constitutionally

How politically things are likely to work is a different question from what is Constitutionally required.

So here's the test: do you think that states can Constitutionally ban interracial marriage?

If it's corruption, its Constitutionally protected, in the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law [respecting/or abridging] the right of the people...

I think they are not, even though the right to not be Catholic is constitutionally protected.

An action by a federal agency can be constitutionally challenged as being outside of the scope or powers granted to that agency by congress.

If they want to ensure it's behavior and not ideas they should get a judge to rule on whether the expression would be constitutionally protected.

That said, I can see legal efforts to abolish the constitutionally-established limited term of copyright.

It sounds like you're being dismissive, like you're saying discrimination is only discrimination if someone is suffering bodily harm or being deprived of their constitutionally-granted rights.

This is also a constitutionally protected right, but in many states laws have been passed to make it ever harder for women to exercise those rights.

Still waiting for a state's voters to pass a ballot measure that constitutionally prohibits the state or any municipality within it from establishing preferential/discriminatory tax regimes.

The states generally can't impose such limits on immigrants because regulating immigration is Constitutionally a reserved federal power, so it would be a Supremacy Clause issue.

There is no right to not be offended, and I think that fact is a core part of freedom of speech, both Constitutionally and socially.

I haven't seen a court case against any individual or business over "use tax", but I'm skeptical that rebranding an inter-state sales tax as a use tax suddenly makes it Constitutionally acceptable, given that it taxes the same thing.

United States[1] "Held: When challenging the legality of a §853(e)(1) pre-trial asset seizure, a criminal defendant who has been indicted is not constitutionally entitled to contest a grand jury’s determination of probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crimes charged." Kind of a weird 6-3 coalition too.

PS: The inner pessimist just perked up to ask what the hell I'm blathering about "speech" this and "speech" that, since we suspended due process entirely when we chose to empower highwaymen with civil asset forfeiture, and what's the point of debating more nuanced problems when that's standing law, when the people in charge think that's Constitutionally valid?

People who value their freedom have to fight a (so far, winning) battle to maintain their Constitutionally-protected rights.

Regardless of how you feel about firearms, it's still a Constitutionally-protected right.

Constitutionally, the president doesn't control a state religion, abortion, marriage, etc.