Posted on 09/15/2011 9:07:34 AM PDT by Kaslin
“nor is it the foundation of conservatism”
Neither is the Constitution, by the way. Conservatism is much bigger.
It seems to me that "press" and "speech" are simply two forms of "expression". The freedom of both is protected. I think it's fairly easy to fold those two into one, and further to fold the "petition for redress of grievances" into it as well. I don't agree with folding those three freedoms/rights into one, but I can see how somebody might do it.
I see freedom to practice one's own religion and freedom from having to support (or even put up with) some other religion that has been established by the state as two very distinct freedoms.
I don't see how there is any rational basis for folding the two religious protections into one "freedom of religion" and NOT folding the three expressive protections into one "freedom of expression".
I suggest looking at the placement of commas in the 1A because the commas separate six distinct things that the Congress is forbidden to do.
1) It is forbidden to establish a religion.
2) It is forbidden to prohibit the free exercise of religion.
3) It is forbidden to abridge the freedom of speech.
4) It is forbidden to abridge the freedom of the press.
5) It is forbidden to "pass a law respecting" the right of the people to peaceably assemble
6) It is forbidden to "pass a law respecting" the right of the people to petition the Government.
Check out this two page pdf on the Article III power. The Supreme Court was never designed to be supreme over the other branches of government.
Despite common belief, the courts can be checked by Congress. The only reason they have not, is because the politicians like unelected judges taking the heat for unconstitutional decisions instead of them.
Ditto you comment re: Bush. It made me cringe too.
Here is another thing Congress can do. The only Constitutionally established court is Scotus. I say a BIG BANG is needed to clear out the Marxists in the lower courts. Assuming conservatives retake Congress next year, we can Disestablish the entire lower system and replace them with Constitutional judges. Continue to pay the Commies that were pushed aside so as to not violate the Constitution, but GET THEM OFF THE BENCH!
Until the rot of generations of Marxist judges is excised from our body politic, our republic will continue downward into tyranny.
“It seems to me that ‘press’ and ‘speech’ are simply two forms of ‘expression’”
The press involves speech, obviously, and certainly much of what they do could be covered by free speech alone. But they also expect, and often get, special consideration having nothing to do with speech. I couldn’t name all these considerations, only to say that I know they don’t include, for instance, freedom from being compelled to testify on the basis that you don’t want to reveal a source, since I know that’s been decided against the press. Access is one, I gather, as are invidious taxes. Not bills of attainder, either, but special taxes against newspapers in general, for instance. These considerations are not absolutes, of course, but then again neither is free speech.
“I see freedom to practice one’s own religion and freedom from having to support (or even put up with) some other religion that has been established by the state as two very distinct freedoms.”
I see trumping up the government not being able to establish religion to an individual’s freedom from having to support some religion as an abuse of language. You could warp any restriction on the power of the state as a freedom in this manner, or frankly any authorization of power if you’re clever enough, too, which dilutes what we commonly mean when we refer to freedom.
“what we commonly mean when we refer to freedom”
Rather, I should say what we commonly mean when we refer to specific freedoms.
“I don’t see how there is any rational basis for folding the two religious protections into one ‘freedom of religion’ and NOT folding the three expressive protections into one ‘freedom of expression’”
There’s one pretty obvious rational basis, in that the different freedoms of expression are specified, whereas on of the religious items does not constitute a freedom, or at least a much more roundabout freedom than the others.
on of the religious items = one of the religious items
“I suggest looking at the placement of commas in the 1A because the commas separate six distinct things that the Congress is forbidden to do”
You wouldn’t need to worry about comma placement to get that meaning. In fact, I don’t think you’ll find much of anyone to argue against there being six forbiddens in amendment one.
Oh it is it? What is the foundation of conservatism then?
“What is the foundation of conservatism then?”
That’s harde to say, but just off the top of my head, and speaking very broadly, it’s hard to imagine what conservatives would be without the Western Tradition, the Wisdom of the Ancients, and the oft referred to Judeo/Christian Worldview, and all predate the U.S. Constitution.
There, one can see the Supreme Court cases, Wheat; etc., that point out that gold and silver are real money.
Also, I would note that while the Articles of Confederation allow for fiat currency; e.g., emit bills of credit, that language was omitted from our Constitution.
harde = hard
Under the 1A, the following are protected:
1) Freedom from the imposition of an established religion.
2) Freedom from restrictions on the practice of one's own religion.
3) Freedom to speak as one wishes
4) Freedom to publish as one wishes
5) The right to peaceably assemble
6) The right to petition the Government.
Sorry ... no matter how you cut it, it's six. Not five.
“Sorry ... no matter how you cut it, it’s six.”
Not if “cut it” by not counting the establishement clause as a freedom, which it isn’t.
Not if cut it = Not if you cut it
Main Entry: free·dom
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another c : the quality or state of being exempt or released from something onerous
2 a : a political or civil right b : FRANCHISE 2
So:
The absence of ... coercion to support a state religion with which one disagrees.
the quality or state of being exempt ... from something onerous like supporting a state religion with which one disagrees.
The "no establishment" clause protects a freedom (from a state religion).
Not knowing who did the painting I looked it up. He is very good; I had to share the link.
Thanks for finding it.
What else could you possibly want to conserve any more than the Constitution, the very foundation America? We have fallen far. The constitution is the only way back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.