Quote Originally Posted by Soulforged
No. All text vary in their meaning when the context changes. Beyond that the text is constructed from the natural language (i.e. english, spanish, etc.) and this language is always at least potencially vague, so as a deduction all texts are vague, even more legal texts.
The text of the constitution is clear, your response here is one of interpation by those who only use pieces and parts.

So says Redleg.
Tsk Tsk - again your arguement is inconsistent. Your interpation of the constitution is incorrect.

That version of history is based upon the same line of thought that you advocate. Even if you're right, violence in words is not enough to justify it's ban.
So you believe in a revised version of history? Interesting..

My example above should demonstrate you that that's not correct. If words by themselves had power, the necessary power to be a cause, then you and other americans should be in sedition right now. That's what I meant.
You believe we should be in sedition - however that is not the case. We have protests against the government concerning thier actions - all which is allowed under the 1st Ammendment.

What are you talking about Red?
Your statement was inconsistent with your previous arguement.

Did you lost track of the discussion or something. If I want to discuss the 1st Amendment I want to discuss the 1st Amendement. Is there a problem with your logic?
Not at all - however are you have a problem with yours?

That's correct. And since I've said already that by itself the 1st Amendment says nothing of that kind, then go forward and present me another text, in the Constitution, that fobids the advocation of sedition. I've been reading it, so I'm pretty sure there isn't any, but let's try it.
Try reading an earlier post - you will find this quote

Quote Originally Posted by Consitution Article 1, Section 8 Clause 15
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Try reading up on the Wiskey Rebellion also.

I was trying to point another thing. The point is that is only to assure it's sovereingty over it's territory.
That is what all nations do. Never stated otherwise.

That's right. I'm only making questions and trying to guess what it means. As I said in the start, I heard this interpretation from some guy....that's it, and I'm talking about guy informed on the content of the american Constitution.
However your seemly stuck on the same incorrect interpretation as before.