorism against different opinions. All the while receiving Federal funding.

Digits

(Checkem)
>Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies.
I just downloaded this thing. It's a couple thousand pages on case law that subverts or contraverts the spirit of our republic. ConLaw is usually where the smart commies do spooky rituals to gain power to argue with the founding fathers. Check very ConLaw student for communist affiliation, high correlation.

Attached: Checkm.jpg (515x350, 49K)

>free speech is unconstitutional
QUAAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!
w-w-w-what????????
What an everloven timeline this is.

shit, i rescind all checks, disregard.

which is interesting, if laws cannot be understood by common man, but must be handled by professionals trained in private institutions free from public approval, are there really any legitimacy of rule-of-law? We are just ruled by a bunch of unelected groupies.

Good thing the UC Berkeley Law School Dean isn't in charge of Jack shit.