The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
A lot of people have issued opinions on what the above paragraph actually means. The majority of the opinions, including those psychotic ramblings from the Warren court, have been agenda driven. So, let’s take a look at the words from outside the box. The English language, especially during the late 1700’s was direct and to the point. If you approach a statement written by a personality such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison or John Adams with the assumption that these men were not writing in code, but wishing to make their intention as clear as possible, you are most likely going to wind up exactly where they were.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,”
During the time of the American Revolution, England had a state religion, the Church of England, established by King Henry the 8th for the sole purpose of allowing the King to divorce and remarry. The writers of our constitution wanted to ensure that Congress could not do what Henry did. They understood that a theocracy and freedom were incompatible concepts.
“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
They also understood that in order to be truly free, the citizens of this new nation had to be allowed to worship as they saw fit. The Puritans and the Quakers of Pennsylvania were the last to sign off on this concept. They saw groups such as the Anabaptists and the Catholics as heretics and wanted nothing more than to tell them how to pray properly. We have much the same attitude going on today, but it is groups such as People for the American Way, the ACLU, NOW, and other atheistic organizations clamoring to remove that right. To them, all they see is the first half of the sentence. Whether they choose to agree or not, this statement is utterly true, it is not the American way to live without faith. The freedom to worship, or to not worship, as one sees fit, is one of the chief stones in the bedrock of our country’s foundation.
“or abridging the freedom of speech”
This is the big one that every armchair lawyer and their cousin quote, as if it is the only sentence within the amendment. You will notice that the writers of the constitution did not get to this portion until after they dealt with the freedom of religion. Sequence of thought is as important to the English language as is context. Being able to express oneself as a free citizen was important, just not as important as being able to worship without the government looking over your shoulder.
If you look at the letters of John Adams, Franklin, and the other founders, you will see them exercising this freedom with free flowing prose and quite often biting criticism. What you never see is the outrageous lie that today’s media and politicians are fond of using. Freedom of speech does not give us a right to lie. If Madison and his compatriots thought lies were a virtue, lying would have been mentioned. No, what is being said here is that congress cannot write a law that puts barriers in the way of Americans being able to voice their opinion in open and honest debate. When a citizen is sued over expressing an honest opinion or a student is either failed or thrown off a campus for being politically incorrect, those individuals’ rights have been “abridged”. In today’s language, they have been trampled upon. Political correctness is not American in any way shape or form and if the founding fathers were alive today, those who exercise political correctness would probably be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.
“or of the press;”
This portion is another sentence that many place over the religion clause, and again, you need to be cognizant of sentence structure. Regardless, the ability to report freely on what is happening, even if such reporting embarrasses the wealthy or the powerful, such reporting can not be constricted by any law. Those media heads that have fired writers and reporters because they have chosen to report the truth have violated this clause of the constitution. This clause does not give the media the right to lie. It is their duty to report the truth and to let the people choose what to believe. Many in today’s media would consider that an undue infringement on their freedoms.
“or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,”
Every 60’s radical, especially William Ayers, knows this clause. They quoted it ad nauseum while fling bottles, rocks, and fecal matter at the police during the Vietnam War era riots. A riot is not a peaceful assembly and therefore, by definition, is removed from the protection of the First Amendment. What the framers of our constitution had in mind was to prevent congress from being able to send troops to a gathering of townsfolk, whether it be in the village square or in a home to break up the meeting.
A meeting of employees in any given company to discuss whether or not they should create or join a union is covered under this right. Sending the boys out late at night to plant a burning cross onto someone’s lawn is not.
“and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
In my state of Nevada, I am ashamed to have been a member of the political party that has worked overtime to eliminate this right from Nevadans. The ability of the people to have a say in the fundamental decisions that affect their lives is, by its placement as the capstone in this amendment, one of the most important rights we have.
The current Assembly Minority Leader Heidi Gansert and the Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, worked together to craft a bill that greatly restricted the ability of an initiative petition to be approved for placement on the ballot in any given election. They did so under urging from the GOP party leadership because of the growing power of the Democrat party in the state’s two urban areas, Las Vegas and Reno. What was surprising is that the Democrat party leadership went right along with them, forming a Nevada version of the axis of evil.
We are seeing more and more moves in this direction and it is happening all across this nation in both local and national politics. The powerful elite in politics do not want the citizens of this country to have a voice. They care nothing for your wants, needs, desires or rights. What they want is for you to vote for them and to then shut up.
America needs to wake up. If the percentage of already registered voters who actually voted increased by only 25%, we would see a dramatic shift in the political picture of this country. If that percentage doubled, we would probably have begun the process of getting our country back. At the very least, the politicians would begin to listen.
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
King John is laughing
Even though the term ‘civil rights’ is disproportionatly linked to the struggle for equality of American blacks during the mid twentith century, the term does in fact cover much broader ground. The aim of that struggle was on its surface to cement equal protections under the law; to receive equal treatment regardless of one’s skin tone.
Civil rights are the basic legal rights an individual receives from the government. In the US those rights include personal, political, and economic rights. They are supposed to be the rights of citizens. Later discussions will cover the extreme broadening that some groups desire. Since the civil rights act of the early 90’s those rights cannot be legitimately denied to a person on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, or disability.
Martin Luthor King established what should be common ground where discrimination is concerned. But there is a broad gap in the debate over how far and how deep these principles should be implemented in law and policy.
Adding to the confusion, sub groups such as GLAD are fighting to include sexual orientation as one of the catagories covered under the law.
In 1215, the Magna Carta required King John to establish the first set of citizen rights. It forced the gentry to respect certain legal procedures and, this is the big one, accept that the king’s will could be bound by the law. It was also the first formalization of the writ of habeas corpus, forcing the gentry to prove a reason for the imprisonment of their subjects.
Our constitution owes much of its creation to the Magna Carta. The great document also established that a man’s home was essentially his castle. Regardless of the position of the guest, even in the lowliest cottage, the host had prominence. Now, due to the pressures of the ultra liberal left, with complete and willing assistence from the media and Congress, the constitution is in danger of becoming little more than a moot point, and one of the biggest weapons being used is the twisted maze of tax law.
The Democrats do not want the average working man or woman to be able to control any of the money they earn. To them, government knows far better how to handle your life and you should rely soley on Father Washington for your needs. On the Republican side Father Washington is replaced by the corporate board, and you should be happy to simply have a job and be a good little worker drone because Big Business knows best, and if a prisoner in China can do your job for less money…too bad, and if you complain about either circumstance, wait for the IRS letter.
The second paragraph of the Declaration of Indepence reads:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
The preamble of the constitution says:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Men who have dared to read either document in certain US Courts, and sadly, within certain halls of Congress, have been declared in contempt.
Somewhere, King John is laughing.
Civil rights are the basic legal rights an individual receives from the government. In the US those rights include personal, political, and economic rights. They are supposed to be the rights of citizens. Later discussions will cover the extreme broadening that some groups desire. Since the civil rights act of the early 90’s those rights cannot be legitimately denied to a person on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, or disability.
Martin Luthor King established what should be common ground where discrimination is concerned. But there is a broad gap in the debate over how far and how deep these principles should be implemented in law and policy.
Adding to the confusion, sub groups such as GLAD are fighting to include sexual orientation as one of the catagories covered under the law.
In 1215, the Magna Carta required King John to establish the first set of citizen rights. It forced the gentry to respect certain legal procedures and, this is the big one, accept that the king’s will could be bound by the law. It was also the first formalization of the writ of habeas corpus, forcing the gentry to prove a reason for the imprisonment of their subjects.
Our constitution owes much of its creation to the Magna Carta. The great document also established that a man’s home was essentially his castle. Regardless of the position of the guest, even in the lowliest cottage, the host had prominence. Now, due to the pressures of the ultra liberal left, with complete and willing assistence from the media and Congress, the constitution is in danger of becoming little more than a moot point, and one of the biggest weapons being used is the twisted maze of tax law.
The Democrats do not want the average working man or woman to be able to control any of the money they earn. To them, government knows far better how to handle your life and you should rely soley on Father Washington for your needs. On the Republican side Father Washington is replaced by the corporate board, and you should be happy to simply have a job and be a good little worker drone because Big Business knows best, and if a prisoner in China can do your job for less money…too bad, and if you complain about either circumstance, wait for the IRS letter.
The second paragraph of the Declaration of Indepence reads:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
The preamble of the constitution says:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Men who have dared to read either document in certain US Courts, and sadly, within certain halls of Congress, have been declared in contempt.
Somewhere, King John is laughing.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Do politicians lie?
Do politicians lie or are they merely forgetful? After listening to the latest batch of political ads, perhaps the question should be rephrased to, do politicians know how to tell the truth?
Out here in Nevada we have a woman who sounds like she should be living in the Deep South. Her accent is so up front she makes Paula Dean of the Food Network sound like a Midwesterner. Dina Titus is running against incumbent Congressman Jon Porter and the TV ads are flying fast and furious.
Porter ran an ad dripping with noir images in black and white. One of the indictments against Titus was that she voted to give herself a 300% raise in her legislative pension. On its face this is true. Titus was a member of the Nevada Legislature that raised the pension from 25 cents to 75 cents. What Porter’s ad doesn’t mention is that the raise was passed with nearly unanimous support from both parties. There are plenty of other bits of baggage he could go after, but why tell the truth when lies are so much more interesting?
Titus responds with the same old lefty talking point that Porter voted in lockstep with Bush. She fails to mention that every single bill the Democrats are complaining about are also bills the majority in Congress passed. The majority happens to be Democrat. In essence, do what I say, don’t do what I do. She also claims she passed a property tax cap. Well…not exactly. She wanted a much higher cap and argued for that and then grudgingly accepted a compromised that violates a provision in the Nevada Constitution. She claims to be in favor of reducing the tax burden on working families, but she also proposed a tax on weight and distance for commercial trucking while insisting the tax would not affect the costs to consumers. An economics professor should know that business does not pay taxes without passing the cost along. If a tax is raised on shipping groceries, won’t the price on those goods go up? Most certainly.
Local politics or national, the lies and half truths continue. The real problem is, if someone comes along and actually tells it like it is, their own party will turn on them. I know, it happened to me. More on that later. I’m shopping for body armor.
Out here in Nevada we have a woman who sounds like she should be living in the Deep South. Her accent is so up front she makes Paula Dean of the Food Network sound like a Midwesterner. Dina Titus is running against incumbent Congressman Jon Porter and the TV ads are flying fast and furious.
Porter ran an ad dripping with noir images in black and white. One of the indictments against Titus was that she voted to give herself a 300% raise in her legislative pension. On its face this is true. Titus was a member of the Nevada Legislature that raised the pension from 25 cents to 75 cents. What Porter’s ad doesn’t mention is that the raise was passed with nearly unanimous support from both parties. There are plenty of other bits of baggage he could go after, but why tell the truth when lies are so much more interesting?
Titus responds with the same old lefty talking point that Porter voted in lockstep with Bush. She fails to mention that every single bill the Democrats are complaining about are also bills the majority in Congress passed. The majority happens to be Democrat. In essence, do what I say, don’t do what I do. She also claims she passed a property tax cap. Well…not exactly. She wanted a much higher cap and argued for that and then grudgingly accepted a compromised that violates a provision in the Nevada Constitution. She claims to be in favor of reducing the tax burden on working families, but she also proposed a tax on weight and distance for commercial trucking while insisting the tax would not affect the costs to consumers. An economics professor should know that business does not pay taxes without passing the cost along. If a tax is raised on shipping groceries, won’t the price on those goods go up? Most certainly.
Local politics or national, the lies and half truths continue. The real problem is, if someone comes along and actually tells it like it is, their own party will turn on them. I know, it happened to me. More on that later. I’m shopping for body armor.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Immigration
I have a bill in draft form ready to be considered in the 2009 session. It mirrors the Oklohoma law that shut off social welfare to illegal immigrants and punished those businesses knowingly hiring illegals in preferance to citizens. I have already been told by members of my own party, GOP, that the bill is dead on arrival because implimenting such a law would bankrupt the state.
Here is my problem with that: when we take office, we are sworn in. This means we swear an oath to uphold the law and the constitution. There is a reason these people are called illegal immigrants, they have broken our law. If they have been sent back and crossed the boarder illegally a second time they are guilty of a felony. If a business hires a group of illegals...all of them using the same social security number on their fake IDs, then that business is breaking the law. Nowhere in the oath of office that I took did it say that I was to ignore lawbreaking if I found that law to be inconvenient. Expediency is the currency of cowards and the avenue of cretins and a sure path to a life of corruption.
I say, build the wall. Put it up 40 feet high and send it 40 feet deep. Make it impossible to climb over and impossible to tunnel through. Sure the United nations will scream and Mexico will call it an act of war, and our president will be uninvited to bridge games by our southern neighbor...so what? We can help the farmers by putting Ellis Island structures every 50 miles and allowing those who want to work to be checked out, set up with a temporary visa, tracked, taxed, and sent on their way...legally. We can also filter out the bad guys, the terrorists, those carrying the next plague virus and the drug runners. If Mexico gets upset becasue their drug profits drop, again, so what? This is our country. It does not belong to the UN or to any of Bush's foreign friends, at least not yet. We have over a hundred thousand homeless combat vets without jobs in this country. They have earned a job, not one illegal can say that, at least not honestly.
Here is my problem with that: when we take office, we are sworn in. This means we swear an oath to uphold the law and the constitution. There is a reason these people are called illegal immigrants, they have broken our law. If they have been sent back and crossed the boarder illegally a second time they are guilty of a felony. If a business hires a group of illegals...all of them using the same social security number on their fake IDs, then that business is breaking the law. Nowhere in the oath of office that I took did it say that I was to ignore lawbreaking if I found that law to be inconvenient. Expediency is the currency of cowards and the avenue of cretins and a sure path to a life of corruption.
I say, build the wall. Put it up 40 feet high and send it 40 feet deep. Make it impossible to climb over and impossible to tunnel through. Sure the United nations will scream and Mexico will call it an act of war, and our president will be uninvited to bridge games by our southern neighbor...so what? We can help the farmers by putting Ellis Island structures every 50 miles and allowing those who want to work to be checked out, set up with a temporary visa, tracked, taxed, and sent on their way...legally. We can also filter out the bad guys, the terrorists, those carrying the next plague virus and the drug runners. If Mexico gets upset becasue their drug profits drop, again, so what? This is our country. It does not belong to the UN or to any of Bush's foreign friends, at least not yet. We have over a hundred thousand homeless combat vets without jobs in this country. They have earned a job, not one illegal can say that, at least not honestly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
