Journal wowbagger's Journal: Bye-Bye Karma 9
Well, I just went against the groupthink, so I can expect several "Troll" and "Flamebait" mods.
I just pointed out the logical inconsistency of being pro-First Amendement, but anti-Second amendment. Thus, I have sinned against the groupthink of the common
I go to the pyre willingly....
Re:whatever man (Score:1)
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.
Which clearly says that churches and newspapers have freedom of speech, but that people are only allowed to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. It in no way protects an individual's right to say anything.
Re:whatever man (Score:2)
Read it again, it is an OR construction:
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.
In an OR clause, satisfying any one condition is sufficient to statisfy the whole.
In other words, any law that prohibits freedom of speech is in violation.
Re:whatever man (Score:2)
And none of those statements, taken invidually or severally, gives any individual the right to free speech. The phrase "or abridging the freedom of speech" does not identify the party who whom the freedom is granted. The second amendment clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". If the so-called clarifying phrase can be used to contort what the constitution so clearly states as "the people", then the mention of the press and religion in the first amendment can certainly be taken to mean that only federally registered churches and newspapers have the right to free speech.
This is an exercise in applied Constitutional interpretation. In no way do I actually seek to prove that individuals don't have the freedom to speak freely. I am attempting to point out that if the same standard of analysis which concludes that the 2nd amendment gives only soldiers the right to bear arms, then any of our rights can be swept aside, simply by applying that analysis to other parts of the Constitution.
Re:whatever man (Score:2)
(Also, I noticed that you were responding to a troll, which I had not seen, so I wasn't getting the full context of your post. I don't normally see nor respond to trolls....)
Personally, this is why I think the entire Supreme Court should be removed from the bench and barred from future legal practice - some of their recent decisions have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding or support for the intentions of our founding fathers.
Sometimes I wonder if we wouldn't be better under Robert Heinlein's system in Starship Troopers - to be eligible to vote or hold office, you must serve society in some way first, to demonstrate your ability to put the many ahead of yourself.
Like that would happen.... (sigh)
Re: Heinlein had a great idea, but... (Score:1)
Astfgl (who would more aptly be referred to as Agrajag, but some kneebiter already took it)
Re: Heinlein had a great idea, but... (Score:2)
I won't pursue that - even immortals get tired of such things.
And don't worry about your desired nick being taken, I suspect it will be open up soon - here come Mr. Dent....