Home » Posts tagged 'Bill of Rights'
Tag Archives: Bill of Rights
The Second Amendment Comes Right After the First Amendment
Not to insult your intelligence, but the second amendment comes right after the first amendment in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. The founding fathers believed that the right to bear arms was necessary to protect first amendment freedoms. They believed citizens possessed a right of protection of those rights from the government. Without the right to bear arms, the government could overstep its constitutional boundaries and threaten freedom of speech, religion, the press, redress of grievances, and assembly.
History
The Framers experienced tyranny firsthand and knew tyrants disarmed militias to eliminate them. They needed an armed citizen militia to resist an oppressive military if constitutional order broke down. Catholic rulers in England prohibited their Protestant subjects from owning firearms. In 1689, the English Bill of Rights corrected that injustice. In Heller v. District of Columbia (2008), the Supreme Court then ruled that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own guns, rather than the collective right of a state to have a militia. Yale Constitutional legal scholar, Akhil Reed Amar, wrote in a 2001 Utah Law Review article:
Consider once again the First Amendment. The core idea underlying the Founders’ Freedom of Speech Clause was a right to engage in political expression, especially anti-government speech. Intratextual and historical analysis confirms that this was the core idea: the phrase “freedom of speech” derives from the English Bill of Rights protecting “freedom of speech, and debates … in parliament. “Parliament,” from the French parler, “to speak,” is a parley place, a speaking spot. But Parliament is not quite a spot for any and all utterances: the core concept here is political expression.
Voting itself is a powerful individual expression. When citizens believe the government is nullifying their vote, they might protest. When they begin to think government is taking away their vote, the government might expect a forceful response.
Protection Against Tyranny
The First Amendment is often viewed as fundamental to a democratic society because it ensures that citizens can express their opinions and dissent against government actions without fear of retribution. This principle is essential for fostering a healthy political discourse. Following this foundational principle, the Second Amendment addressed concerns about self-defense and protection against tyranny. The framers believed that an armed populace could serve as a check against potential government overreach or oppression.
Philosophers like John Locke emphasized natural rights, including life, liberty, and property. These ideas influenced American thought during the founding era; thus, protecting individual rights became paramount in drafting both amendments. While both amendments protect individual rights, they do so in different realms. The First Amendment ensures that citizens can freely express their thoughts and assemble to advocate for their beliefs. The Second Amendment provides a means for individuals to defend those rights physically if necessary. In this sense, one could argue that the Second Amendment serves as a safeguard for the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Both first and second amendments emerged from a backdrop where individuals had recently fought against British rule. The Founding Fathers were acutely aware that oppressive governments could stifle individual rights through censorship (First Amendment) or disarmament (Second Amendment). When only one side of a political divide has the firearms, this quells or quenches the free expression on the other. Other threats can also stifle free speech. Without the possibility of citizens arising with arms, the police power of the government can enforce its own approved speech to the elimination of its citizens.
Case Study of January 6
I would ask that we consider January 6, 2001 as a case study of first amendment rights. For the last seventy-five years one political party participated in political speech accompanied with violence in the United States, the Democrat Party. Hundreds of examples exist and almost every one of them come from the left, including the BLM riots of 2020 with at least 25 killed that Summer. All of this resulted in thousands of deaths and multiple billions of dollars in damage. Anyone reading here knows that violent protests and rioting are the unique domain of the Democrats, the left, and their supporters. Citizens have tolerated these for decades. Then comes January 6.
January 6 was an outlier for right wing protests. The primary motivating factor was the perception of interference in the 2020 presidential election. Conservative authors have written numerous entire books and dozens of published articles outlining and giving evidence for the interference with the 2020 election by advocates of the Democrat Party. Four Trump supporters alone died that day, one unarmed Ashli Babbit, who was shot and killed. The crowd that day saw the election interference as a greater violation than the vitriol and hostility of its demonstration.
The United States government understands the threat of violence against it posed by the existence of the second amendment. Defense of liberty goes two ways.
Debate Moderators As a Paradigm for a Censorship State
Freedom of Speech
A distinguishing characteristic of American liberty from the rest of the world is the first amendment of its bill of rights and in particular the freedom of speech. The people of modern Western states, apparent allies of the United States, do not have this same right. England doesn’t and France doesn’t. As serious as any single issue in the 2024 presidential campaign season is the attack on the first amendment rights of American citizens.
The right to free speech couples with the right to the free expression of religion and the rights to freedom of assembly and the right to petition the state for the address of grievances. Long ago the state exempted the truth of the Bible from the public square. As an example, Hammurabi’s one appearance of one pillar and his one code count as history but the multiple ancient Hebrew copies of Old Testament do not. This practice is a deliberate abridgement of the free speech right.
Moderation of the Vice Presidential Debate
Last night, I watched the entire Vance-Walz Vice-Presidential debate. Like in the ABC debate, the two CBS moderators only fact-checked or moderated one candidate. Moderation of one and not the other is a form of censorship. I would ascertain that this is why Trump refuses a second Presidential debate.
Based on what he saw from the first debate, Vance challenged a “fact check” from Margaret Brennan on the true legality of Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio. Before the debate, the Associated Press reported that CBS agreed that the moderators would not fact-check the candidates in real-time. Instead, they left it to the candidates to fact-check each other. In the ABC debate, the moderators fact checked Trump four times and Harris zero.
The Fact Check
Vance did not need a fact check. His point was legitimate. Calling the Haitian migrants legal was an opinion, easily in dispute. It is part of a larger effort to use a fact-checking apparatus to treat a statement as misinformation. The entire exchange went like this:
JD VANCE: Margaret. The rules were that you guys were not going to fact check, and since you’re fact checking me, I think it’s important to say what’s actually going on. So there’s an application called the CBP One app where you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum or apply for parole and be granted legal status at the wave of a Kamala Harris open border wand. That is not a person coming in, applying for a green card and waiting for ten years.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you, Senator.
JD VANCE: That is the facilitation of illegal immigration, Margaret, by our own leadership. And Kamala Harris opened up that pathway.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you, Senator, for describing the legal process. We have so much to get to.
Point of Contention
Wikipedia accounts for the CBP One App to which Vance referred, also giving links to appropriate related information:
CBP One was launched on October 28, 2020 primarily to help commercial trucking companies schedule cargo inspections.
In January 2023, CBP One’s functionality was expanded to include unauthorized migrants seeking protection from violence, poverty, or persecution.
In May 2023, CBP One was designated by Biden administration as the only path to request asylum on the U.S.-Mexico border and book asylum appointments.
The President of the United States does not have Constitutional authority to open the border of the United States or allow anyone to enter the United States regardless of the law. The executive branch of the United States, the president, has authority to enforce the immigration laws. The president does not have power to create laws. The Constitution gives that authority to the Congress. Those laws are subject to the review of the judicial branch as to their Constitutionality.
If the president grants legal status to a migrant, that doesn’t make him legal. He is legal or illegal based on the laws of the United States, passed by Congress and signed by the president. If the president grants asylum to the Haitian migrants, that doesn’t mean they’re legal. This president has allowed tens of thousands of migrants to enter and then stay in the United States illegally. The debate was between Vance and Walz and it was up to Walz what to fact check of Vance, if necessary.
Moderation and Censorship
If the moderators of the debate wanted to save time for all their questions, as in Brennan saying, “We have so much to get to,” then don’t take time for their so-called fact checking. The fact checking is a form of censorship in which the media amplifies the power of and as a part of the administrative state as a force multiplier. It furthers one position as a party apparatus for the consolidation of power. The administrative state censors what does not agree with its position. This is a process by which it eliminates all opposition toward an authoritarian regime.
One party in this presidential race doesn’t see the need to do many interviews. It exerts the most control of societal institutions and structures in a powerful means. A relatively few elite in the United States exert a tremendous hold over the minds and imaginations of the country. Key leaders for the uniparty signal the importance of arriving at a censorship state. At the Sustainable Development Impact Meetings of the World Economic Forum, John Kerry said:
Our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to hammer [disinformation] out of existence. What we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change.
Restriction of Information
In addition he warned that “there are some people in our country who prepared to implement change by other means.” In a poll by Pew, now 55% of Americans (39% in 2018) support the federal government restricting false information. Pew also stated from its poll:
In addition, the share of U.S. adults who say that tech companies should take steps to restrict false information online has increased from 56% in 2018 to 65% in 2023.
False information, disinformation, and misinformation are all very easy to define as something that disagrees with conventional wisdom or a societal norm. For a long time, people used the words “politically correct.” That doesn’t mean it is correct, but that it is the acceptable position of an administrative state.
Punishing Unacceptable Speech
Authoritarian regimes prosecute and incarcerate unacceptable speech. They send those espousing a disagreeable position to reeducation camps. What suffers is the actual truth. It’s easy today to see the truth chilled in the public square. People are afraid to lose their jobs and livelihood because of espousing something that was a moral belief and behavior less than fifty years ago.
Satan knows the truth shall set you free (John 8:32-36). When you read the Bible, the government jailed those expressing something contradicting the favored position. When John the Baptist spoke truth to Herod, he lost his head and life. The government banished the Apostle John to the isle of Patmos and executed the other disciples. The direction of censorship and threats to the first amendment portend a return to such a day, where you will suffer and die for the truth. May we first be warned and then attempt to protect and keep these rights while we still can.
*********************************
Related video (speech by Matt Taibbi) to this subject matter and then a link to an article by Jonathan Turley, Constitutional scholar.
A Useful Exploration of Truth about Christian Nationalism
Probing Christian Nationalism
The mainstream media now uses the words “Christian nationalism” as a political cudgel against Republicans. Rob Reiner, the former “meathead” of Archie Bunker fame produced a documentary against his caricature of “Christian nationalism.” The left labels new Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, a “Christian Nationalist.” This last week, Politico writer, Heidi Przybyla, made news herself with this statement on television, attacking Christian Nationalism:
The thing that unites them as Christian nationalists, not Christians because Christian nationalists are very different, is that they believe that our rights as Americans and as all human beings do not come from any Earthly authority. They don’t come from Congress, from the Supreme Court, they come from God. . . . The problem with that is that they are determining, men, are determining what God is telling them.
Apparently this is news on the left, that people believe that rights come from God. This was, of course, found in the Declaration of Independence (1776) by the apparently Christian Nationalist, Thomas Jefferson:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Not long ago in 2018, professing conservative commentator, Jonah Goldberg, wrote something akin to Przybyla in National Review:
Let’s begin with some somewhat unusual assertions for these pages.
Capitalism is unnatural. Democracy is unnatural. Human rights are unnatural. God didn’t give us these things, or anything else. We stumbled into modernity accidentally, not by any divine plan.
Christian Discussion of Christian Nationalism
As much as the left picks Christian Nationalism as a talking point, Christians are discussing it. Here are important books in the debate:
The Case for Christian Nationalism, by Stephen Wolfe
Citizens & Exiles: Christian Faithfulness in God’s Two Kingdoms, by Scott Aniol
Also several have written many articles on Christian Nationalism, both pro and con. I understand the rise of the terminology. I’ve written posts here with a consideration of Christian Nationalism, but the very idea of consideration drew fierce opposition for even broaching the subject. Never have I said I agreed with Christian Nationalism. However, I have questions that did not and do not relate to the popularization of the concept of Christian Nationalism.
Basis For Considering Christian Nationalism
My questions and then thoughts, perhaps answers, arise from the following.
One
One, the first amendment of the Bill of Rights and to the United States Constitution guarantees religious freedom. The first sentence of the Bill of Rights starts with this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Analysis sees two clauses: (1) no establishment of state religion, and (2) free exercise of religion. I contend there is already the establishment of a state religion and that free exercise is at least abridged. The latter proceeds from the former. I like saying, “If there is a state religion, then it matters which one.” There is a state religion and it is against God, not even for God. Everyone does already subjugate to the anti-God state religion.
Two
Two, if the United States functions according to God-given rights, then it should not ignore the one and true God. All truth comes from God and it is a lie when the state will not acknowledge this. Going back to number one, it is a religion that rejects this, not neutrality.
The vacuum from great desire not to establish state religion acquiesces to false state religion. God is truth. The Bible is truth. The one God and His Word, the Bible, are not some tier of religion, which is separate from reality. This is our Father’s world. A nation cannot and will not function according to truth and laws without the acknowledgment of the true God.
Three
Three, God wants application of His Word to everything. The Bible is sufficient. God wants application of scripture to employment, to culture, to art, to government, yes, to everything and everywhere. To occur, this must be open, welcome, and purposeful. It should not be a process incessantly hidden or camouflaged, so as not to reveal its occurrence. Let God be God.
Four
Four, free exercise requires openness in conversation about everything in God’s Word. It requires quoting scripture like scripture is in fact authority. This means saying, we’re going to do this because God wants us to. God founded government. It isn’t matter and motion. Truly discussing rights, since they do come from God, requires including God in the discussion.
Opening the Can of Worms
I believe I can give more than the above four, but that’s enough to percolate thinking and expressing on this matter. The closing of the Constitution of the United States does not mean the end of discussion on the Constitution. It is not inspired. It is not God’s Word. Did it fail in the first amendment and really throughout the Constitution because of that failure?
Before the completion of the United State Constitution, Hamilton and Madison spent hundreds of pages discussing these ideas. Did that yield a perfect masterpiece? Is any kind of correction over? Questioning it is not akin to challenging the Word of God. I believe it is just the opposite. The Bible requires someone to prove it and even go back to the drawing board.
More to Come
Democrats Most Astonishing Hate of Democracy
The Symbol of the Reichstag in Germany
A pivotal moment in Hitler’s rise in Germany came from the Nazi burning of the Reichstag. They started the fire, put it out, and then blamed it on the Communists. Democrats in the United States steal this act in a campaign to destroy democracy. The Nazis convinced a large portion of the German population that the Communists burned down their Parliament building. Even their courts wouldn’t disagree.
The Democrats, which have the related word “democracy” imbedded in their name, similarly point the finger at Trump as an authoritarian or totalitarian. His policies looked and still look exponentially more democratic than the finger pointers. He would like the government out of most of the business of Americans. Evidence abounds for this, but let me first take a small step back.
Democracy
The United States isn’t a democracy. James Madison in Numbers 10 and 14 of the Federalist Papers makes this point quite well. But let’s set that aside for now.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that a Constitutional Republic is a form of democracy. A website called “Principles of Democracy” writes:
Freedom of speech and expression, especially about political and other public issues, is the lifeblood of any democracy. Democratic governments do not control the content of most written and verbal speech. Thus democracies are usually filled with many voices expressing different or even contrary ideas and opinions.
Citizens and their elected representatives recognize that democracy depends upon the widest possible access to uncensored ideas, data, and opinions. For a free people to govern themselves, they must be free to express themselves — openly, publicly, and repeatedly; in speech and in writing.
Freedom of Speech and Democracy
Wikipedia for “Freedom of Speech” reads:
Freedom of speech is understood to be fundamental in a democracy.
Democrats censor their opposition more than anyone and with unending examples. They are similar to the presence of Islam in any country. While Moslems are in a small minority, they cry for human rights, but the moment they take charge with less than a majority, they eliminate unfavorable voices.
Oligarchy followed democracy in Greece. Democrats control a vast majority of the public square in America. I include in that schools, media, and even government. They gladly censor opposing viewpoints. The Democrat controlled institutions don’t allow the truth of the Bible. Unless Christians privately fund their own museum, you won’t see a creation account in public. Democrats label many biblical truths, “hate speech.”
Censorship
Democrats use both hard and soft censorship. By hard censorship, I mean official and legal disallowance of a place and opportunity to speak. It may be the loss of a job, because the Democrats don’t hear a statement of support for same sex activity. That turns the non-speaker, who would like to say something against the activity but doesn’t, into enemy status.
By soft censorship, I mean an avalanche of public repudiation and ridicule until speakers do not receive opportunities to speak. It’s also moderating who speaks. The establishment offers a phony, a fraud, as the representative of the alternative point of view, who goes along with the official or permitted position. Very little to nothing comes in a way of supporting the alternative position.
A historic label for soft censorship is the “kangaroo court.” The J6 Committee is a good example of this, but they abound in every state in either blue states, districts, or regions. They also exist in red areas with blue strongholds. The committee cherry picks their own rubber stamps to represent opposition. Opposition is actually major support with a fake label of opposition. I would hope everyone knows this, but I’m afraid it fools just enough of the disengaged.
Other Examples
The J6 Committee parallels with the internet. You read about the “algorhythms.” The oligarchs of the tech industry force opposition or non-supportive speech into an uninhabited hinterland. They are whole national forests of trees that fall and no one hears, so they don’t make a noise. Only approved speech moves into a hearing zone. Yes, people published something, but no one is reading, because no one is seeing.
The Hunter Biden laptop is a good example too. I say these are just examples of what is now normal. Any supportive tweet or internet entry of the laptop goes unseen, censored as disinformation. The censorship itself is the disinformation, much like the Russian collusion operation. I think this is the least of it though. It’s a censorship industry.
The industry removes the bad news about the favored issue or person. Right now, it has the ability to project a pro-Hamas experience, despite a relatively powerful coalition for Israel. Pro-Palestinian protestors crowd the White House and knock down a protective fence with little coverage from the media. The industry does not parallel or hearken to anything insurrectionist.
Massive Scale Elimination of Democratic Values
As I write on this subject, the most massive scale about which I speak is in education, where for years, the Bible, God, righteousness, and creation and the like are kept out of the massive state school complex even in red states. No one can take a male headship position in anything close to a public square. Can you imagine a professor at a major university who takes open biblical views? It doesn’t happen except in private. You must pay to hear the truth told.
I would agree that the Bill of Rights and especially the first amendment is the essence of democratic values. When do you read anything from the left defending free speech anymore? Democrats don’t write about their love for the first amendment. The closest is a totalitarian support of smut for small children in public schools and genderless bathrooms. These are not about the protection of speech or opportunity to have a voice.
Pent-Up Voices
The J6 crowd came to a rally and then walked to the capital out of a long pent-up frustration of censorship. Yes, better means of expression exist. The high percentage of silencing from the left came to a logger head. That group that day did wrong things. This is not what-aboutism. I see that day as the equivalent of throwing snow balls at the Old State House in Boston in 1770. The censorship industry, I’m afraid, because of its reaction, has not seen the worst.
We could hope that people care enough to do something about the actual attack on democracy from the Democrat Party. So far, I see it as a peaceful embrace of those who would allow free speech. It seems most represented by an ability to oppose masks and vaccinations. Still, do positions exist for scientists with an opposing view? Are there safe places of employment in hospitals and in medical schools with an alternate view? I’m saying this is just representative, because the worst relates to far more important issues of truth.
Democrats have a burning Reichstag type hatred of democracy. The Nazis opposed burning the Reichstag. But they burned it. The Democrats don’t mind burning everything down to get their way. They don’t care if you vote or not. They don’t even want you able to say what they don’t want to hear.
Recent Comments