“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; …”

Seems self-evident, does it not? Yet Congress has done precisely that on more than one occasion. The Communications Decency Act is one; McCain-Feingold Campaign reform is another. This latest is all the more amazing in its audacity since the Supreme Court has already struck down provisions of this bill that have been tried before. On the grounds that said provisions violated the First Amendment. The Court has help that political speech is protected and that money equals speech in the context of political activity. The authors of this shameful piece of legislation know full well that it is unconstitutional, yet they went ahead, confident in the public’s lack of understanding. That so many of their contemporaries went along does not surprise, after all, they will benefit most. All know the court will overturn this law, and while they will make noise in the press about it, they know there is nothing to be done.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree that balance needs to be implemented in the political process, but until and unless the major media outlets are willing to acknowledge their bias, such balance is not forthcoming.

As to speech itself, the prohibition contained in the Constitution applied to Congress. It does not apply to the Executive or Legislative branches, nor does it apply to the several states, except where the several states themselves have incorporated similar language. It most certainly does not apply to private institutions.

Does this mean that Universities, Clubs, and other private agencies may limit your speech to meet their ideas of decency or acceptable speech? or that your local town, with due process, may limit it also? Yes it does. The point is that the Federal Government may not.

Now all of that does not mean I have the right to force it down your throat, any more than you have the right to force me to listen or read your opinions and ideas. That is the great thing about our Constitution, the free exchange of ideas and thoughts is fundamental to our form of government, the necessity of an educated, informed electorate requires it.

Our Founding Fathers understood that for Republican democracy to work, the electorate had to be informed. They also understood that anyone could form opinions in direct contravention to those of the government, and that those ideas may be both important and influential to the process. This is not a bad thing in the exercise of sovereign franchise.

What????? Some of you may be asking is sovereign franchise. It is the exercise of political power by those who hold it. You, others, and me. At the current time, it applies to any warm body over the age of 18 years who can prove citizenship in the US. It does not mean that all of those who chose to exercise their right are wise, learned or sensible. Nor does it mean that they understand what they are doing, or they understand the responsibility that they hold. The exercise of sovereign franchise is the ultimate exercise of political speech and it is your responsibility to be as informed as possible so as to make the best decision possible. All the more so since the decision will have far reaching consequences and must be what you feel is best for the nation as a whole.

All of this is a benefit of the free speech and press provisions of our Constitution and it is our responsibility as citizens to safe guard these precious things.

I realized upon further review that I had chopped the clause early. The resulting analysis had dealt with it, but it is now in full form. Speech is next...

‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…’

What does this mean? Does it mean there can be no prayer in public facilities or governmental functions? No. It means that Congress shall not establish a religious preference for the Nation, pro or con. The Founding Father’s were concerned about the possibility of religious tyranny, the most oppressive form of tyrannical government imaginable, and included this phrase as insurance against such occurrences. Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, was explicit in acknowledging Faith by stating that ‘…all men were endowed by their Creator…’ with certain unalienable rights. He has been described as a Deist, which states he accepted a deity in Nature.

Does this mean that there is to be no separation between Church and State? No, it does not, but neither is there to be specific denial of religion either. If a school, for example, wishes that each day should start with a moment of prayer, the State has no authority to forbid such activity. Local citizens may object to this, and many have. In my opinion, such School Boards are idiots, but that’s just my opinion. Having been a student, and taken many tests in my life, both military and civilian, I have often whispered a brief prayer for guidance, wisdom and focus prior to starting such activity. Haven’t you? And if so, what makes Congressmen any different? Why should they not start their day with prayer? In fact, they do. Both the House and Senate have Chaplin’s on the payroll and I for one have no objection to such men being paid by my tax dollars.

Wait! I hear you scream. What about Muslims, Buddhists, Wicca’s, Satanists, etc…Does this clause mean I have to respect them, too? Yep, also means that Congress can do nothing about them either. It does not mean that they, or others can force their opinion upon you, just as you cannot force your opinion of Gaia upon them, or me. These statements do not prohibit any of us from speaking about it, but if I chose to ignore you that is my right. This does not mean that a Nativity scene cannot be displayed on public ground, or that equal time must be given to celebrations or scenes of other faiths. If you do not like a Christian scene depicted on public ground, you are free to display your own image across the street, and at your expense. I will not pay for it, nor do I expect you to pay for my preferred imagery.

All of the above may make sense, but recent American history has swung far to far to the other extreme in denying the rights of Christians and many others from public display. The left in this country flatly denies the existence of traditional forms of faith and instead opt for New Age, multi-cultural faiths that make everyone feel good but mean nothing (IMHO). The left borders on atheism, which accepts the concept of godhead, but flatly denies and rejects its authority. A state-sponsored atheism is just as tyrannical as is a state mandated faith.

And just as Unconstitutional.

Let me say first that the US Constitution is a document specifically intended to limit the power of the Federal government in the lives of the citizens of this country. Without this basic understanding, what follows will generate nothing more than flames directed at me as a reactionary fool. I expect those, anyway, but at least hope for some thoughtful discussion.

The Bill of Rights

"Amendment I
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."


I’m going to tackle this one phrase at a time, beginning with the first clause, ‘Congress shall make no law…’

First thing: This language is quite clear, anyone with a grasp of the English language should see that, yet I must confess surprise that lawyers and Congress-critters seem to be able to ignore this. Naïve of me, I know, as I’ve been aware of the shortcomings of the US education system since I was enrolled in it. I was quite fortunate in that my parents encouraged me to read everything I could get my hands on, and to think about it.

Secondly: This says nothing about State legislatures, cities, private organizations, etc. They can do as they please; this clause limits the power of the Federal government. State legislatures are limited by their own constitutions, not by limits imposed by the Federal Constitution.

Next; ‘…respecting an establishment of religion…’

A link to the Constitution of the United States. More later.

Herein is where I plan to include thoughts on the Constitution, Campaign Finance Reform, the Bill of Rights, etc...In short, a smattering of thought on subjects not included on the Daily Blog.