1. Our first lesson today involves the nexus of grammar and of civics. The lesson goes beyond syntax, the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language, and centers on why, out of all the choices, particular words are used.
Begin with alpha and omega of America, the Constitution, and, perhaps, the best know portion of the Constitution, the first amendment:
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.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
And focus like a laser on this phrase: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
No wiggle room there...'no law.'
Not 'just a few laws'....or 'shouldn't abridge'.....because the Founders had no intention of forming a government based on 'whatever government says, goes.'
2. OK...here is the problem. An argument can be made that there are certain acceptable limits.... Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. pretty much nailed it with the 'no shouting fire' comment.
But.... once the camel has his nose under the tent, human being do what they do best: rationalize. They make reasonable arguments increasing, more and more, the things government won't/shouldn't allow to be said.
a. Kind of like the apocryphal example of the frog in cold water...
" There's an old folk warning that if you throw a frog in boiling water he will quickly jump out. But if you put a frog in a pan of cold water and raise the temperature ever so slowly, the gradual warming will make the frog dozehappily . . .in fact, the frog will eventually cook to death, without ever waking up."
snopes.com Slow Boiled Frog
Regulating speech to any degree is raising the temperature on the American electorate: how much of the 'heat' can we stand, before we're not America any longer?
How much 'regulation' of free speech?
And who benefits from said 'regulation'???
Have you noticed which party is regularly behind said 'regulation'?
3. So....what value is the first amendment..... "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..." ?
Answer: we have to stop well before we reach the boiling point....after all....who really suffers from luke warm water?
Every law, regulation, order, mandate, code, dictum, ordinance, should be held up to the specific language "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
4. As Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist so correctly said:
" Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf
(Justice Rehnquist was not of the party under discussion here.....)
Begin with alpha and omega of America, the Constitution, and, perhaps, the best know portion of the Constitution, the first amendment:
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.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
And focus like a laser on this phrase: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
No wiggle room there...'no law.'
Not 'just a few laws'....or 'shouldn't abridge'.....because the Founders had no intention of forming a government based on 'whatever government says, goes.'
2. OK...here is the problem. An argument can be made that there are certain acceptable limits.... Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. pretty much nailed it with the 'no shouting fire' comment.
But.... once the camel has his nose under the tent, human being do what they do best: rationalize. They make reasonable arguments increasing, more and more, the things government won't/shouldn't allow to be said.
a. Kind of like the apocryphal example of the frog in cold water...
" There's an old folk warning that if you throw a frog in boiling water he will quickly jump out. But if you put a frog in a pan of cold water and raise the temperature ever so slowly, the gradual warming will make the frog dozehappily . . .in fact, the frog will eventually cook to death, without ever waking up."
snopes.com Slow Boiled Frog
Regulating speech to any degree is raising the temperature on the American electorate: how much of the 'heat' can we stand, before we're not America any longer?
How much 'regulation' of free speech?
And who benefits from said 'regulation'???
Have you noticed which party is regularly behind said 'regulation'?
3. So....what value is the first amendment..... "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..." ?
Answer: we have to stop well before we reach the boiling point....after all....who really suffers from luke warm water?
Every law, regulation, order, mandate, code, dictum, ordinance, should be held up to the specific language "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
4. As Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist so correctly said:
" Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf
(Justice Rehnquist was not of the party under discussion here.....)
