Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Why do Liberals hate the 1st amendment?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I assume you are railing about James Carville and Mary Matalin? By the way George Will has moved over to Fox Sunday morning along with Brit Hume, I have a great deal of respect for both of them.

 

PS I don't think George Stephanopoulos is all that deep, just a charismatic political hack from the Clinton administration.

 

PS I used to watch The McLaughlin Group a lot but they have weird hours on PBS.

 

he's no political hack by any stretch, but he's also not all that deep. He did an alright job being a mediator on that show for awhile but he was no David Brinkley either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Text of the first amendment to the Constitution For The United States Of America

 

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.

 

Text of the tenth amendment to the Constitution For The United States Of America

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

the first 10 amendments were ratified in 1791, so from that point forward there should be no abridgment of freedom of speech from the Federal Government. Of course, Congress violated this in a major way in 1798 with the Alien and Sedition Acts. Several states (Notably Kentucky and Virginia) interposed and nullified these laws inside their states.

 

Under the original intent and operation of the Constitution that was only a chain on the Federal government, and states could impose speech codes, just as states could have their own established religions.

 

If you operate under the language of the day and original intent then your premise falls apart. If you operate under the "living document" premise then you might as well throw the Constitution and it's amended Bill of Rights out the window. Oh wait, that's what Federal Jurisprudence since FDR has done, eh?

 

 

The government is also responsible for making laws to protect its citizens and keeping the peace, where would you draw the line between freedom of speech\press and inciting things like lynching or other forms of violence?

 

I know you are a more of constitutionalists, but even the writer of the constitution (Jefferson) set a precedent of breaking it with the purchase of the Louisiana Territory(which was not power granted to the federal government)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The government is also responsible for making laws to protect its citizens and keeping the peace, where would you draw the line between freedom of speech\press and inciting things like lynching or other forms of violence?

 

I know you are a more of constitutionalists, but even the writer of the constitution (Jefferson) set a precedent of breaking it with the purchase of the Louisiana Territory(which was not power granted to the federal government)

Oh, that guy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The government is also responsible for making laws to protect its citizens and keeping the peace, where would you draw the line between freedom of speech\press and inciting things like lynching or other forms of violence?

 

I know you are a more of constitutionalists, but even the writer of the constitution (Jefferson) set a precedent of breaking it with the purchase of the Louisiana Territory(which was not power granted to the federal government)

Which government is responsible for protecting us? The Federal/General government's duty to protect was basically against outside forces, except where there were territories instead of states.

 

Which government is responsible for protecting speech?

 

Where do I draw the line beween freedom of speech/press and inciting things like lynchings and violence? Free speach was meant in the political realm, and equally revolutionary at the time in the religious realm. Just about everyone that could read and write when the first ten amendmendments were ratified that it meant being able to tell the Federal Government that they were mucking things up. States and localities had speech codes that handled other things. If you yelled fire in a crowded theatre and people got trampled, back in the day you would be held responsible. States and localities had laws against fomenting violence, and people knew what they could expect.

 

 

Back then you also knew that other than laws there were other ways you had to answer for a pair of loose lips. Alexander Hamilton learned that the hard way. (to bad it took Aaron Burr so long to take offense) You might be free to insult Andy Jackson's wife, but you probably made that mistake only once......

 

I know you are a more of constitutionalists, but even the writer of the constitution (Jefferson) set a precedent of breaking it with the purchase of the Louisiana Territory(which was not power granted to the federal government)

Jefferson wrote the Constititution? Governor Morris of Pennsylvania was in charge of the committee to draft the final copy of the Constitution. A lot of the constitution came from the three headed diaspora known as Publius. The Lousiana Purchase was more Supra constitutional than Un constitutional but that's another argument and besides the incorrect assertion of Jefferson writing the Constitution for These United States you are deflecting a good bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which government is responsible for protecting us? The Federal/General government's duty to protect was basically against outside forces, except where there were territories instead of states.

 

Which government is responsible for protecting speech?

 

Where do I draw the line beween freedom of speech/press and inciting things like lynchings and violence? Free speach was meant in the political realm, and equally revolutionary at the time in the religious realm. Just about everyone that could read and write when the first ten amendmendments were ratified that it meant being able to tell the Federal Government that they were mucking things up. States and localities had speech codes that handled other things. If you yelled fire in a crowded theatre and people got trampled, back in the day you would be held responsible. States and localities had laws against fomenting violence, and people knew what they could expect.

 

 

Back then you also knew that other than laws there were other ways you had to answer for a pair of loose lips. Alexander Hamilton learned that the hard way. (to bad it took Aaron Burr so long to take offense) You might be free to insult Andy Jackson's wife, but you probably made that mistake only once......

 

Jefferson wrote the Constititution? Governor Morris of Pennsylvania was in charge of the committee to draft the final copy of the Constitution. A lot of the constitution came from the three headed diaspora known as Publius. The Lousiana Purchase was more Supra constitutional than Un constitutional but that's another argument and besides the incorrect assertion of Jefferson writing the Constitution for These United States you are deflecting a good bit.

 

The key part is "was", when the US was founded the US gov't was never meant to play a huge role, there was never meant to be a huge standing army, quite a few areas had voting requirements that only landowners could vote, and more power was meant to be left at the individual state level.....but the US has changed in the past 200+ years. In my opinion for the best, having a different level of one of the protected freedoms in different states/localities(Religion/Speech/etc.) would cause more issues and confusion(example see how different gun laws are in different states) the US gov't should be responsible for deciding where to draw the line when it comes to the freedoms it has stated that needs to be protected, but it also must protect our freedoms so that we are freely able to express our opinions and beliefs, it is also the responsibility of the US supreme court to strike laws down that do encroach on our freedoms(a power that was not originally granted) also the US population to push back. The gov't whether at the local, state, or federal levels first goal is the protection of its people and the protection of the peace.

 

I know you do disagree on who should be enforcing(state vs federal) but do you think that hate speech or speech that could incite violence should or should not be regulated?

 

I will have to review my history on the writing of the US Constitution, it's been awhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...