I'm seeking serious responses please

[DawntreaderView]

Hello all,

I am seeking serious responses to the following thesis.

"When you examine the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution as you would examine any sentence in the English language you discover that the word, 'Congress' is the subject of the sentence.

The following is the thesis to the above: "As Congress is the subject of the sentence and therefore is thethe entity being addressed in the sentence. This therefore means that every other citizen of the United States is not being addressed by the first amendment." Where is the flaw in the above thesis? Thank you. Patrick

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by DawntreaderView
Hello all,

I am seeking serious responses to the following thesis.

"When you examine the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution as you would examine any sentence in the English language you discover that the word, 'Congress' is the subject of the sentence.

The following is the thesis to the above: "As Congress is the subject of the sentence and therefore is thethe entity being addressed in the sentence. This therefore means that every other citizen of the United States is not being addressed by the first amendment." Where is the flaw in the above thesis? Thank you. Patrick

The flaw is on the false supposition that the Constitution is for the masses.

The Constitution is a document to divide power between the branches of government and ONLY THAT.

It was given the Bill of Rights not as a collection of plugs in the "holes" nor as additional points.

The Virginia Bill of Rights, was the original ratified legal draft and stated the rights of the citizen in contrast to the government. This was becauses they just escaped oppresion from government and were establishing their own nation with rights for citizens OVER THEIR GOVERNMENT.

As such, the final draft was the newley created Bill of Rights which did the same. It completed the balance of power guidelines by illustrating the power of citizens.

As it did, the 1st Amendment was speaking of Congress- the citizens appointed representatives which had the power over other governmental bodies. They were to make law on behalf of citizens as citizens saw fit.

A Constitutional Republic elects representatives to do things for them as instructed by the guidelines of the Constitution. -That is what we are.

This Amendment tells the ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITIZENS (Congress) how they may or may not make law for the purpose of keeping things in check.

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 the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What this means is that the people as represented, in the only legal law making entity, may not encroach upon religion or its practice. -They may not pass law for or against.

They may not even slightly hinder free speech, or free press. They may not also even hinder the right of people to gather and adress grievances with govt.

-In short, this limits any law ever being passed for such purposes.

And if you look at the Constitution:
Article V1:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Constitution is the highest law there is.

NOTHING may ever legally contradict it.

PERIOD.

 

[DawntreaderView]

Hello New Guy,

I think we concur. In my supposition and in my thesis I only broached the first amendment belonging to the bill of rights. Then I only broached the topic of the first amendment as a sentence of English grammar. Then I raised the thesis that, "Congress" being the subject of the First amendment dictates to whom the first amendment is addressing. As it is that elected body which is supposed to represent those who voted them into office it clearly then means that the sentence does not address 'the masses' as you put it.

My reason for address the First Amendment and only the first amendment is that there are other 'thesis' to follow. The purpose of these multiple thesis is to create an arguement which one day I will need when I become a teacher in the public school system and say something which can bring the ACLU and other liberal groups against me.

I am willing to see this taken back before the Supreme Court and force that 'body' to do their job and rule that, 'There is no seperation of Church and State ' to be found in the First amendment either by the grammatical syntax found or by way of inuendo based on ambiguity of intent on the part of the founders of our country.

Thank you,
Patrick

PS: I am respectfully requesting all responses to be held to only that which addresses my thesis and also to the grammatical structure found in the sentence structure of the First Amendment.