Does political speech, which time and again, has been proven to be prone to hyperbole and bombastic declarations, and false political promises verging on bold face lies, be held accountable in a court of law? 

If acts of terrorism in Europe and the US are motivated and based by religion, could that mean that terrorism if a form of religious expression, therefor protected under the law, and any laws that inhibits religious freedom of expression is discriminatory?

Does the president have the constitutional power to declare that security of the borders is more important than the freedom of movement of a demographic with a history of violent terrorism?

With court decisions being swayed by "precedents" that have drifted from the original meaning of the constitution, does this judicial drift raise any concerns?

Has the trend of hyper legalization and judicial interpretations swayed by the psychology of current events improved the quality life in the United States?