Thursday, July 23, 2015

No haircut for the First Amendment

The campaign grows on the left to restrict religion and free speech

Once upon a time, the idea of giving the First Amendment a haircut never occurred to anyone. The constitutional guarantee of free speech was held to be the cornerstone of the unique American experiment in government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The Founding Fathers wrote it, plain, direct and so unambiguous that even a United States senator could understand it.

The Founders knew government wouldn’t like it. Thomas Jefferson (politically incorrect himself in the present heated moment), wrote to James Madison in 1787 that a bill of rights was needed to plug a glaring hole in the original document. “[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular,” he said, “and what no just government should refuse or rest on inference.”

Recently, certain Democratic senators, frustrated that “the people” persist in thinking for themselves, want to give the amendment that haircut. Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, a Democrat, pushes the idea of altering the Constitution to override the First Amendment, enabling the government to control all campaign spending, whether by individuals, candidates or outside groups. He argues that the First Amendment isn’t absolute, anyway. Mr. Schumer, who learned everything he thinks he knows at Harvard, isn’t exactly a constitutional scholar. He once identified the three branches of government as the House, the Senate and the Executive.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, a Democrat, wants to trim the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. She thinks the guarantee of religious liberty applies only to organized institutions of worship, not to individuals.

“Certainly the First Amendment says that in institutions of faith that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs,” she says. “But I don’t think it extends far beyond that.” The senator, like everyone else, is entitled to her own ignorance, but not to her own “factoids,” a factoid being something that looks like a fact, sounds like a fact, but in fact is not a fact.

The Constitution includes two specific instructions to the Congress. The first is that it shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion. The second, which is not so much in vogue this season, is that Congress shall make no law prohibiting “the free exercise thereof,” that the exercise of religious beliefs is an individual right, not confined to a particular time or place of worship.



Anonymous said...

In a population of about 330 million there are bound to be quite large number of ignorant nuts !

Anonymous said...

Well, unlimited or extravagant campaign donations tends to favor a plutocratic control of government, which is no better than the aristocratic control in Europe at the time the US was founded.

The establishment of religion clause referred to preventing the setting-up of an "established" national church, equivalent, or corresponding to, the "Church of England", where public office required membership of the national church (at that time).

"Religious freedom" just begs the question of what other freedoms it can or could over-ride, possibly every other law (and some religious people test it now on that basis!).

Anonymous said...

And this is why we have a 2nd Amendment!

Bird of Paradise said...

United Nations and demacratic scumbags Keep your dirty paws off our Constitution

Anonymous said...

The progressive mantra is still that “the people” in the second amendment refers to the militia even though the US Supreme Court has ruled it in an individual right. Progressive equals elitist for all intents and purpose and they will not let a 200+ year old document get in the way of their agenda.


Alpha Skua said...

Anon 9:05. Thats the trouble with these progresivists(Commies)their too ignorant or stupid to read the whole 2'nd Amendment words like Well Regulated they thnik Gun Bans and Confiscation and Malitia they think the Military which they dispise anyway being the kids of drug induced parents and leftists adminastrators

Anonymous said...

The founders were wise in the way that the constitution can be altered. It was intended to stop the clowns like the progressives from altering it to suit their orthodoxy. If you take the First Amendment to it's logical conclusion it is written to prevent leftist groupthink from becoming law since it would be the equivalent of establishing a religion. What needs to be amended is the way Supreme Court judges are appointed. The political influence should be removed and appointment taken away from the President.

Flu-Bird said...