[macintologist]

You're all familiar with the 1st.

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.

But if you pay close attention to the punctuation, the first five words are really important.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise (of religion).

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.

Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I know that many of you argue that having the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is perfectly constitutional because the 1st amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It doesn't say anything about separation.

So what about the rest of the 1st amendment. Is it ok to violate someone's free speech, so long as congress makes no law doing the same?

Furthermore, the 5th says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Yet another constitutional loophole that allows the gov't to trample on our rights. The Due Process clause is a procedural guarantee, nothing more.

It's funny, whenever people debate separation of church and state, someone always brings up the Congress shall make no law part, yet when free speech is discussed, that part of the 1st amend. is never mentioned.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/first_amendment.html

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference.

No it doesn't! It protects freedom of religion and freedom of speech from Congress making a law abridging said freedoms!

The 1st Amendment needs to be updated. It should say:

"No person shall be deprived of the right to free practice of religion, freedom of speech, freedom peaceably to assemble, nor shall the right of the press to be free from government hindrance be abridged, nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the laws."

[vmarks]

Untrue: Some liberals were appalled that people would burn Dixie Chicks albums, saying 'don't they have freedom of speech?' Many of us said that it was fine for people to burn The Dixie Chicks albums in response to their statements. That they had the freedom of speech and we had the freedom to reject their statements and their product.

The freedom of speech doesn't compel people to be an audience, and it doesn't mean that everyone has to provide a forum for free speech. Your employer isn't paying you to speak, and your children are in school to learn. If you exercise your right to speak, nothing protects you from the repercussions from the marketplace, or your employer. This is as it should be- without this, it forces the marketplace or employer to listen- and don't they have the right to reject, ignore, or counter your speech? Especially if they're paying for the time?

The truth is that the 1st amendment is right the way it is: Federal Government cannot punish you for what you say. The rest, you're on your own. Exercise your right as you see fit, and no one is forced to give you audience.

Proof that we've discussed the 1st amendment before in this light: http://forums.macnn.com/archive/index.php/t-153348.html

Read Millennium's post there:

"
Free sheech protects you from having any legal consequences for what you say. It says nothing whatsoever of social consequences. It's quite possible that he'll be fired; that's a social consequence, not a legal one. There is no law that says he must be fired; indeed, such a law could never be enforced even on the slim chance that it could be passed. Same as with all the idiocy surrounding the infamous statements by the Dixie Chicks; it's stupid, but it's a legitimate social consequence of what they said.

Just because you're allowed to speak your mind doesn't mean that we all have to agree with you. Nor does it mean we have no right to get mad when you say you want "a million Mogadishus", as this guy did. And should we decide to terminate our social dealings with you, that's our prerogative, thanks to another right guaranteed by the First Amendment, namely, freedom of association."

[macintologist]

I didn't say anything about social consequences. I said that the 1st amendment only restricts the powers of Congress. It should be protecting your right to free speech and freedom of religion from ALL government and not just congress.

[SVass]

I strongly disagree because the a**holes of the RIGHT (judicial activists all) read persons as citizens and not as human beings. In the past where the 14th amendment "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The courts have read persons as white males, non-orientals, corporations and next year probably as republicans. They have imprisoned Eugene Debs for advocating the right to strike proving that they can imprison you for what you say. Now they (on my dollar-Scott McClellan should not be allowed to speak politically on a public salary-fire him) want to punish Newsweek.

Due process of law is nonsense if the majority can enforce any law they want without fear of limitation or retribution. sam

[vmarks]

Are you afraid of the judicial branch impeding your speech? Are you afraid of the executive branch impeding your speech? Are you afraid of your state and local governments impeding your speech?

Your re-write of the 1st amendment addresses EVERYONE, government or not.

you said "No person shall be deprived of the right to free practice of religion, freedom of speech, freedom peaceably to assemble, nor shall the right of the press to be free from government hindrance be abridged, nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the laws."

[SimeyTheLimey]

A book that is a nice easy to read primer that you might like to look at is Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment. It sets out the history of the First Amendment in a readable way, then discusses some of the major developments and in particular the landmark 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan.

Originally Posted by macintologist

I didn't say anything about social consequences. I said that the 1st amendment only restricts the powers of Congress. It should be protecting your right to free speech and freedom of religion from ALL government and not just congress.

The short answer is it does. Both the case law and the 14th Amendment have extended the reach of the First Amendment. The book above explains how that came to be.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by SVass

The courts have read persons as white males, non-orientals, corporations and next year probably as republicans. They have imprisoned Eugene Debs for advocating the right to strike proving that they can imprison you for what you say.

The interpretation of the First Amendment has changed dramatically since the Debs case, and his prosecution by the Woodrow Wilson Administration was controversial even in its day. Debs was pardoned by Warren G. Harding shortly after the Republicans took the White House. Link

[SVass]

My objection stands unless as once requested by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the wording be specific that persons and people mean all human beings, not just citizens and that the entire bill of rights applies to all under our control. How about "illegal combatants"? sam

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by SVass

My objection stands unless as once requested by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the wording be specific that persons and people mean all human beings, not just citizens and that the entire bill of rights applies to all under our control. How about "illegal combatants"? sam

Um, no. "Illegal combatants" and other people who are trying to kill us, should not be afforded the same rights as US citizens.

[SVass]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Um, no. "Illegal combatants" and other people who are trying to kill us, should not be afforded the same rights as US citizens.

So if PacHead decides that they are trying to kill us, they don't get a hearing and PacHead doesn't have to prove his claim. That is the problem. I don't trust PacHead and I don't trust Bush. Everyone should get a fair hearing. sam

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by SVass

So if PacHead decides that they are trying to kill us, they don't get a hearing and PacHead doesn't have to prove his claim. That is the problem. I don't trust PacHead and I don't trust Bush. Everyone should get a fair hearing. sam

And I don't trust people who wish to afford equal rights to our enemies, the enemies which have sworn to kill us. How do I know this ? They say so themselves. We are at war, and I have to admit I am suspicious of anybody who is sticking up more for the enemy than for us.

[cpt kangarooski]

macintologist--

You're all familiar with the 1st.

Oh, this ought to be good.

I know that many of you argue that having the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is perfectly constitutional because the 1st amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It doesn't say anything about separation.

The free exercise and establishment clauses produce the effect of separation.

Furthermore, the 5th says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Yet another constitutional loophole that allows the gov't to trample on our rights. The Due Process clause is a procedural guarantee, nothing more.

Are you forgetting substantive due process?

The 1st Amendment needs to be updated. It should say:

"No person shall be deprived of the right to free practice of religion, freedom of speech, freedom peaceably to assemble, nor shall the right of the press to be free from government hindrance be abridged, nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the laws."

Which, incidentally, permits the government to set up a state religion because you left out the establishment clause. Way to go. I dunno why the hell you decided to toss due process in there. You didn't change it. Also why no love for the petition clause?

Um, no. "Illegal combatants" and other people who are trying to kill us, should not be afforded the same rights as US citizens.

Why not? If someone tries to murder us (the participants in this thread) then he is a person who is trying to kill us. And he deserves a fair trial. That's not difficult. If he did it, he'll get punished. How hard is that?

We are at war, and I have to admit I am suspicious of anybody who is sticking up more for the enemy than for us.

Well, no one is doing that, so no problem. Rather, we're discussing sticking up equally, and then only as to due process. We have a lot of experience trying people in court. It isn't hard. Of course, you also need to have adequate process to determine whether some people really are combatants, and whether they acted lawfully or not. Even then, some procedural guarantees are required.

Allowing one branch to act as judge, jury, and executioner is inappropriate, however, and violates the principle of separation of powers. It also is a sure-fire recipe for abuse.

I find it difficult to accept that you think it is a terrible burden to act in a fair manner, and to only punish people who actually did wrong. Without forcing prosecutors to make their case, unfounded accusations turn into convictions.

[macintologist]

Ok, actually I think the 14th amendment needs to be rewritten.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It should read

All persons born or naturalized in these united States is a citizen of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the several States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

We are NOT subjected to the United States or to Congress. They are subjected to the people! I find it disgusting that the 14th Amendment, even though it was never properly ratified, would even dare suggest that We The People are subjected to Congress. Kiss goodbye to federalism.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by macintologist

So what about the rest of the 1st amendment. Is it ok to violate someone's free speech, so long as congress makes no law doing the same?

Nope. Look here:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Combine this with the supremacy clause, and rights granted by the Constitution trump all other laws, including state Constitutions. Therefore, if Congress cannot do it, then neither can state legislatures. As for the executive or judicial branches trampling on our rights, the government is set up in such a way that this can only happen if Congress authorizes it, which it has been explicitly forbidden from doing anyway.

This is why the Constitution is such a masterpiece: its minimalism. Every section affects every other, sometimes in ways which are not immediate at first glance.

Furthermore, the 5th says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Yet another constitutional loophole that allows the gov't to trample on our rights. The Due Process clause is a procedural guarantee, nothing more.

Keep in mind, it requires due process of law. Because the government is set up in such a way that it can only act based on law, if you forbid laws to be made authorizing the government to perform certain acts then you have forbidden the government to perform the acts themselves.

No it doesn't! It protects freedom of religion and freedom of speech from Congress making a law abridging said freedoms!

And by doing so, it prevents state governments and the other branches from trampling on these rights. This is the point of separation of powers: by isolating the ability to create law to a single branch of the government, and then requiring the other branches to act based on those laws, you can neatly stop the government from doing anything you want simply by forbidding laws which would authorize them. This is the point of the tenth amendment, which throws the government into a "that which is not allowed is forbidden" model.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Don't forget also that each state has a constitution with their own constitutional rights. The state governments are therefore restricted both by the Federal Constitution through the 14th Amendment, and by their own constitutions.

Most of those constitutions are modelled pretty closely on the federal one, or have been interpreted in ways that make the effect similar. Some are somewhat more protective of individual rights than the federal constitution. For example, several have an explicit right to privacy, whereas the federal constitution only has an implicit right to privacy.

[Kilbey]

Let's rewrite the whole thing. Those founding fathers were idiots that had no idea what they were doing. [/SARCASM]

[bstone]

The most screwed up thing is that the US Government requires you to attain a "permit" for Constitutionally protected gatherings- protests, large camping trips of a spiritual nature, etc. They can deny you the right to assemble in public places based on their own decision to deny a permit based on "reasons".

[Randman]

The Founding Fathers actually intended things to be an evolving process, changing with the times rather than a static form of government as was in England at the time.

What's past is prologue, eh?

[Athens]

I like to compare of couple differences between your Constitutional Rights and Canada's charter of rights and freedoms.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/#garantie

No 2:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

Note that it stats EVERYONE which means all people regardless of race, gender, sexual preference have these fundamental rights. Its also not worded in a way that prevents one level of government from restricting these rights but worded in a way that protects them from all levels of government and authority.

No 3:

Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

The only time citizenship comes into it as a limitation is in regards to voting and being a member of government and in No 6 with entering living and leaving Canada.

My fav set from the charter which I have used a few times with cops who just hate it when you know your rights is this one.

No. 8:

Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

No 15:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Again it stats clearly and includes individuals, not Citizenship as a requirement


So I agree with macintologist that there is room for fix.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Athens

I like to compare of couple differences between your Constitutional Rights and Canada's charter of rights and freedoms.

My problem is the way it is worded. This document seems to claim that the Government grants these rights, rather than explicitly forbidding the government from taking them away. I find this unacceptable.

Note that it stats EVERYONE which means all people regardless of race, gender, sexual preference have these fundamental rights.

As opposed to forbidding the government from taking these rights away, without qualifying frrom whom these rights may not be taken. Same effect.

Its also not worded in a way that prevents one level of government from restricting these rights but worded in a way that protects them from all levels of government and authority.

Same effect, since the US government is bound by law and can only act based on law.

Also, this law does not appear to be at a constitutional level, which implies that these rights could be repealed or added to far more easily -dare I say arbitrarily?- than an actual part of a Constitution.

[Randman]

Originally Posted by Athens

I like to compare of couple differences between your Constitutional Rights and Canada's charter of rights and freedoms.

1.
You have to bow to your ruler.

2. We don't.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by Randman

1.
You have to bow to your ruler.

2. We don't.

She's just a figurehead, she has no power over us.

[Randman]

Well, she does have to approve your elected leaders. She is on your money and an oath of allegiance has to be taken in her name. And she is the leader of your country.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by Randman

Well, she does have to approve your elected leaders. She is on your money and an oath of allegiance has to be taken in her name. And she is the leader of your country.

eh?

[budster101]

You have to bow to her. Sounds like power to me.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Randman

1.
You have to bow to your ruler.

2. We don't.

Leave Brenda alone. Bloody colonist ingrates. Play nicely now, or we'll be over to burn down the White House. Again.


But seriously, I've never seen any Brit or Canadian on a forum display the kind of deference you freaks show to your own head of state. What's up with that?

[Randman]

Originally Posted by nath

I've never seen any Brit or Canadian on a forum display the kind of deference you freaks show to your own head of state. What's up with that?

[Cadaver]

While I would agree that we've lost the sense of respect we once gave our "leaders" whether we agreed with them or not, its within our rights to call the president a moron.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by bstone

The most screwed up thing is that the US Government requires you to attain a "permit" for Constitutionally protected gatherings- protests, large camping trips of a spiritual nature, etc. They can deny you the right to assemble in public places based on their own decision to deny a permit based on "reasons".

It's usually local government, and only in certain venues -- generally in venues where the rights of people to gather for one purpose could conflict with the rights of other people to gather for other purposes. For example, in a protest that would close streets or take over a park, preventing other law abiding citizens from going about their business. Permits are permitted to balance those rights and to provide notice to the local government so it can provide appropriate policing etc. But that is all the permits can be used for.

If you are under the impression that the government can pick and choose who they give those permits to you are mistaken. They cannot discriminate by point of view. There are several supreme court cases on that, but perhaps the clearest is the long running Skokie Illinois case. Neo-Nazis wanted to march through a town heavily populated by concentration camp survivors. The SCT held that the town could not refuse to issue permits just because they didn't like the marchers, or even because they thought the presence of the marchers could cause a breach of the peace.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by macintologist

You're all familiar with the 1st...

God, your pseudo-intelligent threads are really becoming quite tiresome. Thankfully, Simey already chimed in over how you're wrong. Whether or not you'll choose to react to this...

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

God, your pseudo-intelligent threads are really becoming quite tiresome. Thankfully, Simey already chimed in over how you're wrong. Whether or not you'll choose to react to this...

If you don't like my threads, then please feel free to ignore me, either on your own, or via the Ignore feature. Thanks.

[budster101]

I am going to make an educated guess that he won't. <nudge>

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by macintologist

If you don't like my threads, then please feel free to ignore me, either on your own, or via the Ignore feature. Thanks.

You seem quite well-acquainted with ignoring -- seeing that you've ignored many intelligent replies early in this thread.

Fair enough, though; it's not worth the finger-taps to continue this conversation.

[iBabo]

at the end of the day, the constitution is only as valueable as its interpretation. if ANY court were to interpret the first amendment any differently because of grammatical or puntuation technicalities, im sure the political backlash of that would be far greater then anything this country has ever seen.