…Think about this for a moment. The people have the freedom to believe, or not believe anything they wish, and may not be prohibited from doing so. The people may speak their mind and have it published and may not be censored or imprisoned for their opinions. The people have the right to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. That does not mean being herded into parking lots or barbed wire enclosures far away, where the petitionees never hear or see them, nor does it permit the government to disperse them with gas, cattle prods and rubber bullets, if the government does not approve of their concern…
Click Here for More Related Commentary
It seems to be a far right and left wing sport these days to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States. One group wants an amendment against burning the flag. Another wants an amendment banning the word God, or any reference to religion or prayer on government property. Yet another wants to get on the band wagon to ban marriage between various groups and sexual orientations. And still another wants to constitutionally legislate the reproductive rights of women. If there is anything one dislikes, the way to solve the problem is to pass a Constitutional amendment banning it. That’ll teach ’em!
If one takes the time to study the question, you will find that of the twenty-seven amendments now added to the Constitution (That is seventeen amendments after the Bill of Rights in over two hundred years) all but one have been to clarify or enhance the individual rights of Americans, or to clarify points of government (such as the two term rule for presidents, 22nd amendment).
The one amendment to infringe on personal rights and behavior, the 18th amendment adopting prohibition of alcohol in the United States in 1919, was finally thrown out in 1933 by adoption of the 21st amendment, the repeal of prohibition. The amendment process is a very cumbersome way to enact laws.
Some might question the 16th amendment establishing the income tax as an infringement of rights, but I guess that is just business.
The point is that, when our Constitution was framed in 1797, the founders of our country had had enough of autocratic and arbitrary government dictating what individuals could and could not do in their private lives. They wanted a separation of church and state, not because they were atheists, but because they had seen the results of theocracy in history. Religion was not to be used as an excuse to rule our lives and personal behavior. Most of the signers of the Constitution were religious, God-fearing citizens. The blessings of God are invoked before sessions of Congress, the President swears on the Bible to uphold the Constitution when he takes office. Religious freedom is a cornerstone of our nation. That means the religious freedom of Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, and any other religion or sect that wishes to worship. It also includes atheists. It does not give any of them the right to banish other beliefs, nor for the atheist to ban them all.
Freedom of expression was declared sacrosanct. This causes problems today, mostly as a matter of taste, but the framers of the Constitution knew from experience what censorship really led to and they wanted to protect the new nation from it. This is the wording of the 1st amendment.
Article 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.
Think about this for a moment. The people have the freedom to believe, or not believe anything they wish, and may not be prohibited from doing so. The people may speak their mind and have it published and may not be censored or imprisoned for their opinions. The people have the right to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. That does not mean being herded into parking lots or barbed wire enclosures far away, where the petitionees never hear or see them, nor does it permit the government to disperse them with gas, cattle prods and rubber bullets, if the government does not approve of their concern.
Read carefully our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the seventeen amendments attached. You will find that most of those amendments were to enhance the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, not to restrict them. The 13th ended slavery, the 15th guaranteed that rights could not be denied on the basis of race, the 19th gave women the right to vote, the 24th ensured that no one’s suffrage would be restricted by a poll tax, the 26th gave suffrage to 18 year olds. (If memory serves, the argument for this one was if you are old enough to be drafted into the military and sent to war, you should be old enough to vote for or against the ones sending you there.)
Most of the failed amendments were of a personally restrictive nature, such as anyone who received a title or honor from another government without the approval of Congress would lose their citizenship. Or the proposed amendment prohibiting amendments that interfered with slavery.
The point is that the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights are the documents establishing a government of a free people. The 9th and 10th amendments state that non-enumerated rights remain with the people, or the individual states. The Constitution was not ratified as a document to micro-manage the activities of individual citizens, but to protect them.
The other function of the Constitution is to establish a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.” This was supposed to be ensured by having the government formed of the three branches, the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial. These three branches have carefully enumerated duties, and each of the three was to provide a check and balance on the others.
The Executive was to provide for the day to day operation of the government, be the Commander in Chief of the military, could make treaties with foreign governments (which required ratification by two thirds of the Senate, upon which ratification, the treaty becomes one of the laws of the land). He is empowered to make certain appointments, some unilaterally, and some with the approval of Congress.
The Legislative branch was to pass laws, regulate commerce and tariffs, see to the printing of currency, handle excise and customs, etc.
The Judicial was to see that laws and acts in the United States were in line with the Constitution of the United States and did not infringe upon the rights of the people.
The intent was to see that, for instance, the Executive branch did not assume dictatorial powers, or the Legislative branch did not pass unconstitutional laws infringing upon the rights of the people. The judicial was to rule upon these questions, ruling within the framework of the Constitution.
The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other amendments make up a remarkably concise document, easily understandable. These links will give you the complete documents:
Read and study it for yourself, then analyze what is going on in the United States today. Then use your guaranteed right of suffrage to try to bring the government back in line with the Constitution it is sworn to uphold. The choice is yours, mine, every citizen’s, but time may be running out. Power is becoming more centralized and government entities are tending more toward considering the Constitution as nothing more than an obsolete impediment to rule. If we wish to retain our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, we must act, not by proposing special interest amendments, but by protecting the existing document and seeing that it is still enforced as the law of the land.
Written by Stephen M. Osborn, and published at www.populistamerica.com. Stephen is a freelance writer living on Camano Island in the Pacific Northwest. He is an “Atomic Vet.” (Operation Redwing, Bikini Atoll 1956, ) who has been very active working and writing for nuclear disarmament and world peace. He is a retired Fire Battalion Chief, lifelong sailor, writer, poet, philosopher, historian and former newspaper columnist. He welcomes your feedback at theplace@whidbey.net
