No ‘Absolute’ Rights!

Posted on by under education, Election 2020, Election 2024, History, Law and justice, Political commentary, Social commentary

In the year 1787 when the U.S. Constitution was drafted, things were a bit different than they are today.  There was no Internet, no cars, no air-conditioning, no airplanes.  Women were basically chattel with no rights of their own, and Black people were still slaves in most of the nation.  There were 13 states, not 50, and many of the nations we know today did not exist as such in 1787.  Life was different, times were different, and the framers of the Constitution realized this, realized that over time, the nation would grow, circumstances would change, and they never intended for their words to be taken literally for 250 years or more into the future.  That is why they provided a means for amending the document to meet the needs of the changing times, to grow with the nation, with the world.  Furthermore, the framers expected people to use that thing we call ‘common sense’ … which isn’t actually all that common today.

But today, when it suits them, the ‘conservative’ arm of the government choose to interpret the Constitution literally as it was intended 246 years ago.  Think about just one example, the 2nd Amendment.  The 2nd Amendment simply states that …

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

In 1787, “Arms” were muskets and the framers of the Constitution could not have, in their wildest dreams, have begun to imagine the sophisticated weaponry owned by the average John Doe today.  Surely, if they had foreseen the technology that would evolve over the centuries, they would have been somewhat more cautious and restrictive in their wording.  But today, the courts take ‘people’ to be all people regardless of their skills or mental state, and they interpret ‘arms’ as any type of weapon, including an AR-15 that can mow down a hundred people within a minute or two.  James Madison would be horrified to see how his words have been twisted and interpreted in this, the 21st century.

But the one I want to address today is the 1st Amendment right to ‘freedom of speech’.

“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.”

The intent was to allow citizens to express and to be exposed to a wide range of opinions and views. It was intended to ensure a free exchange of ideas even if the ideas are unpopular.  It was NOT intended to be used as a weapon!  But today, we have a former ‘president’ whose words are going to get someone killed if he isn’t stifled.  We have a large portion of the populace that indulges in conspiracy theories and enjoy the excitement of seeing government turned upside down.  Words have consequences.  As Jeffrey Toobin writes in an OpEd for the New York Times …

Mr. Trump has always employed invective as a political tool, but as his days of courtroom reckoning have arrived, his rhetoric has grown more menacing. He’s suggested that Gen. Mark Milley, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, could have been executed; that shoplifters should be shot; that the judge’s clerk in the civil case against him is Senator Chuck Schumer’s girlfriend; and that “you ought to go after” the state attorney general who is prosecuting him. In language evoking Nazi eugenics, he has accused immigrants of “poisoning the blood of our country.”

And we can never forget the chaos, destruction and death his very words caused on January 6th, 2021 when …

… he urged his supporters to “fight like hell,” and many did just that at the Capitol. But they paid a price, and he didn’t. In yet another example of his life without consequences, more than 1,000 people have been charged for their conduct on Jan. 6, and many if not most of them broke the law because they thought that’s what the president at the time wanted. Still, the special counsel Jack Smith refrained from charging Mr. Trump with inciting the violence, undoubtedly because of the Constitution’s broad protection for freedom of speech.

ALL rights, ALL freedoms, must be accompanied by the responsibility to use them wisely, whether it is a gun or words.  Our courts are not holding us accountable for those responsibilities, and neither are our legislators or society.  This is why we have a gun crisis, why we have so many school shootings and other mass shootings.  Combining the unlimited ‘right’ to incite violence through speech and the unlimited right to own any and every type of weapon by anyone, we are a powder keg just waiting to explode.  At present, there are two possible triggers that I can foresee bringing about that explosion:  a) if Mr. Trump is at some point imprisoned, and b) the 2024 election.

Meanwhile, people who opposed Jim Jordan’s bid for Speaker of the House are receiving harassing phone calls and even death threats as are others who are involved in the cases against Donald Trump that are or will soon be coming to trial.  The two very limited gag orders have done little or nothing to stop his mouth from running and sooner or later, someone will take his words seriously and … somebody will die.  Remember the attack on Paul Pelosi?  That was only a taste of what may yet be coming.

It’s really ironic that the courts have whittled away women’s rights and half the people applaud them for it, but they won’t even attach a degree of responsibility to the rights of free speech and gun ownership.  I guess that shows us what’s considered important in this nation.

Discover more from Filosofa's Word

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

35 thoughts on “No ‘Absolute’ Rights!”

  1. A long-gone Supreme Court justice, whose name I’ve forgotten, said that freedom of speech doesn’t include the right to shout “fire” in a crowded theater. Which points us pretty clearly toward a reasonable interpretation of the first amendment.

    Like

  2. why, when you quote the former president, do you not use the whole quotation/ He said go down to the capital and peaceful fight like hell, you and others always willfully omit peaceful when referring to this. Why is that?

    Liked by 1 person

    • At one point in his speech he did say, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” But later, as they were getting ready to leave to head to the Capitol, he also said “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” No mention of ‘peace’ there. When told they were talking of hanging Mike Pence, he simply said “he deserves it.” We can pick apart his speech and other conversations for hours, but the bottom line is that he DID incite people who were already there because they believed it was what he wanted them to do. They did bring guns and other weapons, so they did not come in peace. And they did cause death and destruction and not once have I heard Trump say he was sorry.

      Like

  5. Poison the blood of the country? What are the Native Americans supposed to say to that? We are all mutts, our forbearers were already mutts before they set out for the Americas. I wonder if the guy has ever heard of migration periods from before he was born? (when the Universe came to life) Everybody has been moving around, settling, conquering, mixing all the time.

    Liked by 2 people

    • LoL, Stella. If Trumpelstiltedskin knew his total ancestry he would have to commit sjicide — except the truth would be lies told by the fake media.He is as lily-white as a being can be, and he does want to know anything else. His ancestors never came out of Africa, ever!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Good point, Stella. This nation was founded by immigrants, the only people who can claim their ancestral heritage began here are, in fact, the Native Americans or Indigenous Peoples. ‘Twould have been better for this nation all ’round if they had sent the Europeans back where they came from when there were only a relatively few of them, before those lily-white people went on a genocidal rampage that lasted for over a century! Trump’s own family were German immigrants, for that matter. Sigh. I’m so sick of people thinking that one person is better than another based on such irrelevant things as skin colour, ethnicity, religion, gender identification, and more. We are destroying ourselves and far too many are too stupid to even realize it.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Jill, the illicit nature of Donald J. Trump can be gotten to from several paths traced back to its source. One of those paths are the threats of violence that evolve out of Trump’s pointing his extremists at a target. It all relates to a person with a shallow ego that cannot take losing or criticism who acts on his sociopathic tendencies. Freedom of speech does not allow crying fire in a crowded theater or threatening violence. Keith

    Liked by 2 people

    • Exactly so. Even today, Trump seems to have no filter for his mouth, for his thoughts, such as they are. If he thinks it, he says it … loudly and on social media for all to hear. In my view, he already has blood on his hands over January 6th, yet he learned nothing. And now others are following suit, making thinly veiled threats against people simply for the ‘crime’ of disagreeing. Have we lost the fine art of civil discourse?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jill, you know how I feel about name-calling, but speaking in general terms, those who encourage violence for others to do at their beckoning are not showing leadership or strength – they are showing cowardice and weakness.

        Said former president creates all the circumstances around the January 6 insurrection and then backs away from it. Those who have gone to jail and will be headed to jail should negatively look at the guy who threw them under the bus.

        Keith

        Liked by 2 people

        • I agree with you, Keith. I was thinking tonight that those who consider themselves “strongmen” are actually cowards, for they need their faux strength, their brutality, they are unable to survive by their wit and power of reasoning. Those who incite others to do their dirty work for them are the lowest of the low, the most cowardly. They incite others to do their dirty work while they sit safe and secure in their homes or in one case in the Oval Office and watch the results of their dirty deeds. Then others pay the price, while they remain free to plot more mischief.

          Like

  7. Guns are cool. IMHO the second amendment could not have been better written. The problem is in a failure to follow the dictates of the first three words. If someone could explain how well regulated was different in the eighteenth century than here in the twenty-first? Seems to me as a gun owner that types of weapons and ammunition as well of quantities of same fall under any interpretations of those first words. Militia to the founders was an organised force still is. I believe we still hold officers responsible for their soldiers. I think responsibilities could be easily covered by regulations. I think children should be taught safe and proper knife handling at six with frequent testing and loss of privilege if abused. Additional arms can be introduced as deemed appropriate. It is not the wording of the right but the complete failure to execute it as written. Just for kicks like the invisible “right to privacy” the second amendment suggests that all privileges be well regulated. Even in a free society some people are not allowed to drive.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. The BBC’s classic ‘In Our Time’ series (which takes a topic from many areas) and is then discussed for some 50 mins, recently had one on The Federalist Papers
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers

    It was quite interesting how much these had an influence on what some believe originates solely in the Constitution

    Of course there had to be the Anti-Federalist Papers:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalist_Papers

    Probably both are far too complicated for a lot of the populists to handle.

    Imagine Trump trying to read even one of the essays and making an intelligent statement on them?

    By the way I wonder if his defence council are secretly considered a deal done on the basis of temporary insanity?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Hah!!! Trump couldn’t even read his own daily briefings when he sat in the Oval Office and couldn’t sit still and listen when others read them TO him! He has never read the document he took an oath to uphold. The Federalist Papers would be beyond his level, for sure! Sadly, we no longer have many politicians who are deep thinkers and could or would actually have deep conversations about the merits of various policies. Politics here today is reactionary and based strictly on political party.

      I wonder the same! I told my daughter the other night that if I were a lawyer, there is no amount of money that could convince me to take on any of Trump’s cases, not even a parking ticket! And to add insult to injury, I hear he isn’t paying his lawyers! WHY would anyone want that job???

      Liked by 2 people

  9. the Constitution is, interpreted, the time of when it was written should be taken into, consideration, but, it shouldn’t be taken, literally, as, a lot of the amendments that were, written and signed into law, only, pertained, to the, time period when they were, drafted up, and, interpreting them based off of today’s considerations is, needed in, some of the, amendments, but not all of them.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Pingback: No ‘Absolute’ Rights! | Ned Hamson's Second Line View of the News

  11. The Supreme Court of the USA is like a runaway train, dangerous as hell and virtually unstoppable without blowing the whole thing up. Congress, in particular the House of Representatives, seejs hellbent on bringing the government to a grinding halt! The people who elected these jackasses (my apologies to 4-footed jackasses) are cheering them on because tyey think stopping the govetnment will somehow benefit them! I almost wish they would get their way so they could see what it really is they are cheering for! But of course no one really wants that to happen except them!
    Free speech, gun safety, social stability, democracy itself are all on the chopping block. I am worried for you!

    Liked by 3 people

    • Thanks, rg … I am worried for us, too. Certain of the Republicans in Congress came to Congress with the goal of “burning it all down” and starting afresh. If they have their way, this will no longer be a nation in which I can live, for their views are not ones that I share, and their values are largely non-existent. And if Donald Trump, against all odds, is able to return to the Oval Office … R.I.P. United States of America.

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.