Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Bill of Rights - First Amendment Rights


First Amendment

The First Amendment of the US Constitution is Very Controversial.

What does the First Amendment actually say?

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.

What is the proper interpretation of the First Amendment?

Our founding fathers were very literate and knew the use of semicolons to separate major meanings and flows of a sentence.  Because of this lets break this down a sentence segment at a time.
Lets start with the first segment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”
This segment tells me – Congress (the House of Representatives and Senate) are prohibited from making a law that establishes a national religion.  Congress is also also forbidden from enacting any law which prohibits US Citizens from privately or publicly exercising any aspect of their religion.   This is pretty cut and dry and does not say a child cannot pray out loud in school, nor that a cross cannot be on government ground, nor that the Ten  Commandments must be removed from a government building.  I am not sure where our government feels they have the right to mandate these kind of restrictions.  Just look the amendment over again.  This segment of the First Amendment prohibits the restrictions being imposed on the any faith, including Christianity, in this country.
Now lets look at the second segment of the First Amendment “Congress shall make no lawabridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; …
Notice I kept the “Congress Shall Make no Law” portion of the first segment at the beginning of the second segment, because congress is the entity being restricted by the entire sentence.   Again the House of Representatives and Senate are prohibited from making laws preventing the freedom of speech of US Citizens or freedom of journalists to investigate, gather and report honest, newsworthy information.  This segment in no way says people can say anything they want without repercussion.  This segment says citizens and journalists must not be restricted from honest, moral and responsible speech, but are not exempted from prosecution for immoral, untrue and/or irresponsible speech.  Many people in this country interpret the wording above to say people and journalist are able to say anything they want without repercussions.  I just don’t see how to derive  that interpretation by what is in the wording of this segment of the First Amendment.
Now lets look at the last segment of the First Amendment “Congress shall make no law … abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Again notice I kept the “Congress Shall Make no Law” portion of the first segment at the beginning of the second segment, because congress is the entity being restricted by the entire sentence.  This segment of the First Amendment states simply the House of Representatives and Senate are prohibited from enacting any law restricting US Citizen’s the right to gather together peacefully or to petition the government to address grievance they have.  I don’t see where it authorizes people to assemble in a way that blocks of roadways, people from their homes, or to camp out in city parks and other areas where they defecate and urinate in public and make these public areas uninhabitable by the public for whom they were built.  The second amendment definitely does not allow people who gather to assault, sexually assault and rape other citizens.   Judges legislating from the bench may have read too much into the First Amendment and made a lot of stuff up as we went along.  Getting back to the basics our forefathers intended may be advantageous in the long run.

Should we put my interpretations of the First Amendment segments altogether?

Congress is prohibited from making any law that establishes a national religion. Congress must not prohibit any US Citizen from publicly or privately pursuing their religious beliefs. The government must not prevent the freedom of speech of US Citizens or the freedom of journalists to investigate, gather and report newsworthy information.  They also must not restrict any US Citizen’s right to gather together peacefully or to petition the government to address grievances they have.
Above is my three interpretations all strung together in one paragraph prohibiting congress from doing a lot of things they actually are doing today.  The personal interpretations of this amendment over the years as changed what people believe it really says.  Does anyone see the term “separation of church and state” in this amendment.  NO!!!  Well, where does that term come from?  Someone twisted it all around making it sound like the First Amendment was written to protect the government from the church instead of protecting the churches of our nation from the government.

Some say they found the “Separation of Church and State” in the Federalist Papers.  That actually isn’t true.  What actually occurred is a letter by Thomas Jefferson was found where he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 where a portion read,  “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”  They must have only read the last phrase of the paragraph to interpret this as needing to keep the church from influencing the state,  The reading of the entire paragraph makes it clear Thomas Jefferson was trying to explain that citizens should be careful to prevent the government from taking advantage of religion.  But they took a couple select words and put it together into “Separation of Church and State”  What Thomas Jefferson was warning the Danbury Baptist Association about was government trying to control religion as it is trying to do now.

Even when letters like these come up or even the Federalist Papers themselves say something, we have to remember that these papers were communications between the people collaborating on the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights.  These give good insight on what the founding fathers were thinking prior to writing the final approved Constitution, but remember that they did put specific things in the final document that is signed (making them directive on our nation) and left other things out for a reason.  We need to keep in mind the Constitution is directive in nature and mandates what is correct, When the Constitution conflicts with the Federalist Papers and other letters, the Constitution wins.  

What does our nation do now?

This is really up to honest lawmakers, if there are any left.  I personally believe there should be a fairly large legal staff appointed by Congress to shakedown all of our newer amendments, executive orders, laws, court decisions and find the ones in direct conflict with the Bill of Rights and other Amendments.  Once conflicting documents are found, they need to be rescinded or rewritten by Congress to be in compliance with our constitution and other directive documents from our founding as a country.  Every effort should be made to keep needed potions of the documents, but remove or change only those things that directly conflict any directive document our founding fathers signed.  The earlier the signed document the more precedence it should have in the evaluation process.  Once fixed at the federal level, these changes must be sent to the states and require their actions to make the same review and make all necessary changes to come in compliance with the US constitution.
If you liked this blog, please take a look at my second amendment blog.

No comments:

Post a Comment