REDO THE FIRST TWO AMENDMENTS

BOSTON GLOBE ^ | 16 DECEMBER 2021 | MARY ANNE FRANKS

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Speech and guns: two of the most contentious issues in America today, with controversies fueled not only by personal passions and identity politics but by competing interpretations of the Constitution. Perhaps more than any other parts of the Constitution, the First and Second Amendments inspire religious-like fervor in many Americans, with accordingly irrational results.

As legal texts go, neither of the two amendments is a model of clarity or precision. More important, both are deeply flawed in their respective conceptualizations of some of the most important rights of a democratic society: the freedom of expression and religion and the right of self-defense. These two amendments are highly susceptible to being read in isolation from the Constitution as a whole and from its commitments to equality and the collective good. The First and Second Amendments tend to be interpreted in aggressively individualistic ways that ignore the reality of conflict among competing rights. This in turn allows the most powerful members of society to reap the benefits of these constitutional rights at the expense of vulnerable groups. Both amendments would be improved by explicitly situating individual rights within the framework of “domestic tranquility” and the “general welfare” set out in the Constitution’s preamble.

[John S Mosby]

This whacko left out some key words, words that provide context as well as clear explanation:

“Well regulated” -— does NOT mean regulations by agencies
it meant and it means-— a well trained, ably
skilled in weaponry (maintenance, proficiency in shooting,
and well supplied with ammunition.

“Militia”- the word is capitalized, and the Militia was composed of all the able bodied (men) able to carry and use arms. The Federalist papers make clear that the Militia is
“all of the people” able to be called up. It does not mean the National Guard which is part of the DOD, except that each state’s Guard answers to the State’s governor.

“the People”— all law abiding citizens of the US. And the People are also the Militia- one and the same in participatory Republic.

“Security of a Free State”— means the security of the state of being Free. Not having a thing to do with any of the 50 States, but of all the people having the security of being Free.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The problem with the First Amendment is that in 1964 the Warren Court blatantly - and unanimously! - misread it.

The First Amendment refers to “the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Well, guess what! “The freedom of speech, or of the press” refers to freedom as it existed before the ratification of the First Amendment.

The Federalists didn’t put a bill of rights in the Constitution precisely because they wanted no controversy over rights to arise in the debate over ratification of the Constitution. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments basically, in the mind of the Federalists, should not have been understood to be necessary - but they absolutely should have been sufficient without the first eight amendments.

The Warren Court posited that liability to libel/slander suits limited “first amendment freedom.” But in reality, the first amendment did not define freedom of speech and press. It only declared that freedom of speech/press was not changed by the Constitution.

And that is why the right not to be libeled or slandered was not changed by the Constitution. As everyone understood prior to 1964 and the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Remember when the Left used to be against censorship? And segregation? And human medical experimentation? And prosecution of dissent? And political prisoners? And nationalism? And . . . ?

[SunkenCiv]

Partisan Media Shill and Stooge alert.

Thanks RACPE.

[FreedomPoster]

>because it’s rare for them to even admit it exists and gives recognizes intrinsic rights to people obtain by being born, irrespective of whether governments recognize them or not.

FTFY

[BobL]

Agree, I was careless. The right to be free should NOT take a government to provide.

[FreedomPoster]

BTW we were doing a bunch of stuff two days ago and grabbed lunch from a McDonald’s that was *in* a Wal-Mart! Then ate in the car on the way to the next thing.

😃

Given your tagline I just thought you should know.

[EastTexasTraveler]

The author obviously has no idea what the constitution is about.

[5th MEB]

The Second Amendment doesn’t GIVE a right to anybody, it just enters into coded law the GOD GIVEN RIGHT to defend yourself, your family, your neighbors and your property.

[bitt]

p

[null and void]

I’d consider reversing the order.

[null and void]

Far better would be an amendment that guarantees a meaningful right to bodily autonomy

Well Mary Anne, you mean things like refusing a vaccine? Right? Right???

[null and void]

[null and void]

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Barack Hussein Obama, 7/2/2008

They don’t call it a Civil Defense force, that would imply we need (or perhaps that we deserve) defense. The official name is National Civilian Community Corps.

I think of it as the NatCCC, or more simply, as the NatCs...

[stylin19a]

knew it was in there somewhere “...equality and the collective good....”