Final point, my misgiving with using the Samuel Chase impeachment trial is that in my view (without studying it much) it wasn't a first amendment case or even a case on free speech. It was a prosecution of a judge not under a law that abridged free speech or an arbitrary action to stifle free speech (it was an arbitrary action against Chase himself), but an interpretation of the "good behavior" clause. A Supreme Court Justice can serve for life or in good behavior, no one had interpreted what good behavior meant, and for all anyone knew it meant talking smack about the current administration. Jefferson was trying to use Chases speech as evidence of bad behavior. In his reasoning, Chase could say anything he wanted, but not as a Supreme court Justice. The First Amendment did not extend to federal offices. The trial, then stacked with republicans, agreed with you however, that issues of free speech extended to the office of the supreme court. Hope that makes sense.

In the end though Jeffersons move against Chase was a Machiavellian power play, that according to some scholars, worked like a charm.

Georgia and Pennsylvania removed popular selection of electors and gave the power to the legislatures, and that benefited the Republicans. Virginia moved from a district-based system to a nation-wide "popular" election, and this led to all of Virginia's huge EV total going to Jefferson. If the district system had prevailed, it's likely the Federalists would have received a substantial chunk of Virginia's EVs. A similar thing happened in Mass. to the federalists' benefit, but MA had 5 less EVs than Virginia. Had a district system prevailed in NY as well, the election outcome would have been different. Burr got his NYC buddies to carry NY for Jefferson and get all of those EVs.

That, again, shows the pres. election is messy, there is no way we can project what could of or should have happened, thats what doctoral dissertations are for, the better barometer are the House of Rep elections, but you have already said this doesnt mean much to your argument

Yeah I'm just trying to say that the elector vote selection mechanism didn't unduly benefit the Federalists. I agree with you on your overall point that it's hard to tell much from the outcome.

Looks like a town in Mississippi did NKU one or several better

http://www.retirelikeme.com/2011/04/21/mississippi-town-destroys-westboro-baptist-plans/

The Westboro Baptist Church once again makes the headlines. This time however, the good news is that they were foiled in their attempts to disrupt another serviceman’s funeral. Mississippi gives the Westboro the kind of welcome that we would all like to give.

Since we have reported on the Westboro Baptist Church a few times here, it is fitting that we update you on the latest.

Last Saturday, USMC Staff Sgt. Jason Rogers was laid to rest in Brandon, Mississippi. He was killed in action in Afghanistan on April 7th. Many of the town’s residents paid homage along the route of the fallen hero as his body was transported home.

Most notably absent were the Westboro protestors who planned a large demonstration at Sgt. Rogers’ funeral. According to an Ole Miss message board, a tidbit of info………..

“A couple of days before, one of them (Westboro protestors) ran his mouth at a Brandon gas station and got his arse waxed. Police were called and the beaten man could not give much of a description of who beat him. When they canvassed the station and spoke to the large crowd that had gathered around, no one seemed to remember anything about what had happened.

Rankin County handled this thing perfectly. There were many things that were put into place that most will never know about and at great expense to the county.

Most of the morons never made it out of their hotel parking lot. It seems that certain Rankin county pickup trucks were parked directly behind any car that had Kansas plates in the hotel parking lot and the drivers mysteriously disappeared until after the funeral was over. Police were called but their wrecker service was running behind and it was going to be a few hours before they could tow the trucks so the Kansas plated cars could get out.

A few made it to the funeral but were ushered away to be questioned about a crime they might have possibly been involved in. Turns out, after a few hours of questioning, that they were not involved and they were allowed to go on about their business.”

Can always count on Mississippi for violently attacking someone.

"On the repression of anti-war speech:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0116-09.htm - on the infiltration of peace groups like the Quakers due to "suspicious activities"
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/10/05/fbi-raids-protest/?refid=0
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/04/09/rnc8_terrorism_charges_dropped/ - these two is on efforts to charge anti-war demonstrators with bogus "terrorism" charges and to silence groups through secretive unending grand jury witchhunts
http://www.aclu.org/ohio-residents-take-action-stop-ohio-patriot-act

http://www.fepproject.org/commentaries/ohiooath.html

http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2006/ND/NB/OHApp.htm
This last one is on a law passed in Ohio which prohibits making speech remotely supportive of groups on the so-called state dept terrorist group list. [Meaning if you even suggest the IRA, for example, might have a legitimate grievance, you can be fired or not hired]"

So, uh. Let's review the link-list here.

The first one is about some Quakers who got investigated by the FBI. Ooh, scary. The FBI may or may not have been within their rights, but I really don't see any suppression there.

The next two are about people who are asked to testify to a Grand Jury. They plead the Fifth. In short, they are exercising their rights under the law. I fail to see the problem here.

The remaining three appear to be about an Ohio law that requires you to disavow terrorist ties. Now if you have some problem with this, then I can understand why the Federal government has a problem with YOU. Refusing to disavow such ties is understandably suspicious. They're passing a law that requires you to do something I'm pretty sure incoming citizens have to do anyway - assure the government verbally that they're not going to commit treason.

The last one is shakier ground, but that doesn't really infringe on your right to say "Whoops, war's bad." Nobody's stopping them from doing that. So, uh. Where's the free speech suppression?

So apparently charging anti-war protesters with bogus terrorism charges, only to drop them later because they know they're bogus, is not problematic to you. Great, how about we round up all the tea party thugs and charge them with terrorism so they can't protest anymore. They won't be intimidated, right? No problem. Let's do it.

You're not impressed with the fact that not only the FBI by the US army infiltrates peace groups for so-called "suspicious activity", that suspicious activity being pacifists. Again, great, let's have the FBI infiltrate and keep dossiers on your rightwing friends for doing little more than expressing their supposedly constitutionally protected rights.

You're not impressed with the fact than anti-war group had their belongings seized at dawn and were hauled before a secretive grand jury in which they weren't even told of the charges, and then told they were being investigated for "ties to terrorism". Why? Because they're fucking anti-war protesters. Nothing more. Again, apparently using the specter of "ties to terrorism" to intimidate people into silence is not suppression of free speech. Good to know. I'll expect no whining if that shit ever happens to you.

Apparently the only thing that qualifies as free speech suppression is if people are prohibited from saying "war is bad", but prohibiting even saying that groups that militarists are fighting abroad have a legitimate grievance is not speech suppression.

Yeah, sure. With all the fucking drama you rightwing drama queens are making about Obama and his supposed threat to your "liberties", a word you say a lot but don't really mean, and the government coming around investigating pacifists, hauling them before secretive grand juries, seizing their belongings, charging them with bogus terrorism charges, firing people for even suggesting that people who rebel against tyrannical governments aren't evil isn't a concern to you hypocritical free speech absolutists.

The 1st amendment is a joke, your commitment to liberal democracy is a joke, and your supposed opposition to authoritarian government is a joke. At least have the decency to say that you only believe in speech for your own side. Because that's exactly what you believe. You chide me for being honest about it. But your comments here solidify my belief that unless reactionaries are allowed unrestricted political freedom, they'll put us in jail and/or murder us in a blink of an eye. Your hero Glenn Beck openly said all communists should be shot in the head. And he thinks everyone left of Mussolini is a communist so that's a lot of people.

I predict you'll continue to congratulate yourself for your supposed commitment to "liberty" and "freedom" and whatever other buzzwords you like to use. But it's pretty clear you're full of shit.

"And he thinks everyone left of Mussolini is a communist so that's a lot of people. "

To be fair now, he thinks that Mussolini was a communist