Friday, January 29, 2010

The First Amendment: Statist's Edition

In the wake of “Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission” and the Obama/Alito kerfuffle, I give you the First Amendment, as seen through the eyes of lefty statists:

"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‡."

*Except inconvenient political speech.

**If new forms of communication media are developed in the future (e.g. radio, television, internet), Congress shall be permitted to make laws abridging communication involving those media.

†Exception: Congress shall make laws abridging the right of the people to peaceably to assemble into groups of individuals known as corporations, particularly in cases in which these groups spend large sums of money exercising their "right" to communicate.

‡Unless the attempt to redress grievances involves spending money on political campaigns within the 60 day period preceding an election.

Now, from constitutional novice, some thoughts on the First Amendment:

"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."

1. Take special note of the words "NO LAW"
2. Let those words sink in.
3. The First Amendment is not just about "speech." It's about freedom of communication. It's about freedom of assembly (you can even form an evil corporation if you wish). It's about the freedom to redress grievances (no exceptions).

So a group of people assemble and form a corporation and they communicate their thoughts in print, online, and over the airwaves. What part of the First Amendment provides wiggle room for the Imperial Federal Government to stop that?

There is no wiggle room.

Those who despise the First Amendment have only one option before them: to amend the Constitution.


BB-Idaho said...

"There is no wiggle room." Heh,
Teddy Roosevelt, 1905 Tilman Act 1907. So Ol Teddy wasn't a Republican, but a commie pinko
trotskyite bolshevak? Amazing the context of the times, isn't it?

Soloman said...

"No Law." Exactly.

On a bigger scale, what the statists don't like (so they refuse to accept) is that The Constitution is exaclty what Obama said it is: a document that restricts what government can do "for" (or to) the citizenry.

Therefore, the words "No Law" fit perfectly in the design of the document, yet fly completely in the face of the style of government statists wish to create.

RightKlik said...

BB: I'll let your ignorance speak for itself.

Solo: Statists abhor freedom.

Velcro said...

Great post; signs of the times:

Barry Bonds - home run king*

Anonymous said...

During the presidential campaign, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Barack Obama would be a good candidate because he was “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one”. Since the exposure of his racist comment, Reid has been running around apologizing to every black in America.

The elephant in the living room of the controversy that everyone seems to be ignoring is Reid’s horrific slap in the face of white America. In essence Reid believes, “most white American voters are racists who will not elect a dark-skinned black man”. Reid owes white America an apology and his resignation. This will never happen because democrats and the mainstream media believe it is OK to trash white America. Liberals have been portraying white America, mainly white males, as racist villains who victimize everyone from Christopher Columbus to the current Tea Party patriots.

As a black patriot, I am more offended by Reid’s dis of my white fellow Americans than I am of him insulting me as a black man. White liberals have been insulting and demeaning us blacks for years. It is what they do. Liberals believe blacks cannot be successful in America without lowered standards and their intervention.

By the Courtesy of Lloyd Marcus

Nickie Goomba said...

I have to disagree with you guys. This first amendment is inconvenient and dangerous and might be used by ruffians to support actions against the sitting government.

Anonymous said...

Good day, sun shines!
There have been times of troubles when I didn't know about opportunities of getting high yields on investments. I was a dump and downright pessimistic person.
I have never imagined that there weren't any need in big starting capital.
Nowadays, I feel good, I begin take up real money.
It gets down to choose a correct partner who uses your money in a right way - that is incorporate it in real business, parts and divides the profit with me.

You can ask, if there are such firms? I'm obliged to tell the truth, YES, there are. Please be informed of one of them: [url=]Online Investment Blog[/url]

rwnobles said...

Who are the shameless ones here. tell me Savage, Limbaugh, Robertson, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, O'reily, etc.. Take your pick..
As Haiti reeled and staggered and the rest of the world rushed to the aid of a humble, beleaguered people, two icons of American conservatism reared up last week and offered analysis of the earthquake that has devastated the impoverished island nation. The Rev. Pat Robertson opined on his program, "The 700 Club," that Haiti's woes stem from the fact that it made a deal with the devil two centuries ago and now is "cursed." Rush Limbaugh suggested the relief effort would "play right into" President Obama's hands, allowing him to appear "humanitarian, compassionate" and thus, "burnish" his standing within the African-American community.

It left me wondering, just for the briefest of seconds, whether conservatism has a conscience, whether conservatism has a soul.

But the Limbaughs and Robertsons of the world say some variation of, God hates you. Or, You had it coming. They call that conservative.Pathetic? Pathetic indeed!A fine representation of conservatism .. I'm sure you're quite proud of yourselves.
But the Limbaughs and Robertsons of the world say some variation of, God hates you. Or, You had it coming. They call that conservative.

Anonymous said...

I wrote in my own blog that this was going to happen.. I also predicted many times that it would not be Republicans who would kill the bill, but the Democrats themselves! The sad thing is that they nearly did force this thing into law, but the new year came. 435 House seats are up for election. About 1/3 of the U.S. Senate is up for election.Three major election losses + 2010 election year + VERY ANGRY electorate = no health reform bill and a chance to try and blame it on the Republicans.
This president did not just roll over one morning and discover there were Republicans in Congress. He has ignored them and marginalized them while they are winning elections! If there is one single thing you can count on from a politician it is to survive and stay in power. It is not looking very promising for these Democrats after all this!