We have been covering the US Constitution line by line. When Republicans wave their paper props and parrot their vile machinations, we will be prepared to expose the lies. We have finished the main body of the Constitution. Now we turn to the Amendments. You can find the last article on the main body of the Constitution here. It has links to all the others. The text comes from The US Constitution.
Article [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.
This may be the most controversial sentence in US history.
The first clause provides a wall of separation between church and state. It does not forbid people of faith from participating in government. It does guarantee a level playing field for all faiths, including the faith that denies faith. This is highly controversial because it contradicts Republican attempts to impose the Christian faith, through such cultural issues as prayer in schools. They argue that, since the US was founded as a Christian nation, the founding fathers intended the establishment clause to forbid only favoring one Christian denomination over another. That as a lie. The founding fathers intended no such thing. The Treaty of Tripoli specifically states, “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”. It was ratified in the Senate unanimously in 1797, while the founding fathers were still serving there. Government may not provide facilities or financing to support religious activities.
Often ignored, this Amendment also forbid government to interfere with the free expression of any religion. This is also controversial, because Republicans often attempt to prevent the religious observances of non-Christian faiths. For example, they objected when Rep. Keith Ellison swore his oath of office on the Koran. We are all free to practice, or not practice, faith as we see fit without interference. Like most rights, this one does have limitations. My rights end at the tip of your nose. I may not practice in a way that interferes with your rights. If I believed in human sacrifice, I would be free to hold that belief, but I could not actually sacrifice a fellow American. Sacrificing a Canadian, on the other hand, might be OK. I’ll have to consider that further. 😉
We are guaranteed freedom of speech. Again it is limited. I may not yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre. I may not commit libel or slander. I may not encourage others to commit crimes of violence against abortion providers or census workers. I may not conspire to overthrow the US government, using Second Amendment solutions. Nowhere does this guarantee equate money with speech.
We are guaranteed freedom of the press. Its limits are the same as those on speech. This freedom is central to the issue of Net Neutrality. The Internet is the only way common people can freely publish our views without corporate censorship. To allow corporations to block or restrict our traffic is contrary to this guarantee.
We are guaranteed the right to peaceably assemble. Confining demonstrators to locations far from the venues at the Republican Convention of 2008 violated that right. Demonstrators who commit acts of violence and destroy property may rightly be arrested and prosecuted for those criminal acts, but to act on the assumption that all demonstrators will act criminally is unconstitutional.
We are guaranteed the right of redress. This right is the basis for lobbying. Republicans interfered with this right with the K Street Project, in which they denied access to lobbyists that did not agree to donate exclusively to Republicans.
I shall try to put up a new article in this series almost every day. It will take some time to cover it all, but when we’re done, we shall be immune to the lies with which Republicans seek to undermine our freedoms.
10 Responses to “Constitutional Amendments: Article I”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Actually we have evolved to the point where religion can practice politics from the pulpit which in my understanding of the amendment is contrary to it’s intent. I believe there should be no such thing as non profit tax exemptions for organizations that preach against the law of the land as religious duty (pro-life being the most obvious example). But we have also and this I am sure is going to be a stretch allowed church bells and Mosque loudspeakers to broadcast religious services toa wide area which impinges on the neighborhoods quietude.
Also the press being free is bullshit..Rupert Murdoch has paid billions for it, as well as Gannett and others. Why? because they know that whomever owns the press owns the people and their opinions. That is not to say every publication should be government owned or run because that would be just as bad but when we deregulated how many and what types of outlets any specific news organizations could be owned in any market we gave our right to a free press away.
Mark, I fully agree both that the religious right is violating the establishment clause with impunity and that any church that does so should not enjoy tax exemption. Public nuisance does not fall under freedom of religion or speech.
I’m pretty sure that freedom from censorship, is what was intended here. Even then a printing press required an investment. I would not nationalize the press, but I would break break up the concentration of ownership through antitrust regulation.
We don’t want to sacrifice the Canadians – we like them. Let’s pick some shitty dictator in Africa (take your pick there are plenty of them) to sacrifice. 🙂
I’m with TWM on the religious practices – the Founders never intended religion to creep into government like it has now – they are spinning in their graves. I also agree with churches losing their tax exempt status (hear me Mormons?) for practicing politics. They should stick to the their warped version of God and that’s it. Passing out leaflets, arguing from the pulpit, etc, should all be forbidden. If I were POTUS, I’d start a holy war against the churches until they learned their place.
I agree with full freedom of speech – even for shitheads like Rush and Fox News. However, like you said TC, corporations owning news organizations and the further consolidation of those organizations is not a good thing. For the news to be ‘fair and balanced’, both sides of the argument should be presented and that is not being done now.
I could rant for hours on this and bore you all to death, but I’ll stop now for the sake of everyone’s sanity. 🙂
OK 🙂
As individuals, they have the right to pass out political leaflets, but not as part of a church organized activity.
Rather than both sides, I would say all sides, but more important is a full and accurate representation of the facts. Facts are not politically biased.
Rant on!
With rights come responsibilities. People can say what they want, and the rest of us have a responsibility to voice the “common sense and decency” of that statement.
Used to be that if you claimed you were having a literal conversation with God the men in white coats would come and take you away.
Now if a pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell (dead) says God told them AIDS is our punishment for allowing homosexuality, or 9/11 was God’s revenge for allowing homosexuality in our society – the preacher gets millions of dollars in donations and millions of followers.
Common sense is dead in America. Hopefully the written rights will be enough to protect us, but I don’t think so.
Tom, I agree. It really blew me away when GW ChickenHawk said God told him to invade Iraq.
With rights come responsibilities. People can say what they want, and the rest of us have a responsibility to voice the “common sense and decency” of that statement.
Used to be that if you claimed you were having a literal conversation with God, the men in white coats would come and take you away.
Now if a Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell (dead) says God told them AIDS is our punishment for allowing homosexuality, or 9/11 was God’s revenge for allowing homosexuality in our society – the preacher gets millions of dollars in donations and millions of followers.
Common sense is dead in America. Hopefully the written rights will be enough to protect us, but I don’t think so.
I agree with this too. 😉
This may sound slightly off topic and I am not giving the right-wingers a pass by any means but one issue here is that civics education in this country is next to non-existent. Compared to many I am around, and strangely enough my wife who is a tax attorney, I seem to know a good deal more about the Constitution but the depth of these recent posts have been extremely informative.
While the Constitution is a fairly straight-forward document the era it was written in was light-years simpler than the times we live in now. I truly don’t believe most people understand how it affects them giving demagogues the chance to lie and tell half-truths.
Beach, I agree completely. Helping to correct that is part of my motivation. Of course some just wave the paper, because they falsely believe it backs up their hatred. The truth will not matter to those individuals.