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. --Amendment I, The Constitution of the United States of America.
Hear that? "shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise..." of religion. That means the latest kerfluffle trying to force the Catholic church to provide contraceptives through insurance to all employees/students is...illegal. Unconstitutional. Would not stand up before a Supreme Court that actually did its job.
"...shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...;" means the latest attempt to regulate the internet in the name of stopping internet music/movie/etc. piracy (most of which doesn't happen in the U.S., and wouldn't be prosecutable under our laws, anyway) is...again, illegal. Unconstitutional. Would not stand up before a Supreme Court that actually did its job.
"...shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" means that the whole listing of groups that protest government actions without one arrest for any crime as "terrorist groups" and targeting them with legal harassment is...yes, illegal. Unconstitutional. Would not stand up before a Supreme Court that actually did its job.
However, that all depends upon three things: a population that is well enough educated in their rights to know what they are, a population that cares enough about their rights to know that they have to fight for the same rights for others whether they agree with them or not (pro-lifers, I'm looking at you. Pro-abortion proponents...Yeah, you, too.), and last, a judiciary that understands that they don't fucking MAKE the laws, nor yet enforce them, but determine whether or not a law does not infringe on rights granted by the Creator and guaranteed by the Constitution, and whether or not a law was broken, and to what degree.
And if we fail on the last, we must depend on the first two...backed by the Second Amendment.
16 minutes ago
HH, I support pro abortion's right to their opinion. I just believe their rights end where their baby's body begins. No matter where that body is located.
ReplyDeleteYou and I are in complete agreement on that. I've had two babies, and I know just how early those little hearts form and start beating. Abortions are murder, plain and simple.
DeleteThe Constitution began March 4, 1789.........
DeleteThe times have certainly changed.
Perhaps it needs a major overhaul?
If we permit the "major overhaul" of the constitution, we will lose everything and gain nothing. Which freedom do you feel like giving up? The freedom to speak? The freedom to write what you want on your blog? Or maybe the freedoms granted by the fact that no one can kick your door in and search your property without a piece of paper from a judge that says there's probable cause to believe you've committed a crime? Or maybe the one that says you have the right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself, if you are arrested? Which one can you spare?
DeleteHere's a better idea: overhaul the federal government to be more in line with what it was originally intended to be--a shield over a nation where citizens have all the power over their own lives, and the states have most of the rest.