“It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was, of course, in France at the time the… Bill of rights [was] passed in Congress and ratified by the states. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.”
- Chief Justice William Rehnquist
For those that want to know about the letter President Jefferson sent.
"On January 1, 1802, President Thomas Jefferson sent a letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut, in response to their congratulations upon his winning the presidency. In it, Jefferson referred to a “wall of separation between church and state.” He wrote this in the context of perceived threats the Baptists felt were coming from the state, not the other way around."
Monday, May 24, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Freedom of Speech... Under Attack Again
Seriously, am I turning into a conspiracy nut or is Freedom of Speech truly under attack again. As in, under attack by our own government. This last weekend, the President said that with the 24 hour news cycle and information on the internet, there can be "too much information." What the what? How can their ever be too much information? He went on to say that their is so much information out there you can't tell what is true and what is less than truthful. Information has been out there forever. At no time has anyone said there was too much information, unless they were attempting to suppress said information. What information can be out there that the government could be afraid of?
Here is what the President said in his own words.
"You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter," Obama said at Hampton University, Virginia.
"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation,"
Since when was information a distraction? This is how it has always worked. People view the information out there, they see if it passes the smell test, then they see how it fits with their belief system, and then they work to reverify it with multiple sources. The founders wanted a robust debate in our society. That is why Free Speech is encapsulated in the FIRST Ammendment to the Bill of Rights.
This last week the President also announced his pick for the next Supreme Court Justice. She doesn't believe that all speech should be free. Consider this quote dug up by the First Amendment Center's David L. Hudson, who found it in a government brief signed by Kagan in United States v Stevens: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
The 1st Ammendment states:
"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."
So, no law "abridging the freedom of speech." That means no law whatsoever. Societal costs is such a red herring for Progressives to further their own agenda to control every single aspect of our lives. See my paper on Progressivism for more information on how Progressives feel about people being smart enough to make their own decisions.
Also going along with these two would be the FCC attempting to "reclassify" the internet. They are doing this to control it, and therefore the information that flows through it. They attempted to implement "net neutrality" through the normal means and were shot down by both congress and the courts. Now this part of the executive branch is just deciding to go against what was decided by congress, the courts, and going against well established precedent set by itself under administrations that were on both sides of the aisle, to get what they want. Whatever happened to separation of powers?
There is a reason I selected the quote I have at the top of my blog. The first thing tyrrants do go after is your voice, your freedom of speech. Consider the following quotes from previous Supreme Court Justices.
"Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."
- Thurgood Marshall
"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
- William J. Brennan, Jr.
So, judge for yourself whether or not I am going a little loony, but I have to say this has me extremely worried. There was the flag email address to report to the WhiteHouse any falsehood your friends may be spreading about health care. Now the President says there is "too much" information out there and is attempting to appoint someone to the court with no judicial experience that has ideas of limiting speech for the "greater good." All while the FCC is trying to take over the internet.
As I mentioned before, do some of your own research. Look into some of these things yourself. Oh, and if you believe the most technologically savvy President in history doesn't know how to work an iPod (he gave one to the Queen with all his speeches on it as a gift) then I have some ocean front property on the East side of the Vegas Strip I wanna sell ya.
Remember, keep yourself and informed and do not be afraid to speak out.
Here is what the President said in his own words.
"You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter," Obama said at Hampton University, Virginia.
"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation,"
Since when was information a distraction? This is how it has always worked. People view the information out there, they see if it passes the smell test, then they see how it fits with their belief system, and then they work to reverify it with multiple sources. The founders wanted a robust debate in our society. That is why Free Speech is encapsulated in the FIRST Ammendment to the Bill of Rights.
This last week the President also announced his pick for the next Supreme Court Justice. She doesn't believe that all speech should be free. Consider this quote dug up by the First Amendment Center's David L. Hudson, who found it in a government brief signed by Kagan in United States v Stevens: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
The 1st Ammendment states:
"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."
So, no law "abridging the freedom of speech." That means no law whatsoever. Societal costs is such a red herring for Progressives to further their own agenda to control every single aspect of our lives. See my paper on Progressivism for more information on how Progressives feel about people being smart enough to make their own decisions.
Also going along with these two would be the FCC attempting to "reclassify" the internet. They are doing this to control it, and therefore the information that flows through it. They attempted to implement "net neutrality" through the normal means and were shot down by both congress and the courts. Now this part of the executive branch is just deciding to go against what was decided by congress, the courts, and going against well established precedent set by itself under administrations that were on both sides of the aisle, to get what they want. Whatever happened to separation of powers?
There is a reason I selected the quote I have at the top of my blog. The first thing tyrrants do go after is your voice, your freedom of speech. Consider the following quotes from previous Supreme Court Justices.
"Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."
- Thurgood Marshall
"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
- William J. Brennan, Jr.
So, judge for yourself whether or not I am going a little loony, but I have to say this has me extremely worried. There was the flag email address to report to the WhiteHouse any falsehood your friends may be spreading about health care. Now the President says there is "too much" information out there and is attempting to appoint someone to the court with no judicial experience that has ideas of limiting speech for the "greater good." All while the FCC is trying to take over the internet.
As I mentioned before, do some of your own research. Look into some of these things yourself. Oh, and if you believe the most technologically savvy President in history doesn't know how to work an iPod (he gave one to the Queen with all his speeches on it as a gift) then I have some ocean front property on the East side of the Vegas Strip I wanna sell ya.
Remember, keep yourself and informed and do not be afraid to speak out.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Compare and Contrast: Monday Quotes
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge . . . would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
- John Adams
"Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood. . . . For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property and subdivides their inheritances: what remains but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the troubles of living?"
- Alexis de Tocqueville "Democracy in America"
- John Adams
"Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood. . . . For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property and subdivides their inheritances: what remains but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the troubles of living?"
- Alexis de Tocqueville "Democracy in America"
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Compare and Contrast: Morning Quotes
"One thing our founding fathers could not foresee… was a nation governed by professional politicians who have a vested interest in getting reelected. They probably envisioned a fellow serving a couple of hitches and then looking forward to getting back to the farm.” — Ronald Reagan
Seventy-two years ago, in 1937 at the height of the New Deal, Walter Lippmann, a repentant Progressive, noted that:
"[W]hile the partisans who are now fighting for the mastery of the modern world wear shirts of different colors, their weapons are drawn from the same armory, their doctrines are variations of the same theme and they go forth to battle singing the same tune with slightly different words....
Throughout the world, in the name of progress, men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives and even liberals, are unanimous in holding that government with its instruments of coercion, must by commanding the people how they shall live, direct the course of civilization and fix the shape of things to come.... [T]he premises of authoritarian collectivism have become the working beliefs, the self-evident assumptions, the unquestioned axioms, not only of all the revolutionary regimes, but of nearly every effort which lays claim to being enlightened, humane, and progressive.
So universal is the dominion of this dogma over the minds of contemporary men that no one is taken seriously as a statesman or a theorist who does not come forward with proposals to magnify the power of public officials and to extend and multiply their intervention in human affairs. Unless he is authoritarian and collectivist, he is a mossback, a reactionary, at best an amiable eccentric swimming hopelessly against the tide. It is a strong tide. Though despotism is no novelty in human affairs, it is probably true that at no time in twenty-five hundred years has any western government claimed for itself a jurisdiction over men's lives comparable with that which is officially attempted in totalitarian states....
But it is even more significant that in other lands where men shrink from the ruthless policy of these regimes, it is commonly assumed that the movement of events must be in the same direction. Nearly everywhere, the mark of a progressive is that he relies at last upon an increased power of officials to improve the condition of men."
Seventy-two years ago, in 1937 at the height of the New Deal, Walter Lippmann, a repentant Progressive, noted that:
"[W]hile the partisans who are now fighting for the mastery of the modern world wear shirts of different colors, their weapons are drawn from the same armory, their doctrines are variations of the same theme and they go forth to battle singing the same tune with slightly different words....
Throughout the world, in the name of progress, men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives and even liberals, are unanimous in holding that government with its instruments of coercion, must by commanding the people how they shall live, direct the course of civilization and fix the shape of things to come.... [T]he premises of authoritarian collectivism have become the working beliefs, the self-evident assumptions, the unquestioned axioms, not only of all the revolutionary regimes, but of nearly every effort which lays claim to being enlightened, humane, and progressive.
So universal is the dominion of this dogma over the minds of contemporary men that no one is taken seriously as a statesman or a theorist who does not come forward with proposals to magnify the power of public officials and to extend and multiply their intervention in human affairs. Unless he is authoritarian and collectivist, he is a mossback, a reactionary, at best an amiable eccentric swimming hopelessly against the tide. It is a strong tide. Though despotism is no novelty in human affairs, it is probably true that at no time in twenty-five hundred years has any western government claimed for itself a jurisdiction over men's lives comparable with that which is officially attempted in totalitarian states....
But it is even more significant that in other lands where men shrink from the ruthless policy of these regimes, it is commonly assumed that the movement of events must be in the same direction. Nearly everywhere, the mark of a progressive is that he relies at last upon an increased power of officials to improve the condition of men."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
