For Your Consideration: Constitutional Principle Purest II

By / For Your Consideration / Wednesday, 01 March 2017 05:00

Contributing Writer

A Purist might suggest that our Founders made a mistake when they failed to include the basic principles as a guide for the passage of any regulations, or Amendments that should be applied at every level of government. Apparently there were factions that were seeking to establish a power base in our early development, the resistance to the Bill of Rights is a good indication of the opposition to its inclusion in the Constitution, which could have found a logical position in the preamble to the Constitution. A Purist would jump for joy if the Nation decided to have a Constitutional convention and inserted the Bill of Rights and the basic principles into the Preamble of the Constitution, but it should not end there, each Amendment that has been made over the centuries should be reviewed for their compliance with the basic principles, and if an Amendment fails to comply with the basic principles, it should be repealed.
The Supreme Court, in all probability, has given rulings that are counter to the basic principles, but this problem is not limited to the Supreme Court, it’s found throughout the judicial system.  There are changes in how we perceive actions in the Bill of Rights that have occurred over time as a result of cultural perspectives that lead the public to accept an incorrect interpretation as being the true meaning of an Amendment, which was then accepted by the judicial system as being the correct interpretation. Amendment I of the Constitution is a good example of the distortions that have developed over the centuries. The first section of this Amendment addresses religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”.  The first section has on religion has frequently been quoted, but the second section has been ignored. It’s clear that the government has no intention of getting involved in the establishment of any religious denomination, or in restricting the free expression of a religion.
The Constitution only recognizes the existence of a Supreme Entity, Creator, or God, but not of any established religious denomination. This means that if a community wants to open a proceeding with a prayer, the community is within its rights, and it’s not an indication of the community acknowledging the established denomination. Political correctness is just one more way of restricting the freedom of speech, something the general public is accepting as normal, but this curtailing of free speech is starting to be carried to extremes.
The second part of this Amendment addresses free speech: “or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;”, which means that the wording can’t be changed in any way, and the same rules apply to the press, but the individual and press should be acutely aware of the impact of the
words being used, because some utterances’ can open the person or press to legal ramifications. It’s also important to communicate a message so that one’s audience understands the point you are trying to make, and one would hope that the message is meant for the rational part of the brain, rather than the emotional primitive part. In the end it all comes down to the person or press that is in control of the limiting factor or forces outside of the initiator. The press has assumed a position that it has a special position as the Fourth Estate, but when it fails to function in a fair and impartial manner, it should not receive any more validity than the man on the street, and for the most part this is the condition of our press today, it’s no different than Russia’s Pravda.
The final segment addresses: “; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” If one reads this carefully, they will find that many of our meetings are anything but peaceful, and most of the time the actions tend to block others from expressing their concerns, so in-fact these activist should be
escorted out of these meeting, or put in jail for preventing others from exorcizing their freedom of speech, the actions are more akin to what one would find in a dictatorship, or an anarchist that is opposed to our Constitution.
Much more could be said about these three sections of this Amendment, but at least the voter can see how far the Nation has moved from the original intent of the Founders.


Super User

Super User






Please publish modules in offcanvas position.