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.
The amendment places prohibitions upon the federal government regarding six areas.
- Congress shall make no law
- respecting an establishment of religion
- prohibiting the free exercise of religion
- abridging the freedom of speech
- abridging the freedom of the press
- abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble
- abridging the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances
It is obvious that these are not absolute rights that can have no bounds, but it is not for the federal government to set those bounds. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is the usual example of limits on free speech, should we allow religion to practice human sacrifice, or allow lies to be published with the forethought and intention of destroying another’s reputation or inflict harm? Is blocking and stopping traffic in the streets peaceful just because you have an assembly of people? Does a person have the right to walk down an empty street swinging a baseball bat? I would assume so. Would that same person have the right to do so on a crowded, busy, street? Absolutely not.
These types of restrictions should be the right and responsibility of the States and People to enact, seeing that the Constitution prohibits the Federal government from making any law regarding these rights.
The first precept of interpreting the Constitution is that the Constitution does not affirm or protect any right to do wrong.
Just as when studying the Bible, one must accept the interpretation that does not cause it to contradict itself; we have to interpret these rights in a fashion that does not contradict common sense, safety, decency, and equality. The first precept of interpreting the Constitution is that the Constitution does not affirm or protect any right to do wrong.
The Federal Government cannot respect an establishment of religion
- The Federal Government cannot establish a national religion or cause any religion to be supported with tax dollars.
- The Federal Government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.
This prohibition is the first sticking point. It is certainly not acceptable to allow human sacrifices, cannibalism, mutilation, execution, maintaining a legal system in conjunction or superseding the nations, etc. Therefore, what is it the government cannot prohibit? It can only be the exercising of religious opinion; you can proclaim whatever religious beliefs one has as well as practice that which does not harm or impede the rights of another. All have the right to their own religious opinions, and beliefs, even if the practice is not allowed.
The Federal Government cannot abridge the freedom of speech.
The right to free speech is also not absolute. It must be determined what definition of speech ensures equality and does not contradict restrictions for safety and decency. When the Supreme Court ruled that free speech meant freedom of expression they threw decency and morality out. Ruling freedom of speech as freedom of expression was an egregious error. It destroyed the moral fiber of our nation.
The only way to interpret free speech that does not contradict common sense, safety, decency, and equality, is the freedom to express opinions and views. You have the right to express your opinion verbally, in writing, and in today’s world, by video, podcast, Facebook, Instagram, tweet, website, etc. The freedom of expressing using vulgarity, obscenity, immodesty, or pornography, is not required to express an opinion or view on an issue or bring grievances to the attention of the government or public. The manner in which a method of expression is used in the public arena was once rightfully and should be restrictive. The opinion that one should be able to express an opinion in an obscene, lewd, raunchy, or repugnant, manner is fine, but but the Constitution contains no right to do so.
Slander, libel, smears, defamation, or vilification, are not required to express an opinion either and should be open to scrutiny and redress.
Without a proper interpretation, these rights can be abused by both individuals and governments. Interpreting the Constitution correctly is the only power our government has to control this right.
The freedom of the press cannot be abridged
Is this an absolute right? How could it be? There are expectations of privacy for individuals; we do not have the right to know or publish all about everyone. The Press has the right to witness, search, investigate, and publish, on events, crimes, public figures, politics, etc. but it must be responsible for what it publishes. It must be held to the same restrictions as freedom of speech. Neither can it be allowed to publish information vital to our national security, however, national security should not be used as an excuse to hide things that are not. It can be a thin line between the press’s responsibility to inform the public of the truth and what is detrimental to the safety of the nation. Freedom of the press is not freedom to lie, slander, defame, or twist the truth to promote your personal views or ideology. If not provable fact then it must be identified as supposition or opinion.
The Federal Government cannot abridge the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
The answer to the proper interpretation of this is so simple that any deviation must be intentional. Any assembly that violates or impedes the rights of another is not peaceful. Taking to the streets, hindering traffic whether motorized or foot is not a peaceful assembly. You have the right to peacefully assemble in your home, back yards, a park, rent a hall, a school auditorium, a Church, theater, over the Internet, or anywhere else that does not impede or prevent another from exercising their rights.
The Federal Government cannot abridge the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances
Petitioning the government is the proper way to protest. You publicly express your opinions, peacefully assemble with those like-minded or desirous to learn more of the matter, then you prepare a petition signed by all that agree and submit it to your representatives. This and voting are the only proper ways to protest. Civil disobedience is not protesting, it is a crime.
The only proper exercise of rights is to do so without impeding or preventing another from his. With rights come responsibilties.
It is the responsibility of every citizen to educate themselves as to where and how they can express their opinions without having to act out or resort to criminal behavior. With rights come responsibilities. There are only so many rights and they are shared by all. The only proper exercise of rights is to do so without impeding or preventing another from his.
Views: 2
