Introduction: The first Amendment grants Americans five basic freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom to peaceably assemble, and the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The exact wording of this amendment follows: "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." However, these freedoms are not to be taken at face value.
Constitutionality and Consistency: The freedoms in this amendment are not to be taken at face value, however. There are several side notes and exceptions to these freedoms. One reading this amendment would assume that it granted all Americans the five freedoms mentioned without hindrance. However, it does not. There are several exceptions and points of clarification to be looked at in regards to this amendment. The main concern is the misinterpretation of this amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." There is no law known to me about congress choosing a preference of religion; however, there is evidence of a religious preference by the government. Take swearing Justices in on the bible, "In God We Trust" appearing on currency, scripture engraved in government buildings, and "under one God" in the Pledge of Allegiance for examples. Also, the freedom of speech is not so free. Speech that is deemed to be a danger to the public peace is not supported in the First Amendment. This is why you can not yell fire in a crowded movie theatre. You can not make speeches of libel or slander, and you can not make speeches that are considered to be obscene either.
Justice: Citizens who believes that they have a right to say what's on their minds, or when the government claims to have no preference of religion, they should be sure to check the exceptions and asides to this amendment. Law suits can be filed against people for things they say, and the government has been under severe scrutiny for it's strong connections with Christianity. In fact, certain companies can sue a person for voicing their opinion about their product. Therefore; when the First Amendment states that American citizens are granted the freedom of speech, it is not explicit, and some speech is considered unacceptable and intolerable.
Expediency: It is not expedient to have all of these exceptions and loopholes in the First Amendment. This amendment should be revised to say what it actual is. It gives an image of freedom that isn't really there. But that's just my opinion.
Practicability: It is not practical for the First Amendment to be so ambiguous. It's not clearly written; therefore, it's not understood. What good are these freedoms when Americans aren't able to understand all of the laws associated with these freedoms? It has the potential to leave Americans asking if they are really free and to what extent is their freedom free.
Conclusion: To allow for better understanding of the First Amendment, it should be explicitly stated as should all other amendments. Only then can citizens fully understand how free they really are. Once this is done, hopefully the freedoms granted under the First Amendment can be seen for what they really are: freedoms with strong limitations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The organization of your argument is very clear and easy to read and I liked how you used the term "one" toward the beginning, employing some of the one-I-we-you throughout your argument.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to the argument about the government respecting a religion, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." It doesn't prohibit any other courts from establishing a respect for religion. I know that today Federal law is held above all others, and to some it feels religion sneaks in too often, but I wonder if back when it was written they perhaps only meant it for Congress's purposes. Afterall, they were very concerned with the independence of the people, but they knew they needed protections against the tyrany of a king or queen so they had to make some laws.
And out of respect for our founding fathers, I have to say I'd rather the First Amendment be left alone. They wrote it as they did for a reason--whatever it may be--and I think we should respect it.
I agree with Randi, this is "very clear and easy to read."
ReplyDeleteThis blog brings question to mind on how, when laws are put in place, people on many occasions are left in a grey area. Whether they do so intentionally, perhaps for reasons relevant to the irrationality or disposition present in them, or they do so unintentionally, I assume even the greatest of detail will still leave many within grey areas.
For example, if entering a theatre where screaming "fire" would in fact bring people to a state of panic, anyone, then yes, I agree. But does that disallow someone to scream "i'm getting tIREd" or "IRE"? I assume intention rather than stated rule has something to do with it. And then there are those 3-D movies out now that advertise "Excludes 3D concert events", suggesting requests for audience participation.
I also assume that religions, though free to establish, are not free from establishing without others' outside the religion protesting against their religious stands (i.e., consider them a cult), within their freedom of speech.
I do agree, things should be written more clearly, but don't think it will solve much in the long run. Whether it be for reasons relevant to the vagueness or complexity leaving them difficult to understand, for reasons relevant to constant updates leaving many behind on what it current, or whatever.
I also wonder if the presence of religious belief, God, etc. are present due to this complicated stand the government attempts to protect. Maybe it's there for research purposes?
I'm not too bright when it comes to this stuff, though, and would like to think that attempts to support good intention and dissuade bad intention (unless such does so in ways that leave someone within conditions of vulnerability that need to be exploited in order to protect in ways the laws were put there in the first place for) would dominate over written laws that bring charges against innocence and protect the guilty.
Good point, Randi. I was just looking at this topic in regards to something I heard on the news about flag burning as a form of protesting. I didn't look at the history of it, any good rhetor would have done that. Duh!, so I am just going off of present day. I also agree that not only is the First Amendment ambiguous, but so are a lot of other laws. I guess that's why we have lawyers who attend years and years of school to use them and interpret them for us.
ReplyDelete