Alphecca is a member of "the lunatic fringe of the US right"
--Guardian (UK) 6/26/06

*******************


Yeah, so?


Even my cats
have guns!

serbu_sidebar_125.jpg
Me with Serbu BFG-50

Email me at:
gunnut -at-
alphecca -dot- com

Check it out:

My group sci-fi blog novel:

Colony: Alchibah






Featured in
Outdoor Life Magazine:

outdoor_small.jpg

Yes, I coined the term
"stupid-fucking-computer"

Alphecca gets noticed!
Check out these
GLOWING REVIEWS
I've just made up:

"Sparkles like pewter"
-- Collector's World

"Wonderful, terrific, splendid"
-- Roget's Thesaurus

"Really good"
-- Stereo World, Gun World,
Car World, Travel World,
Computer World, Roger Ebert,
Martha Stewart, Barney, etc...

"I am not an idiut"
--Barbra Streisand



Proud to be an American
US Flag
standing with Israel
Flag of Israel

PageSpinner

...but all errors and sloppy code should be blamed on me...

All non-credited writings
and photos on
Alphecca.com are
(C) Copyright
2002-2008
by Jeff Soyer
All rights reserved.



April 17, 2005

Edit the 1st Amendment

Most folks like myself think our Bill of Rights is almost more important than The Constitution because it actually enumerated the individual rights of the citizens of the new nation. Certainly, critics of The Consititution such as George Mason influenced James Madison to write the amendments that came to be known as the Bill of Rights.

Our founding fathers were wonderfully brief in their written creations (not so in the conventions that led up to them) but perhaps that brevity has resulted in much of the arguing and court interpretations that have hounded our rights ever since then.

This is the first of a series of posts that will give you the chance to straighten things out. How? Let's think of this as an exercise in "alternate universes" where you are a member of that first Congress held in New York City in March of 1789. And everyone speaks and writes as we do now.

Here is the original First Amendment:


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.

You are designated to come up with the final wording of the amendments to our Constitution. Okay, do it.

A couple rules apply however: All of the amendments are one sentence long (albeit some are rather long sentences). For the purposes of this series, I'll allow your entries to be TWO sentences long but you are confined to a maximum of 75 words (total for both); the original is only 45 words long. How would you have worded the First Amendment so that it couldn't be misinterpreted or could not have it's original meaning twisted by the courts? Would you add anything to it? Just tweak it for clarity?

You need to get the following points across including:
1) Freedom of or from religion.
2) What about the "seperation" of church and state often mentioned in modern court cases?
3) Freedom of speech and the press and all that it might cover.
4) In fact, what IS "speech" and "press"?
5) Freedom of protest.
6) What of any future government regulation of these ideas?

That's a lot to cover in just 75 words!

In this alternate universe you can pretend you are visionary and throw in clauses that might cover future developements in our society.

Let me give you an example or two. Someone on the far-right might word it:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or the prevention of the discussion of our Christian roots in our schools and government buildings; or abridging the freedom of non-obscene speech, or of the legitimate press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, someone on the far-left might prefer it:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, as long as it and any variation of it is never mentioned in our classrooms, our public venues, or our government institutions; or abridging the freedom of speech in any possible form of any possible subject, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble, hold violent protests, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Well... You get the idea. Comedy is acceptable but you might seriously consider something serious that would prevent future courts from "judicial activism" also.

A note on comments: Blacklist is on so if your post gets bounced, look for words of a sexual, pharmaceutical or gambling nature as culprits. If you are still having trouble, just email your comment to me and I'll post it myself into the comments. Also, it is not necessary to use a real email address to post and nothing need be entered in URL.

Put your example at the top of your entry and then follow it with any comments you'd care to add.

I'd like to encourage readers from all sides of the political spectrum to participate. I'm not just looking for people who share my viewpoint. I would just ask that everyone respect each other's opinions. I'm not looking for flame wars although I certainly urge you to discuss each other's entries...

We'll confine this post to the First Amendment and immediately following it I'll have a post covering the Second Amendment.

Good Luck and have fun!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at April 17, 2005 02:11 PM
Comments

No law shall make any religion official or prohibited, or bar public exercise of cultural trappings associated at times with religions. No law shall restrict speech, unwritten expression, press, or peacable assembly in any form, existing or devised in the future, individual or commercial, nor the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Posted by: Jay at April 19, 2005 12:13 AM

Jay, I'm surprised that you and I are the only ones concerned about the 1st Amendment. Does no one else care about Campaign Finance Reform or the move to require bloggers to be considered political organizations?

Posted by: Jeff Soyer at April 19, 2005 11:41 AM

Wow this is hard..
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Jay's version would not necessarily prevent the govt from collecting taxes on behalf of religious institutions, paying priest's wages etc., as long as it doesn't make one or more relgions "official". This is done here in Germany, and it infuriates me to no end.

Here's my try (remember, I'm just a clueless furriner):

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech in public or in private, or of the press, or of expression or communication; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government or third parties for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law about religion, and the exercise of religion shall enjoy the same protection as that of free speech.

The obvious implication of the 2nd sentence is "the same protection, and no more". I don't think anything should be protected more than free speech just because someone calls it religion.

Feel free to tear it apart...

Posted by: Ernst at April 26, 2005 11:54 AM
Note: Comments close down on posts after seven days and then
the comment input form disappears.

Your comments are welcome. You don't need to enter a URL and you don't need a "valid" email address, either. Note though that MT Blacklist is installed to flag suspiciously spam-like strings. Unfortunately, because of the bastard spammers, the strings "google.com" and "yahoo.com" (even in your email address) are currently banned as well. So are strings such as "cialis" (a common spam) which rules out words such as "socialism". Try putting a hyphan in a word like that.

By Golly, you're reading an archived post. Click Here to head to the main page and read current stuff...



Into science fiction? Check out my group blog novel, Colony: Alchibah.
See the reader's guide there for first-timer tips.