It is Time to Repeal the First Amendment [on topic]

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

no ... because the American concept of "citizenship" would cease to exist.

If the 1st Amendment were repealed or never ratified, would you not still be a citizen under the Constitution that WAS ratified?

[oldwomanc6 38]

Quote

A smart ruler would not allow the 1st to be repealed. Just continue its incremental erosion, whether by legislation, regulation, decree or fatwa. The masses are then fooled into thinking the 1st Amendment (and by extension, the republic) is still relevant. But to answer the question ...no ... because the American concept of "citizenship" would cease to exist.

We're not supposed to have a ruler. But if we did, he would insinuate himself slowly. Scary thought, that!

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

Conceptually; yes. For all practical purposes; no.

What you're asking is similar to, "Do I have a right to life if placed in a locked cage with tigers."

Without formalized freedom of speech, pretty much no other "right" matters since you wouldn't even be able to argue the point. Seriously. Try talking the tigers into not eating you.

Nice try, but no... that, doesn't make sense. Even more so with Kennedy's statement.

If you want to use your example, the question would first have to be, who is placing or attempting to place a person in a cage with tigers. Do they have a right to do that; for the action will, clearly as you state, lead to death.

Where then, said person has a right to self defense, and if person being placed in cage with tigers, shot/stabbed/tomahawked person doing the placing.... it is not homicide.


But any more on that, and its off topic.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

no ... because the American concept of "citizenship" would cease to exist.

If the 1st Amendment were repealed or never ratified, would you not still be a citizen under the Constitution that WAS ratified?

First, I think that the country and the Constitution would have soon "perished from the earth", and
Second, my grandparents probably wouldn't have bothered making the trip over here.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

A smart ruler would not allow the 1st to be repealed. Just continue its incremental erosion, whether by legislation, regulation, decree or fatwa. The masses are then fooled into thinking the 1st Amendment (and by extension, the republic) is still relevant. But to answer the question ...no ... because the American concept of "citizenship" would cease to exist.

We're not supposed to have a ruler. But if we did, he would insinuate himself slowly. Scary thought, that!

Exactly! (and I said "ruler" intentionally)

[quade 3]

You've misconstrued the point I was making. It's not about the right to self defense or being placed somewhere, but the ability to simply argue a point with whoever physically has the upper hand in a situation. If you can't do that, then you have no other rights. None.

Quit with the guessing game.

Make your point.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

You've misconstrued the point I was making. It's not about the right to self defense or being placed somewhere, but the ability to simply argue a point with whoever physically has the upper hand in a situation. If you can't do that, then you have no other rights. None.

Quit with the guessing game.

Make your point.

I think you are going to agree that doesn't make any sense.

It's kinda like you are grading the test with the wrong answer key...

[quade 3]

Dude, whatever. You (in theory) stated you wanted to have a conversation, when all evidence points out you simply want to have a guessing game.

It appears your entire thread is off topic because it doesn't appear to have anything to do with your stated subject. Instead, it's a guessing game. We have to guess what the fuck you're going on about.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Dude, whatever. You (in theory) stated you wanted to have a conversation, when all evidence points out you simply want to have a guessing game.

It appears your entire thread is off topic because it doesn't appear to have anything to do with your stated subject. Instead, it's a guessing game. We have to guess what the fuck you're going on about.

when I proposed the [on topic] tag to this forum, the intent was to focus discussions on a stated topic, free of the predictable divergence to Bush V Obama V Clinton V Iraq V blah blah blah. IOW, to avoid rehashes in topic drift. The hope in this experimental approach is that it will encourage higher participation, particularly from those who aren't interested in the long running beefs between frequent posters.

If you believe no one is addressing your topic (imo, it's stayed quite on target), then you ask a mod to cull the bad postings. If we get bored of the game, we'll stop participating and it will die off.

So...my suggestion to everyone else is to sit back until he clarifies whatever the fucking point has been.

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

Quote

Dude, whatever. You (in theory) stated you wanted to have a conversation, when all evidence points out you simply want to have a guessing game.

It appears your entire thread is off topic because it doesn't appear to have anything to do with your stated subject. Instead, it's a guessing game. We have to guess what the fuck you're going on about.

when I proposed the [on topic] tag to this forum, the intent was to focus discussions on a stated topic, free of the predictable divergence to Bush V Obama V Clinton V Iraq V blah blah blah. IOW, to avoid rehashes in topic drift. The hope in this experimental approach is that it will encourage higher participation, particularly from those who aren't interested in the long running beefs between frequent posters.

If you believe no one is addressing your topic (imo, it's stayed quite on target), then you ask a mod to cull the bad postings. If we get bored of the game, we'll stop participating and it will die off.

So...my suggestion to everyone else is to sit back until he clarifies whatever the fucking point has been.

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

Remember, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It merely implies freedom from government-induced consequences. Private bodies are not held to government controls, nor should they be. Our constitution limits the government*; it is not meant to prohibit or require action by private parties.

* - At least it was intended that way. Lately it seems to be ignored more than applied.

Good point.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

So... if the First Amendment were repealed, today, unanimously, do I still have the freedom to call G.H.W Bush a Douche Bag Cock Sucker for signing the U.N. Agenda 21?

What do you think, D?

Why?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

And I AM hoping to hear from Jakee... before I post.

Hit it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I have no doubt but that the 1st amendment is all that stands in the way of self-important politicians legislating away any speech they find threatening.

this is a great comment - The first amendment means the government can't restrict anyone's right to free speech. It means the government can't bully those not able to protect themselves enough to defend their own rights. The 1st doesn't GRANT the right to the citizens, the 1st means it's our duty to protect the inherent right (doesn't matter if individuals believe it's inherent by diety or nature or whatever, only matters that we believe it's ours undisputedly)

In the private arena, we're able to protect it only in the manner that we can arrange for ourselves.

It's necessary in that in a society of justice everyone has rights and the strong and the weak should join together to protect those rights. having it codified certainly does keep our rights from being eroded by smug government powerful wackos that think they know how to run society better than members do by direct participation.


the scary bit will be the current trend of 50% of the people trying control the other 50%'s thoughts and speech through PC thuggery and constant attack and intimidation, especially now. That's the real erosion - government edict won't protect from mass organize bullying.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[dmcoco84 4]

The answer is... YES.

Without the First Amendment, under the Constitution, American Citizens still have Freedom of Speech. In fact, all, the rights under the Bill of Rights, whether or not it had ever been ratified.



The Case Against a Bill of Rights

Is it hard to imagine that someone could actually make a compelling case against including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution? After all, principles like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, and the right to a speedy trial are synonymous with our freedoms. If you're appalled that someone could be against listing those simple rights, then you might be surprised to find out who was making that case: Alexander Hamilton.

Hamilton's case may be counterintuitive, but it had merit for two main reasons. First, our rights come directly from God. They are endowed by our Creator. Listing them as part of a document that lays out the power the people are lending to their government implies that somehow the government has control over these basic rights.

Second, Hamilton argued in Federalist 84, the Constitution's scope was to be so narrow, and the powers it granted government so few, that "a detailed Bill of Rights is not required." By including one, people might interpret that the Framers were intending the Constitution to control "all sorts of personal and private matters." That was obviously not the case.

Hamilton strongly believed that the minute you attempted to create a list of rights, you by default implied that anything not on the list was excluded. To think of it another way, it's the difference between telling your kids the five specific things they cannot do while you're away, versus telling them the five specific things they can do. Listing what they are restricted from (no alcohol, no driving the car, no playing the stereo loud) implies that anything not on that list is fair game. Look, Mom and Dad forgot to say that we can't play with the handgun!

On the other hand, telling them what they can do (which is akin to the Constitution granting specific powers to the government) does not allow them to claim that you implied they were allowed to play with the Glock.

Hamilton had another reason for not including a Bill of Rights as well: He worried that some power-lusting politician might "regulate" the rights that were listed, under the guise of "protecting" them. (This, of course, is exactly what has happened in many instances. Yes, FCC, I'm looking at you.)

While Hamilton's argument worked during ratification, the people quickly demanded a Bill of Rights be included. Ironically, it was Hamilton's writing partner, James Madison, who introduced them. They became law, in the form of the Constitution's first ten amendments, just two years later.

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

Quote

And I AM hoping to hear from Jakee... before I post.

Hit it.

BAM! WHAM! KAPOW!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

While Hamilton's argument worked during ratification, the people quickly demanded a Bill of Rights be included. Ironically, it was Hamilton's writing partner, James Madison, who introduced them. They became law, in the form of the Constitution's first ten amendments, just two years later.

Yes, Hamilton is correct in that the Bill of Rights did not grant any rights. They already existed. But many still wanted these core rights clearly enumerated as to leave no doubt.

Your answer to your question (that yes, people would still have free speech) is more a historical one than one founded in reality. Bear in mind how far lost the 9th and 10th are.

The whole argument is silly - no one has proposed removing the 1st, though plenty did want a no flag burning amendment stuck on it. But presuming your scenario - you're wrong.

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

Quote

While Hamilton's argument worked during ratification, the people quickly demanded a Bill of Rights be included. Ironically, it was Hamilton's writing partner, James Madison, who introduced them. They became law, in the form of the Constitution's first ten amendments, just two years later.

Yes, Hamilton is correct in that the Bill of Rights did not grant any rights. They already existed. But many still wanted these core rights clearly enumerated as to leave no doubt.

Your answer to your question (that yes, people would still have free speech) is more a historical one than one founded in reality. Bear in mind how far lost the 9th and 10th are.

The whole argument is silly - no one has proposed removing the 1st, though plenty did want a no flag burning amendment stuck on it. But presuming your scenario - you're wrong.

You are off on several things... and you have completely missed the point of the thread.

Additionally, given what Hamilton argued, this doesn't make sense...."is more a historical one than one founded in reality"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You are off on several things... and you have completely missed the point of the thread.

of course...you waited over 3 days to finally unleash your genius assertion that was rendered moot by the time of the Civil War. Here's a hint - if you have to be coy about it for days, it's probably not as intelligent as you want to think it is.

[quade 3]

Quote

First, our rights come directly from God.

That premise alone is ridiculous. It's a nice bit of poetry in the Declaration of Independence, but it's utter hogwash in reality. If that bit is hogwash, then so is the rest of the argument.

In the US, if something is not specifically forbidden by law, then it's allowed. It's a basic legal principle. It's the reason they can't arrest and convict you for just anything they want to make up. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali Literally, "No crime, no punishment without a previous penal law"" or more commonly stated, "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed."

What the Bill of Rights does is specifically forbid the government from doing certain things. That's it. It's not God given. It's not granting the government powers. It's "The People" specifically forbidding "the Government" from, in this case, making laws abridging freedom of speech.

"The People" and "the Government." No God required.

You absolutely must have Freedom of Speech in the Constitution otherwise those in power would run roughshod over it and how could you possibly say they couldn't? There wouldn't be any law prohibiting it!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jakee 1,254]

A question:

Do citizens in all countries around the globe enjoy the same right to free speech as Americans?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Yes, Hamilton is correct in that the Bill of Rights did not grant any rights. They already existed.

If you're talking purely philosophically, that's all well and good. But what about in the real world?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Yes, Hamilton is correct in that the Bill of Rights did not grant any rights. They already existed.

If you're talking purely philosophically, that's all well and good. But what about in the real world?

you read the rest of that same posting of mine.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

First, our rights come directly from God. They are endowed by our Creator.

Hey! Where's my cookie?

Don

By the way, do you have a source for what you posted? It doesn't..... Seem, like something...... you, would write!

(though if I'm wrong I apologize in advance).

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[OHCHUTE 0]

No we wouldn't have free speech. Look what Hugh Heffner went through in publishing his Playboy magazine. Busted for sending smut through the mail a case that went to the Supreme Court. The do gooders of the time couldn't stand the thought of having other people gaze upon absolutely georgous girls in their underware. And this was before total nudity was depicted. Now look what we got. If the law was abolished it's no telling what people would do to limit others voice. Someone got the hate speech prohibited. So we know laws for free speech are necessary.