The first amendment only prohibits the Congress from "censoring" your speech although the Supreme Court has interpreted it as also applying to the Executive and Judicial branches.Even though the first amendent gives you the right to free speech, there are laws which limit how you exercise your right.

He was sentenced to death yesterday and now the decision only awaits approval from the Supreme Court," defense lawyer Qian Lieyang said after the retrial at the Beijing Higher Court on Tuesday.Yang admitted in court in late March during an earlier session of his retrial that some of the money had been used for bribes, but he did not give details, Qian said.The Beijing Morning Post said Yang was the first member of China's securities industry to be sentenced to death for embezzlement.

The wants of the mob are supreme.While in a Republic the actual laws that were voted upon by the people through their representatives are supreme.

Meaning it is subject to interpretation, otherwise there was no need for the supreme court.

I remember my MBA classmates being supremely disappointed that they didn't learn to grow their own business.

A federal judge has ruled it unconstitutional but I'm equally sure that it is going to the supreme court.

While Fox-Jazeera might tell you that that makes him an enemy of the state, a little more research will tell you that the Supreme Court has previously upheld that journalists publishing leaked classified documents have not committed any crime.Commentary I've read says its unclear that there's any basis for prosecuting Assange or wikileaks.

Bottom line is that trust deeds are a security as defined by the Supreme Court (Money is invested in a common enterprise or endeavor, There is an expectation of profits and the profits will be forthcoming from the efforts of the promoter or third party) and means that all securities must be registered unless otherwise exempt.

If something doesn't quite go the way that one of the parties to this transaction expects, this could end up in front of a judge - judges have been know to rule that these "sale and lease back" transactions can be considered to really be something else...http://homeequitytheft-cases-articles.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-jersey-sale-leaseback-of-home-in.htmlhttp://homeequitytheft.blogspot.com/2010/02/nebraska-supreme-court-ruling-reminder.htmlhttp://www.avoidhomeforeclosuretoday.com/seller-lease-backs/https://www.agentxtra.net/extranet/singlesource/content/underwriting/SaleandLeaseback.htmhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/45048765/Brown-v-Grant-Holding-LLC-394-F-Supp-2d-1090-D-Minn-2005http://www.scribd.com/doc/42781539/Foreclosure-Rescue-Scams

I have a feeling The Supreme Court will weigh in on this abortion of a law before long.