Unless centralized American education is even worse than I fear, you know that the Bill of Rights is what we call the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Many people (and states), during the ratification phase of enacting the Constitution, were just on the edge of ratifying but insisted on a "Bill of Rights" to spell out and ensure certain rights would never, ever be violated by the new government. They liked the general premise of what had been drawn up but were understandably suspicious of a new central government not abiding.
It was a seemingly reasonable request which was ultimately granted, securing the ratification on the promise of a forthcoming "Bill of Rights". Many Federalists, however, opposed the inclusion. They held that it was unnecessary. The Constitution itself granted the People ALL rights, with the exception of the few enumerated rights which it granted to the government. The whole idea was "Federal government, you may/must do this and that. And nothing more. People, these are the powers/rights the federal government holds. ALL OTHER RIGHTS/POWERS NOT ENUMERATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BELONG TO YOU."
Alexander Hamilton argued this point eloquently in Federalist No. 84. It was rightfully feared by some that a listing of such rights for the People would one day be interpreted not as a reinforcement of just a handful of all of the rights they retained, but rather an exhaustive list of them. They felt it redundant at best and dangerous at worst to explicitly prohibit the federal government from doing things they had no power to do anyway under the Constitution. The danger would be in the future when would-be usurpers would say "you listed 'this' but not 'that', so we're going to claim the power to do 'that'." Alas, within two centuries their fear was realized.
Nonetheless, the request was granted to the Antifederalists and the Constitution was ratified.
So, let's examine 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 of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This seemingly straight-forward proclamation is violated everyday. Remember, even these amendments comprising the Bill of Rights, are to be restrictions on the government, not on the People. The people are to still be free to establish religion. To choose to practice or exercise the religion of their choice. Or not to, if they so desire. Allowing a nativity scene on a city courthouse lawn does not constitute the government establishing a religion. Its presence forces no one to practice or exercise Christianity. Non-Christians, if they wish, may ignore it or even verbally mock or ridicule it. But they are not forced to become Christians by it. Same for a Jewish or Muslim display. All are to be freely displayed.
On the other hand, BANNING such displays in the public forum does in fact constitute a governmental "prohibition of the free exercise thereof". As does compelling someone to perform a service for a same-sex wedding. In fact, liberals stomp up and down about separation of church and state which is NOT in the Constitution, except perhaps in one direction: keep GOVERNMENT out of RELIGION. That said, there is no basis for government monitoring, regulating, banning or legalizing marriage of any sort. Homosexuals should be free to marry in any church that is VOLUNTARILY WILLING to marry them. There should be no legal question about it, especially at the federal level and especially with regard to forcing a church to perform/recognize the wedding/marriage. The only reason Feds are involved in marriage in the first place was to regulate it to prevent interracial marriages. Later, that control became convenient in manipulating people with the tax code.
Peaceable assembly and free speech are also under attack when agencies like IRS intimidate or burden groups like TeaParty, saddling them with tax uncertainty and rendering them far less potent than they should rightfully be. Also while deeming violent assembly such as Black Lives Matter as "peaceable" when their rhetoric has led to the senseless deaths of scores of police officers.
Next up: Amendment II.
No comments:
Post a Comment