The First Amendment... Does not apply to the government?

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
I said I would come back to this when I had more time, now seems as good of a time as any...

Dixie did you really say, ""The First Amendment doesn't even mention the government. It has absolutely nothing to do with what the government can or can't do...."

How do you reconsile that with the text of the First?

"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."
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
I said I would come back to this when I had more time, now seems as good of a time as any...

Dixie did you really say, ""The First Amendment doesn't even mention the government. It has absolutely nothing to do with what the government can or can't do...."

How do you reconsile that with the text of the First?

"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."
Click to expand...

Please define for me, the difference between "The Government" and "The Congress"?

Are they absolutely synonymous? If they are not, my statement is true. If they are synonymous, then School Prayer should be completely legal and Constitutional, because the school is not the government, Congress is.

So you study on this Jarhead, and let me know, was I right, or is School Prayer completely Constitutional and acceptable?
 
Congress is part of the government. When the First mentions congress, it is mentioning the government.

Congress is the part of the government that makes laws. First its a bill, then if proper procedure is followed and enough congresspeople vote for it, it becomes a law. When the constitution prohibits the Congress from doing something, it is prohibiting the Government from doing it. Congress is the proactive portion of "the government".
 
Dixie said:
Please define for me, the difference between "The Government" and "The Congress"?

Are they absolutely synonymous? If they are not, my statement is true. If they are synonymous, then School Prayer should be completely legal and Constitutional, because the school is not the government, Congress is.

So you study on this Jarhead, and let me know, was I right, or is School Prayer completely Constitutional and acceptable?
Click to expand...

A public schools are also a part of the government, just like Congress is part of the government.

Are you honestly trying to argue that Congress is not part of the United States Government?
 
Also, the first specifically mentions the word Government, contrary to your silly silly statement.

What do they teach in Alabama Schools?
 
Jarod said:
Congress is part of the government. When the First mentions congress, it is mentioning the government.

Congress is the part of the government that makes laws. First its a bill, then if proper procedure is followed and enough congresspeople vote for it, it becomes a law. When the constitution prohibits the Congress from doing something, it is prohibiting the Government from doing it. Congress is the proactive portion of "the government".
Click to expand...

you better study up some more on the machinations and workings of government. congress is only the final say in a law if they override a veto. Otherwise, the house and senate have to agree on a bill before the president signs it in to law.
 
Jarod said:
Congress is part of the government. When the First mentions congress, it is mentioning the government.

Congress is the part of the government that makes laws. First its a bill, then if proper procedure is followed and enough congresspeople vote for it, it becomes a law. When the constitution prohibits the Congress from doing something, it is prohibiting the Government from doing it. Congress is the proactive portion of "the government".
Click to expand...

By extension you are correct. Congress makes laws. The administrative branch administers/enforces the law and the judicial branch interprets the laws.
 
A BILL BEING CURRENTLY CONSIDERED IS THE BILL OF CONSOLIDATED NATURAL RESOURCES ACT OF 2008.THE BILL’S NUMBER IS S. 2739 IT’S AUTHOR IS JEFF BINGAMAN. THE BILL A BASICALLY AN ACT TO EXTEND THE COMMONWEALTH TO THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS. THE BILL WILL EVOLVE THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, THE FOREST SERVICE, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. THE BILL IS SUPPORTED BY A NEW MEXICAN CONGRESSMAN. THE PROS OF THIS BILL WILL BE STATED IN THE FOLLOWING SENTENCES. THE BILL WILL GET RID OF UNFUNDED LIABILITIES AND IT WILL BE HELPFUL. THE BILL WILL BRING UP BIPARTISANSHIP WHICH IS GOOD FOR ALL THE PARTIES AND WILL END THE CONFRONTATIONS AND OVERALL WILL BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THE UNEXPECTED VIEWS OF UNFUNDED LIABILITIES. THE BILL WILL HELP ADDRESSES THE WATER RESOURCE PROBLEMS THAT MANY COUNTRIES HAVE BEEN SEEING. THE BILL WILL ALSO HELP MANY NATIONAL PARKS AS WELL, THE PIERS BLANCA’S HISTORIC LIGHT STATION IN CALIFORNIA, AND THE JUPITER INLET LIGHTHOUSE IN FLORIDA TO NAME A FEW. THE BILL WILL HAVE AN ASSEMBLAGE OF NATURAL, HISTORIC, AND RESOURCES THAT TOGETHER REPRESENT DISTINCTIVE ASPECTS OF AMERICAN HERITAGE WORTHY OF RECOGNITION, CONSERVATION, INTERPRETATION, AND CONTINUING USE; IT WILL REFLECT TRADITIONS, CUSTOMS, BELIEFS, AND HISTORICAL EVENTS THAT ARE VALUABLE PARTS OF THE NATIONAL STORY; IT WILL PROVIDE OUTSTANDING OPPORTUNITIES TO CONSERVE NATURAL, HISTORIC, CULTURAL, ARCHITECTURAL, OR SCENIC FEATURES; THE CONS OF THIS BILL WILL MEAN THAT THE ACCEPTATION OF THIS BILL WILL AMOUNT IN THE COST OF TAXPAYERS’ MONEY AND IT WILL STILL BE DISPUTED AMONG SOME MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE AND THE SELECTION OF THIS BILL COULD MEAN A WEAKNESS IN THE CONTINUANCE OF BIPARTISANSHIP INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY HELPING IT IN THE LONG RUN. THIS BILL ALSO PROHIBITS FEDERAL FUNDS. PLUS THIS BILL MADE EXCEED THE LIMIT OF 25% OF THE TOTAL PROJECT WHICH COULD BACKFIRE AND INSTEAD HURT THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THE BILL. THE BILL COULD SEE AN INSTANT DECREASE IN SUPPORT AND WOULD THEN BECOME THROWN OUT AND TAKEN OUT FO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE BILL WOULD THEN BE INVALID AND THE WHOLE PURPOSE ON INSTATING THE BILL COULD BE ALL FOR NOTHING. AND ALL THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FOR THE PHYSICAL FORTIFICATION OF BUREAU OF RECLAMATION FACILITIES TO SATISFY INCREASED POST SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, SECURITY NEEDS, INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION, MODIFICATION, UPGRADE, OR REPLACEMENT OF SUCH FACILITY FORTIFICATIONS, WOULD BE NONREIMBURSABLE AND THAT’S NOT GOOD. THE BILL CANNOT EXCEED $18,900,000 WHICH IS ANOTHER CON AND THAT IS NOT GOOD. THE BILL COULD ALSO THE TECHNICAL, ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND OTHER OBSTACLES TO REDUCING THE QUANTITY OF PRODUCED WATER, THE WATER THAT HUMANS IN AMERICA CONSUME. THE TERMINATION DATE FOR THIS BILL IS QUITE EARLY AND THAT’S NOT GOOD EITHER. THE TERMINATION DATE IS TERMINATION AUTHORITY. THE AUTHORITY FOR THE SECRETARY TO IMPLEMENT THE FIRST INCREMENT SHALL TERMINATE ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 WHICH IS COMING RATHER SOON TO BE QUITE HONEST. THIS BILL IS VERY VERY VERY EXPENSIVE AND OF COURSE WILL ALL KNOW THIS BUT I’M GOING TO SAY IT AGAIN. THAT’S NO GOOD! LET ME SAY IT ONE MORE TIME TO YALL! THAT’S NO GOOD! YA’LL HEAR ME?! I SAID! THAT’S NO GOOD!LET ME RUN THIS BY YALL NIGGAS ONE MORE TIME! THAT’S NO GOOD! LIKE STEVE URKEL SAYS ON FAMIY MATTERS! THAT’S NO GOOD. THANKS FOR READING MY PROJECT I GRATEFULLY ACCEPT YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MY PERFECT WORDS. THE WORDS THAT COME OUT OF MY MOUTH ARE SIMILAR TO THE WORDS THAT COME OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF GODS. YES, I SAID IT. THINK ABOUT IT FOR A SECOND. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE WORLD WOULD TO BE INJURED? THINK OF ALL THE ENERGY THAT WOULD BE GATHERED DURING THIS TIME. THINK ABOUT IT FOR A SECOND. WHAT IF I WERE TO INJURE THE PLANET SO MUCH, THAT THE PLANET WOULD BEGIN TO CREATE A MASS AMOUNT OF ENERGY, THINK ABOUT ALL THAT ENERGY THAT WOULD BE GATHERED AND AT THE CENTER OF IT WOULD BE ME, ALL THAT BOUNDLESS ENERGY WILL BE MINE. BY TAKING IN THE ENERGY OF THE PLANET, I WILL CEASE TO EXIST AS I AM NOW ONLY TO BE REBORN AGAIN AS A ‘GOD’ TO RULE OVER EVERY SOUL. REMEMBER THAT MURAL. IN COMPLIANCE WIL THE FUFILLMENT OF THE QUOTA 5115. WE MUST ACCERN THAT ALL ITS RITEFUL PARTICPIPANTS ARE OPENLY WILLING TO SUMBIT THEIR COMPLETE AND UTTER OBIEDENCE IN REGARDS TO THE LAWS OF MY LAND. INSO I AND OPENLY HOPING THAT ALL OF MY LIEGES ARE IN TURN, REQUIRED TO FILL OUT AN ALPHADEPHIT STATING THAT THEY ARE FOREVER IN MY WILL AND DETERMATION AMOONG THESE FEW THINGS STATED. I WANT NOTHING SHORT OF ABSOULTE OBIDENCE. CRUELTY COMMANDS RESPECT. MEN MAY HATE US. BUT WE DON’T ASK FOR THEIR LOVE, ONLY FOR THEIR FEAR.
 
Jarod said:
Congress is part of the government. When the First mentions congress, it is mentioning the government.

Congress is the part of the government that makes laws. First its a bill, then if proper procedure is followed and enough congresspeople vote for it, it becomes a law. When the constitution prohibits the Congress from doing something, it is prohibiting the Government from doing it. Congress is the proactive portion of "the government".
Click to expand...

Right, Congress is PART OF "The Government" and not "THE GOVERNMENT!"

So I am correct in saying, the 1st doesn't say what "THE GOVERNMENT" can do! It does say what a PART OF "The Government" is not to do, in this case, pass laws abridging free religion and speech. This is because free religion and speech are fundamentally endowed rights retained by man, not subject to Congressional oversight.

Let's recall what this argument began over. You argued there was no "freedom of speech" and the 1st merely applied to The Government. It doesn't apply to The Government. It applies to freedom of speech and religion and protects it from Congress, which is a part of the government. If the 1st merely applied to "the government" as you argued, then school prayer would be completely constitutional and couldn't be questioned, because a school is not "the government" and is not restricted by your interpretation of the 1st Amendment. In fact, any entity other than "the government" which wanted to force you to worship or deny you the right to speak, would be protected under the Constitutional interpretation you have assumed.
 
Jarod said:
Also, the first specifically mentions the word Government, contrary to your silly silly statement.

What do they teach in Alabama Schools?
Click to expand...

I stand corrected, it does indeed "mention" the government. It allows that citizens have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. I should have stated more clearly, it does not mention what the government can do, other than the portion of government known as the Congress. I think I was trying to not be so wordy, as many have complained I tend to be.... pinheads... bitch if you are wordy... bitch if you're not! :p
 
Dixie said:
I stand corrected, it does indeed "mention" the government. It allows that citizens have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. I should have stated more clearly, it does not mention what the government can do, other than the portion of government known as the Congress. I think I was trying to not be so wordy, as many have complained I tend to be.... pinheads... bitch if you are wordy... bitch if you're not! :p
Click to expand...
However, the 14th Amendment does forbid all of government, at all levels, from removing the privileges of citizens, and forbids all of government at all levels from depriving any person of life liberty or property without due process.

It's strange how people (especially the government) seems to forget exactly what the 14th Amendment does.
 
Good Luck said:
However, the 14th Amendment does forbid all of government, at all levels, from removing the privileges of citizens, and forbids all of government at all levels from depriving any person of life liberty or property without due process.

It's strange how people (especially the government) seems to forget exactly what the 14th Amendment does.
Click to expand...

Correct you are, and in my original posting of the statement in question, I included in the argument that the 1st doesn't deal with what government can or can't do, because that is addressed in the 14th.
 
Mottleydude said:
You're not to bright, are you?
Click to expand...

dude, can you honestly say that you've approved of every piece of legislation that every congress has considered or signed? I seriously fucking doubt it.

I repeat, they should have stopped at shall make no law, but I digress.

I forgot to realize that you need an authoritative body to tell you what you can and can't do because you're not smart enough to figure it out on your own.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you better study up some more on the machinations and workings of government. congress is only the final say in a law if they override a veto. Otherwise, the house and senate have to agree on a bill before the president signs it in to law.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected, its not a law until the president signs it, but without Congress passing it, it cant become a law.
 
Dixie said:
Right, Congress is PART OF "The Government" and not "THE GOVERNMENT!"

So I am correct in saying, the 1st doesn't say what "THE GOVERNMENT" can do! It does say what a PART OF "The Government" is not to do, in this case, pass laws abridging free religion and speech. This is because free religion and speech are fundamentally endowed rights retained by man, not subject to Congressional oversight.

Let's recall what this argument began over. You argued there was no "freedom of speech" and the 1st merely applied to The Government. It doesn't apply to The Government. It applies to freedom of speech and religion and protects it from Congress, which is a part of the government. If the 1st merely applied to "the government" as you argued, then school prayer would be completely constitutional and couldn't be questioned, because a school is not "the government" and is not restricted by your interpretation of the 1st Amendment. In fact, any entity other than "the government" which wanted to force you to worship or deny you the right to speak, would be protected under the Constitutional interpretation you have assumed.
Click to expand...

So we can agree the first Amendment does mention the government?
 
Dixie said:
Right, Congress is PART OF "The Government" and not "THE GOVERNMENT!"

So I am correct in saying, the 1st doesn't say what "THE GOVERNMENT" can do! It does say what a PART OF "The Government" is not to do, in this case, pass laws abridging free religion and speech. This is because free religion and speech are fundamentally endowed rights retained by man, not subject to Congressional oversight.

Let's recall what this argument began over. You argued there was no "freedom of speech" and the 1st merely applied to The Government. It doesn't apply to The Government. It applies to freedom of speech and religion and protects it from Congress, which is a part of the government. If the 1st merely applied to "the government" as you argued, then school prayer would be completely constitutional and couldn't be questioned, because a school is not "the government" and is not restricted by your interpretation of the 1st Amendment. In fact, any entity other than "the government" which wanted to force you to worship or deny you the right to speak, would be protected under the Constitutional interpretation you have assumed.
Click to expand...



You see, I know this is a bit complicated for someone like you, but when the Congress approperates money for "Public Schools" it is passing a law that if those public schools promoted a religien would be violative of the First Amendment. When "congress" passes a law to create a department of Education, if that Department of Education were to promote a religen, that law would be violative of the 1st Amendment.

To be fair they dont teach this in Alabama, but it is true. You see, Congress is not only prohibited from passing a law that says, "Islam is the national religen and all Americans are required to practice it." Congress is also prohibited from passing laws, no matter what they call the law, that in effect do promote a religen. Like funding for a school that promotes the establishment of a national religen.
 
Freedom of speech is a term used to describe the protections the First Amendment provides all Americans. Our government cannot prohibit free expression. That means that a news commentator can get on the television and say what ever the network will allow her to say. (Now some limits have been allowed, she cannot legally be obsene for example. If that is violative of the First is a discussion for another day) What is imoprtant is that the government cannot prohibit her and her network from expression. The network itself however does not have to allow her to say one dam thing.

The comentator can go out on the street and say just about anything. But to somehow say that the networks have limited ones constitutional right to free speech by reproting that what they said was untrue is bullshit!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top