Well, the supreme court has developed certain tests to determine the consitutionality of statutes that potentially violate people's rights. As far as free speech goes, first speech is defined as any action intended to convey a message that is likely to be understood by the audience. That means if I carry a sign with bush's head caricaturized as Hitler, I am clearly comparing him to Hitler and its protected under the first amendment. However, if I ran naked across the capitol steps with a chicken on my head, that's not speech and is not protected.

Next, there are 5 types of speech that are NOT protected, and are therefore "excluded". They are defamation, obscenity, incitement to imminent lawlessness, true threats and fighting words. So, none of these types of speech are protected.

Then there are several levels of tests that determine whether or not the specific law is allowable. Basically, if there is a significant government interest and there is no other way to protect it, the government can legally restrict free speech. That interpretation is left up to the Supreme court, however, so its not the administration you should be worried about...its who they pick as justices.


Personally, I believe in judicial restraint, meaning judges should interpret the laws and constitution as written rather than adjusting it to fit present day standards.


The same kind of situation as above applies to the second amendment, so no, you can't own a nuclear weapon. It is a significant government interest to keep them controlled, and there really is no other way to prevent that than to just not allow people to have them. Not that too many people could afford the multimillions it would take for even a small yield warhead