first amendment

[griz]

I was listening to an earlier episode of the Thomas Jefferson Hour.  It's a good and interesting show.   Clay Jenkinson, the man who plays TJ in the show, said the US Constitution is too old to be meaningful and we need to start over instead of having tortured interpetations by applying a 200 year old document to todays issues.  That's my paraphrasing of his words, but you get the idea.

Now, I do not agree with that.  I think the Bill of Rights in particular is well written and very clear and simple in its meaning.  It's "our" desire for it to mean something other than what it says that is the problem, at least in my humble opinion.

But assuming that you think the BOR needs a refresh, please tell me what sort of changes you would make.  To keep this thread to a reasonable length, I'll use the 1st amendment as an example.

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.

How would you re-write it cover freedom of speech, religion and press?  I am thinking in particular of the folks who believe the current rulings on separation of church and state are wrong, or think it is wrong for people to speak out against whichever administration happens to be in power, but any other 1stA issues are welcome.

Thanks, Griz

[Thor]

I haven't seen people unwilling to speak out against any administration. I'm not quite sure how I would "re-write" the First Amendment, but I would include something to the effect that people don't have the right to not be offended.

[wmenorr67]

Why rewrite it.  Just make sure that people when educated get educated on what is there and what isn't. 

For example nothing is said about separation of church and state.  The only two words in the 1st amendment from that statement are of and and.

[Perd Hapley]

Ah, but the penumbra of "of" and "and" is what?  Separation of church and state.  Obviously.   

[Standing Wolf]

How would you re-write it cover freedom of speech, religion and press?

Rewriting the Bill of Rights to make it more "accessible" to people with leftist extremist agendas is a lot like giving Czechoslovakia to Germany: far from appeasing the predators, it merely encourages them to enlarge the scope of their depredations.

The only "problem" with the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with the document itself and everything to do with the schemes of vicious people who've made it abundantly clear they intend to replace it with an "improved" version that reduces ordinary American citizens to serfs. They'll use anything as an excuse to attack and undermine and destroy individual rights.

[Fly320s]

At the risk of being keel-hauled by Mike, I offer a big +1/I agree/couldn't have said it better myself to Standing Wolf.

The Bill of Rights is a foundation of the limits on government, not a permission slip for us citizens. 

Better education is the answer to your question, Griz, not a rewrite of the document.  I bet you know that, though.

[The Rabbi]

Congress shall make no law respecting religion, or prohibiting the free mocking thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press to denigrate anything remotely establishment; or the right of the people to assemble for said purposes thereof, and to nag the government for bigger and better benefits.

There.  Fixed it for ya!

[Tallpine]

How about just keeping it short, sweet, and simple:

Congress shall make no law.

 

[Euclidean]

While I can see that one of the perils of writing laws in a living language is that in later centuries the meanings of those passages can be misconstrued by the ignorant or those with an agenda (see 2A for instance), I don't think it's a good idea just to rewrite laws when it's really not so difficult to understand what they mean. 

But I did try it as a mental exercise.  After all if I were to rephrase the 2A, I'd say "A standing military force is necessary for the security of a free state, therefore the right of all people to keep and bear arms of all varieties shall not be in any way restricted or regulated." 

And it might actually be worth doing since it's gotten to the point where language has shifted enough a significant number of people have lost sense of what it actually says.  How many times have you had to explain what it actually means to somebody?

However, while the language in the 1A may not seem "casual" or contemporary, I honestly have no difficulty interpreting the statement made.  It contains no obsolete terms which have shifted meaning in the past 200+ years.

I feel the real Jefferson would not want to change a single word of it either.

[MechAg94]

If the TJ character is saying that on that show, then I doubt I will ever watch the show. 

If the Constitution was rewritten today by a convention, it would likely end up being 20,000 pages long.  I don't think I would like the type of people who would end up at the convention.

[Perd Hapley]

If the Constitution was rewritten today by a convention, it would likely end up being 20,000 pages long.  I don't think I would like the type of people who would end up at the convention. 

I see you're familiar with the Canadian Constitution and the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Some selections from the latter:

Article 15.

      (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.


Article 16.

      (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.


Article 22.

      Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

      (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

      (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

      (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

      (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

      Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

      (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

      (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.  What the devil does that mean?

Article 26.

      (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

      (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.   

      (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.  Unless it's an education that badmouths the U.N.  See above.

Article 27.

      (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

      (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.

      Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.

      (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.  What's that doing in a declaration of rights?

      (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

[RevDisk]

Why rewrite it.  Just make sure that people when educated get educated on what is there and what isn't. 

For example nothing is said about separation of church and state.  The only two words in the 1st amendment from that statement are of and and.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." 

Just because freedom of religion is specifically enumerated does not magically negate the seperation of church and state.  I do wonder what good people think will come out of combining religion and government.  From what I've seen, rarely good things.  Just out of curiousity, are you opposed to said seperation, wmenorr?   If so, why?

[griz]

A couple things:

It is a radio show, and the actor typically talks and answers questions as Jefferson, then toward the end makes some comments as himself.  He trys to stay in character while playing TJ, even when he (Jenkins) disagrees with TJ's views.  Jenkins maintains that Jefferson would have expected many more ammendments than there are.  The comment about a rewrite was Jenkins talking, but it was his view, not him as TJ.

I maintain that the BOR was an oustanding work that still stands, even though it escapes many that it limits the government instead of granting powers to citizens.  And you are right MechAg94 about the modern tendency to lawyer up everything that comes out of DC.  A quick look at all the ammendments shows the length of them growing almost exponentially as time goes on.  Even the 25th, giving 18 year olds the vote, has two sections for that seemingly simple task!

[Perd Hapley]

Speaking of which, I'll try to get back to you on that PM, RevDisk. 

I do wonder what good people think will come out of combining religion and government.

  That's going to depend very heavily on how you define that phrase.  When the Reverend MLK Jr. was working with various churches and secular groups to end segregation, was he combining religion and government?  William Wilberforce was known to have had religious motives when working to end the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.  The same can be said for many social reformers, including those working against abortion or legal recognition of homosexual marriage today.  Are such people combining religion and government, or are they simply pursuing a goal out of secular and religious motives? 

[Paddy]

This supposedly where the phrase 'separation of church and state' began-with Jefferson.  Make of it what you will:


The phrase originates in Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. Jefferson was responding to the Danbury Baptists' complaints that Connecticut's law was oppressive to their religion (among other things, Connecticut's law allowed towns to levy taxes for the support of a religion designated by the majority of voters; since Connecticut was overwhelmingly Congregationalist, the law effectively forced Baptists throughout the state to support Congregational churches). The Baptists, who knew of Jefferson's advocacy of separation, "honored [Jefferson] as an apostle of religious liberty. Much of their address sounded like [Jefferson's] bill for establishing religious freedom in Virginia, and they hoped that the sentiments of their 'beloved President' would prevail so that 'hierarchy and tyranny' would vanish from the earth" (Dumas Malone, Jefferson the President: First Term, 1801-1805, p. 109).

While Jefferson was powerless to change Connecticut's law (the First Amendment did not yet apply to the states), Jefferson used the occasion to express his belief that no such law could be implemented on the federal level. Observed Jefferson:

    I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

Separationists have long taken Jefferson's "wall" metaphor as an accurate and historically significant summary of the intent of the First Amendment. Indeed, we take the metaphor so seriously that we are sometimes accused of worshipping Jefferson, as if the only reason we think the Constitution requires the separation of church and state is because Jefferson wrote his letter. But this is nonsense; the history of the Constitution and the First Amendment is well documented, and it suggests beyond doubt that the framers wanted to put as much distance between government and religion as possible. Jefferson's metaphor is simply a handy way of stating the obvious. If Jefferson had never written his letter, we would still be defending the wall, since the wall exists in the Constitution itself.

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/who2.htm

[wmenorr67]

I am not for or against the "separtation of church and state."

There should not be a state sponsored religion.  This country was founded on the grounds of religious freedom.  But at the same time look at the way documents were worded from day one in this country.  It is quite obvious that if our Founding Fathers were not religious they at least believed in a higher power.  And most of them called that higher power God.

At the time most of our Founding Fathers, if not all, were Christians.  But they never said that God had to be a Christian God.

I say let people believe in whatever higher power they wish to.  And why can't God be generic in nature.

Most religious battles are not fought over who or what God is but more over who the Saviour is or will be.

[Paddy]

Exactly right.  It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

[Pew pew pew]

So the government should sponsor the belief in a god?

[wmenorr67]

It already does.

[Pew pew pew]

Tough nuggets if you don't believe in one or believe in multiple gods?

[wmenorr67]

Nope, didn't say that either.

Country was founded on religious freedoms. 

But have you looked at your money lately?

[Paddy]

So the government should sponsor the belief in a god?

I think fistful would call that a non sequitur.  No, the government should not sponsor a belief in God.  Neither should it prohibit the free exercise of religion, which it does repeatedly.

[RevDisk]

Nope, didn't say that either.

Country was founded on religious freedoms. 

But have you looked at your money lately?

1864-1883.  Then from 1909 to present.   I'll grant you, a long time.

[Balog]

Nope, didn't say that either.

Country was founded on religious freedoms. 

But have you looked at your money lately?

1864-1883.  Then from 1909 to present.   I'll grant you, a long time.

I'm not sure what those dates represent. Damn, we need a confused smilie.

[Fly320s]

Balog,

Just a guess, but I think those dates correlate to when the words, "One nation, under God" were/are printed on currency.