Okay, I listen to people argue about certain Amendments all the time. Yet, most of the time, they have absolutely no idea what the words of the Amendment are and they argue over and over who's right and who's wrong. It's kind of like listening to someone argue whether the color melon and peach are different or not. Yes, sort of and no, not really. So in the last blog, I stated I was going to introduce the Bill of Rights, one by one, and present the definition, which for all intensive purposes means the opposing sides and how they are opposing and let Joe or Jane Layman make up their own minds. That's called education. We don't spoon feed "facts" as we would like them in the educating process. We feed the minds the concepts, the opposing views and interpretations and let people make up their own minds. The biggest problem in this country right now, in my humble opinion, is the spoon feeding process of the media, spoon feeding of incorrect history and facts and sometimes just straight out bullsh*t. So, let me introduce you to the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:
"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."
Yes, that's it. All that great debate on television, social media, all that crap that some people will tell you that it's very wordy and complicated is well, crap. But let's break it down a little for conversation sake.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
This is what most of us call the Freedom of Religion. There have been so many arguments that this is a country founded on Christianity. That's not there. There are arguments that it says nothing about God. True. Doesn't mean that some people can't interpret it that way. What is not open for discussion: No laws can be created by a State or the Federal government telling us what we can or cannot worship. We cannot close the Catholic or Mormon churches down. Their right to worship is protected. We cannot tell anyone that they cannot build a Synagogue or Mosque or Buddhist Temple and worship how they choose. It is actually why Rastafarians can legally smoke pot because of their religion. Of course, it doesn't say that they are guaranteed to work or not be arrested or cited if they do smoke it. It is also why we are having problems with measles right now after it was declared eradicated, because some religions do not believe in vaccinations. That last one will ultimately weigh the public good versus the First Amendment rights of the people that practice that religion.
Ultimately, these cases can and have and probably will be brought to the courts. That is where the debate begins. Arguments for the public good usually trump individual freedoms. I'm pretty sure none of us want a pot smoker flying a jumbo jet if he is currently under the influence, but if the pilot hasn't smoked it in 12 or 24 hours, many of us might not see an issue with it. We mostly don't want our children around other children that haven't been vaccinated, because we all know that kids, especially when they are younger, can bring home every new cold strain, flu virus, and they can spread stuff like wild fire. Of course, then the argument is public safety. The Supreme Court has ruled over and over that the good of the public does trump individual freedoms. So there's nothing actually saying that they have to comply with vaccinations if they want to home school. The arguments for each individual religious case will have emotional arguments and it's up to the courts, if it gets that far, to remove the emotion and determine the case based on what is said in the Constitution and the historical rulings of the past.
The Freedom of Religion, the Freedom to be free from persecution just because we worship differently was so important, it was added first and foremost. Whether we agree with someone else's religion, whether we understand it, everyone is allowed their religious beliefs. It doesn't say "Christianity" specifically. The vague wording creates an umbrella that means everyone, every religion, are covered. A Nation founded "under God", well, not debatable, right? Well, maybe. Maybe not. Ben Franklin was a notorious womanizer and had a reputation for speaking out against organized religion too. So, even that can be debated. Regardless, we are a Nation of any and all religions, including the right to not believe in any religion at all. The rest is all up for debate.
"...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;..."
Freedom of Speech. Look how simply it was written. I mean really. Very, very simple. No one can "abridge" our rights of Freedom of Speech. Or, right, that pesky "for the public good" thing. Like I stated earlier, we're not going there, yet. Just suffice to say, get up on your soap box all you want. Short of inciting crimes, bam, you are good. Freedom of the Press. Same deal. But over the years, the Freedom of the Press has been limited, but not by much. The courts almost always side on the cautionary side when it comes to both Freedom of Speech and Press because it's not very debatable as a whole. Simpler words have not been written; even a young child can grasp the overall meaning of the words as they were written over 200 years ago.
"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,..."
The right to assemble. Hate groups love this one. Both sides. Ironically, ever noticed that hate groups always have a side and an opposing side? The rest of us have varying degrees of gray areas, but not hate groups. There must be a "right" side and a "left" side, a "right" or "wrong", a "yes" or "no", a this way or the highway. Life is not that simple, but how do we address that overly simplified view of the world? I mean seriously, there have always been opposing views. This is not a unique thing to the last 20 years or 50 years. But how do we get out there and share our views, our opinions or even make sure that someone knows that we are boycotting? There wasn't an internet just 30 years ago. So the right to assemble and discuss was considered paramount to the growth of a new Nation. The tricky word here is "peaceably". Basically, rioting is not "peaceable" in any way, shape or form. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that is definitely not "protected". However, this is not the easiest right to enforce and is one of the easiest to be taken away just by saying the gathering wasn't "peaceful". Thus why this particular right continues to be debated. Just think, even in the late 1800s many suffragettes met in secret because public assembly, peaceful public assembly, could land them in jail. Peaceful gatherings during the 1960s that were against the Vietnam War were often turned into a full scale gassing, arrests and even beatings. Often when opposing views converge, the word peaceful goes running out the door faster than a jet breaking the sound barrier.
"...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Petition. There are several ways to "petition" the Government. The most obvious is the simple definition of "petition"--get a ground roots, signed petition going and get a massive amount of people, legal age, voting age, American citizens to sign, right? No, not just legal age, not just voting age and no, not just American citizens. Railroad workers in the early 1800s tried to get redress for their working conditions and they were primarily Irish and Chinese immigrants. The Government has long recognized the immigrants in this country and honestly had a hard time back then identifying "illegal" versus "legal", so historically, we allow anyone in this country to petition the United States Government for redress. Petition doesn't just mean by petition either, as in the example provided, it can mean via the court system with a lawsuit brought in front of a judge, that eventually could end up in front of the Supreme Court. We can petition Congress, the President, the Court system for redress of our grievances. It all depends upon what we want redress for. This is often one of the statements that is used when the Government is not doing what one group wants and they talk about not recognizing the Government. The idiot who blew up the Oklahoma Federal Building believed that the United States Government was not addressing his grievances, but he made no real effort to petition. Saying that you're not paying your taxes is not an official petition. In fact, it's not a petition at all. Continuing to pay your taxes and going to your State or your Congressional leadership with petition for redress well it all sounds so easy. But anyone that has ever tried to navigate the bureaucracy of State or Federal governments knows this can be very, very frustrating. And worse yet, the redress may not result in the end outcome that was being petitioned for. That can be shot down. Still, so many people don't understand what redress is, and worse yet, they don't know how to petition anymore. The petition for the legalization of the vote for women was almost 100 years in the making. At least 3 generations fought for it before it came to fruition. So the great debate, can we fix the "system"? Can redress be provided quickly? Which redresses are right and which are frivolous? There in lies the real debates.
Basically when it comes to debating the First Amendment of the United States, the wording is super simple. We are never actually debating what it says or even what it's basic interpretation means. We are debating how we think it should be applied. Don't tell someone that they are wrong because their interpretation is different than yours. Recognize that each interpretation is debatable, until the Supreme Court says it's not. And eventually, even the same debate may be overturned by a different Supreme Court. Prior to the Civil War, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not apply to certain people. The Freedom to Assemble and Speech were only applicable to some Americans, not all. Eventually, they ruled this was ridiculous. Same Supreme Court, different Justices, different times. Thus why often the words "living document" are used when describing the Constitution. It lives in our times, just as it lived in past times. It lives without changing with the changing times.
No comments:
Post a Comment