"Life Without Consequences; a Hollywood Fairytale" a must read!

Republican Daily News ^ | 04/18/03 | Paul Walfield

[LizJ]

I happened to catch the beginning of the Dr. Laura show this morning. I don't know if it is taped from yesterday, but she said Susan Sarandon was one of the voices that rallied against her and she found Timmy's rant quite funny on that basis.

Oh yes, I forgot about that. You can see Susan Sarandon's name listed at the bottom of this web-page thanking her for her support in ending Dr. Laura's TV show. What hypocrisy.

StopDrLaura.com

[tlrugit]

Gadzooks! Do you mean to tell me that the Constitution protects my lips but not my teeth? How can this be?

[political_chick]

Hello:

I don't mean to offend you, but your post makes no sense. The first amendment is the first amendment and it concerns free speech among other freedoms. The fact that the initial draft had 2 amendments that were NOT ratified proves the author's point and dismisses yours.

While that particular history is interesting to know, it is also irrelevant to the article. Perhaps you need to do a little more studying and try to understand that many, many more items were left out of the Bill of Rights, which you correctly note is part of the Constitution.(they are called amendments for a reason, Bob).

The final draft, our Constitution and Bill of Rights is what we base our freedoms on, not on the papers and ideas that hit the floor and were never passed, Bob.

[Congressman Billybob]

No, I did not miss the point, the writer of the article did.

The ORIGINAL First Amendment as written by James Madison, failed of ratification. The ORIGINAL Second Amendment seemed to have been defeated at the time (when there were only 14 states). However, after 200 years as states continued to ratify it, it became part of the Constitution as the 27th Amendment. (That is called "The Madison Amendment" because it came from his pen.)

So, I AM dealing with the Constitution as written and ratified. And the author of the article IS wrong to refer to the First Amendment as the first right laid down by the Framers. The author was speaking ignorantly, and I'm just helping Freepers know more than members of the press -- which is often a fairly easy task.

Congressman Billybob

[political_chick]

Dear Bob:

Thanks for letting all who care to know that you believe that the first amendment to the Constitution, is really the 27th. And you think the author is mistaken?

Anyway, trivia can be fun, but its called trivia for a reason. The point of my reply remains, Bob.

You want to dwell on irrelevant aspects to make a trivial point that has no bearing on the article or anyone who read it. Read my first reply, Bob, stuff that gets discarded doesn't count, all that matters is what was ratified.

Basically, you added nothing in the way of a rebuttal, Bob. The first amendment is the first amendment and more to the point, your comments concern a collateral issue that even if you were correct, which you so far away from it is silly, it would not change what the author's point was anyway.

Just the same, thanks for the fun.

[Political Junkie Too]

when more than 200 proposals for the Bill of Rights were assembled in Congress, James Madison (by then a Member of the House) distilled those to 17 Amendments which passed the House. The Senate passed only 12 of those.

Furthermore, the First Amendment was a conglomeration of the other remaining House Amendments. The right to assemble, the right to worship, the right to free speech, the right to a free press, and the right to petition the government were all separate amendments that the Senate combined into one amendment.

-PJ