First and Second Amendment Quagmires
Our Constitution’s Bill of Rights have stood the test of time. Through these amendments, the individual gets a definition on where his/her rights end and where their government’s begin. Over time, the Supreme Court has recently made this demarkation much more difficult to understand rationally.
Strict constructionists believe the Constitution is literal and if there is a question, the answer can be found in the “Founders intent”. Others believe in the Constitution’s words but seek to answer questions about interpretations within the framework of modern everyday life.
Everyone talks about “freedom of speech” and refers to their First Amendment rights. If anything more defines what it is to be an American, I cannot think of it. The Supreme Court, however, has ruled that political campaign contributions are an expression of free speech. The Court has also ruled that corporations are the same as people. QED, corporations can spend as much as they wish on campaign or political statements.
Hmmm. Let me think about that. The Founding Fathers were Federalists and they sought the “disinterested” elected officials. This meant that the Founders did not want outside interests influencing elected officials. Now, the likes of Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas think everyone has free speech but if you have a lot of money, you can spend more and have more “free speech”.
The Second Amendment is less clearly written than the First. The Court has, however, been able to discern the Founders real intent. The Founders meant, according to the Court, that every citizen should have the right to own and carry as many firearms, of any type or description, as they wanted. The Founders who knew and possessed only muskets and single shot, self loading hand guns, somehow envisioned a better America if everyone carried as many weapons as they wanted.
Hmmm. I wonder whether the Founders thought about what is going on in Libya right now. The rebels have awoken and realized that all sorts of people possess advanced weapons like automatic rifles, grenade launchers, and surface to air hand held missile launchers. How can our Court justify drawing the arms line at unlimited AK-47s, and rule out heavier weapons?
Both of these Amendments underscore the need for the Constitution to be read with some degree of evolution to the times. The revolutionary farmer who used a gun for both protection and for “food gathering” hunting has been replaced with police forces and supermarkets. Free speech has become an oxymoron with respect to politics. Granting US corporations, especially those with foreign ownership, access to our political stage based upon their willingness to pay money seems way out of place. Shading our political process towards those who “speak the most”, that is spend the most, seems equally as misguided.
Most of this year our Congress has been consumed with dysfunctional debate over the debt and deficit, and over how to get our economy growing again. These issues are no where to be heard or seen. Like a slow growing cancer, however, they are poised to produce potentially devastating injury to our Country.
The greatest irony here is that the Founding Fathers would be turning in their graves if they could see the Court endorsing in their names unlimited corporate political spending and wide spread unregulated ownership of arms.
This entry was posted on August 29, 2011 at 8:31 am and is filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Politics, Republican Party. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments.
Tags: campaign financing, first amendment, founding fathers, lobbying, nra, second amendment, strict constutionists
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
