Charlotte Observer | Pro First Amendment Flash Mob Charlotte Observer At just about the time Donald Trump was taking the oath of office about 50 people gathered in a flash mob to sing "This Land is Your Land" at Thompson Park at Trade and Tryon Streets in Charlotte. Hardin Minor, who called for the flash mob on social ... |
*The following is an opinion column by R Muse*
It is no exaggeration whatsoever to say there isnt much about the U.S. Constitution Republicans respect or support except for the 2nd Amendment; at least as long as the National Rifle Association (NRA) and gun industry continues funding their despotism. Obviously, they detest everything about the 14th Amendment because it guarantees that every American enjoys exactly the same civil and equal rights regardless of their race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. Some folks may say Republicans have an affinity for the religious clauses of the 1st Amendment, but that is patently false simply because they either perpetually violate or use the clauses to force their evangelical mandates down every other Americans throat.
Now, it is clear that as this column has warned ad nauseam; if religious Republicans ever get the opportunity, they will wipe out the Founding Fathers intent that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Of course, this author is not a prophet, but as someone who is intimately aware of the evangelical rights mindset and intent to create a Christian theocracy to rule Americans, that warning was prophetic. It is bad enough that the incoming vice-president tapped to run domestic and foreign policy for the CEO of make America great is a rabid evangelical extremist, but the nations incoming top enforcer is of the same mindset as Mike Pence and will have the full weight of the Department of Justice empowering his religious intent.
It is a sad state of affairs that the man Trump wants to lead the Justice Department, Jeff Sessions, sincerely believes, and had no qualms saying out loud that the Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution is unconstitutional. Sessions, an evangelical extremist, also said that the separation of church and state is an extra-constitutional doctrine and a recent thing that is unhistorical and unconstitutional. (Author bold)
However, the real historical figure, Founding Father and third President of the United States Thomas Jefferson plainly explained in writing that:
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
Sessions, as Michael Stone over at Patheos rightly labeled a moral monster subscribes to fake historian David Bartons teaching that what Thomas Jefferson, the Founding Fathers, and Constitutions Framers really meant in writing the Constitutions Establishment Clause was that Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of Christianity. The evangelical revisionists also claim that the idea of the Constitutions prohibition on the Congress legislating any religion was a devious machination of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to evict god, the Christian bible, the Ten Commandments and Jesus Christ out of the constitutionally created government.
As an aside and for real historical context, the ACLU was founded in 1920, the Constitution was adopted as the law of the land in 1791, and Thomas Jefferson explained the meaning of the Establishment Clause in 1802. Obviously there is nothing unhistorical or unconstitutional about the separation of church and state except that it prevents religious tyranny by Christian theocrats in Republican ranks that now have a stellar opportunity to legislate their evangelical version of Sharia Law.
What Sessions belief means for America is that going forward when religious Republican legislatures start mandating that all citizens strictly adhere to some bastardized Christian edict, the Department of Justice will not support and defend the Constitution or religious freedom. In fact, it is safe to say that the DOJ under theocratic leadership will take punitive action against non-compliance based on the religious Republican belief that any American who does not comply with evangelical edicts is violating evangelical extremists religious freedom enshrined in the First Amendment. They have been doing it for the past eight years and now they are a Senate confirmation away from having the nations Justice Department ready to come to their defense.
The dangerous implications of a theocratic Department of Justice cannot possibly be understated because there are no lines the evangelical right is unwilling to cross to enforce their religious fanaticism. It is true they may not mirror the actions of the religious fanatics in ISIS right away, but they will demand universal compliance to their particularly bizarre version of Jesus without the love, tolerance and, charity the real Jesus preached. And along with that demand of compliance by legislative edict, Americans will no longer have a Justice Department to protect them from forced adherence to a legislatively established religion.
Of all the damage the incoming administration is going to wreak on this nation and its citizens, and it is going to be deadly damage, the danger from Dominionists who want a Christian theocracy as the government and the Christian bible as law of the land is inestimable. They will not be content with just punishing gays and women, they will first tyrannize, and then severely punish Old Testament style every American alive who fails to conform to their religious edicts. And, they will have authority and backing from a Department of Justice head who believes that the Founding Fathers and Constitutions Framers created an unconstitutional religious clause in the U.S. Constitutions First Amendment. The only Americans who arent terrified at the prospect of an evangelical zealot running the DOJ are religious fanatics and evangelical extremists like Jeff Sessions and Mike Pence.
h/t Patheos
Christian Reconstructionists, Danbury Baptists, dominionists, Establishment Clause, evangelical fanatics, jeff sessions, religious clauses, religious Republicans, separation of church and state, sessions attorney general, Theocracy, thomas jefferson
Go here to read the rest:
Jeff Sessions Believes the First Amendment Separation Clause Is Unconstitutional - PoliticusUSA
WAMC Northeast Public Radio is now offering twoEXCLUSIVE Locked Box premiums, with a First Amendment theme.
The First Amendment T-shirt is a pale grey 100% cotton T-shirt, and features the full language of the First Amendment and theWAMC microphone logo.
The T-shirt is available in unisex sizes small - 2XL for a pledge of $100.00 or more.
The First Amendment mug is a black 11 ounce ceramic coffee mug with theWAMC microphone logo and the statement "The First Amendment, Now More Than Ever" imprinted in white. The mug is available for a pledge to WAMC for $100.00 or more.
A First Amendment package, consisting of a First Amendment T-shirt in the size of your choice AND the First Amendment mug, is available for your pledge of $150.00 or more.
You may choose any of the First Amendment premiums in the dropdown menu here or by calling 1 800 323 9262.
Why not become a sustaining member at $12.50 per month and get the First Amendment package as your premium?
Pledge Now
See the original post here:
The First Amendment Premium Package - WAMC
'); //-->
Donald Trumps adviser, Kellyanne Conway, has continued her attacks on the First Amendment, warning of consequences for Trump criticism. Asked repeatedly why Trump was sheltering Russia in his obeisance to Valdimir Putin, she said, Dont say that again. Former aide (and possible White House aide) Corey Lewandowski wants to jail the New York Times reporter who broke the story on Trumps taxes.
The First Amendment, so long as we fight to protect it, doesnt work that way. We get to tell you what we think out loud. We gave ourselves permission 200 years ago to say No! and we are not giving it up without a struggle.
Thomas Jefferson famously preferred newspapers without government over government without newspapers. We should too. And we should certainly not prefer a single individual over the network of news we have established since Thomas Jefferson said that.
Building distrust, encouraging hate and divisiveness appears to be a long-term strategy of this new administration. It seems to me a sinister, undemocratic one, destined for much less than democracy and much more of the oligarchy progressives talk about and planned to reduce the influence of the people on our own government. Continually berating journalists, refusing to appear in person, threatening the media with strong libel laws and by passing the media to tweet directly to the public: These are all four ways demagogues grab freedom from our hands.
We must speak up against these insults to the Constitution and work to end them.
Harris Lindenfeld
Manlius
See the article here:
Trump aides attacking First Amendment - WatertownDailyTimes.com
Trump is no fan of free speechwhich makes speaking out more important than ever.
(SIPA USA / AP)
Donald Trump has no particular reverence for the First Amendment. He may not even understand it very well. During the campaign, Trump said he would open up libel law so that newspapers could more easily be sued. As president-elect, he tweeted that those who burn the American flag should be stripped of their citizenship and jailed. These threats are constitutional nonstarters. There is no federal libel law to open up: Libel is a matter of state law, and to the extent it is governed by federal law, its the First Amendment that governs. Similarly, the Supreme Court held in 1989 (in a case I litigated) that the First Amendment protects flag-burning and ruled in 1967 that citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away as punishment under any circumstancesnot for murder, not for treason, and certainly not for flag-burning.
So these particular threats are empty, and they tell us more about Trumps ignorance than about his actual plans. But the very fact that he would issue such threats is cause for concern. Trump seems to have little respect for anyones freedom of speech other than his own. In his private life, he has repeatedly abused libel law as a plaintiff, using his substantial resources to file dubious suits in attempts to bully those who criticize him. In fact, during the campaign, the American Bar Association drafted a report concluding that Trump was a libel bullybut then declined to publish it out of fear that it, too, would become a defendant in such a suit. Trump has also repeatedly attacked the press, attempting to undermine its legitimacy whenever it covers him negatively.
To the extent that Trump can take actions as president that run roughshod over First Amendment rights, there is every reason to believe he will not hesitate to do so, even if its difficult to pinpoint now in which contexts the threats will arise. The amendments central premise, after all, is that government officials must tolerate even very harsh criticism; they must tolerate expressions they hate. But Trump and tolerance are not words that go easily in the same sentence. His standard operating procedure is to bully his opponents into silenceand as president, his ability to do so increases exponentially. These kinds of actions can have a chilling effectindeed, that is their purpose.
David Cole argues that the best check against Trumps abuses is the First Amendment itself. Groups protecting and exercising free speech include:
ACLU: For almost 100 years, the ACLU has defended our civil rights and liberties. aclu.org
CCR: The Center for Constitutional Rights protects civil and human rights. ccrjustice.org
NAACP: Its Legal Defense Fund leads the fight for racial justice. naacpldf.org
Planned Parenthood: The organization has provided health care and education to women for over 100 years. plannedparenthood.org
At the same time, the First Amendment is likely to be our savior in the Trump era. As we all know, Trump has a Republican majority in Congress and will have a conservative majority on the Supreme Court once he appoints Antonin Scalias successor. So where will the vaunted checks and balances of our constitutional order come from?
They will come from us, and its the First Amendment that guarantees our right to them. The Constitutions checks and balances are not limited to the formal separation of powers. The First Amendment itself serves a critical checking function, by safeguarding the rights of citizens to criticize government officials, to associate with like-minded citizens in collective action, and to petition the government for redress of grievances. It is this First Amendment tradition that protects the institutions we will rely on to push back against Trumps abuses.
The press has its own express protection in the First Amendment, and it will play a critical role in bringing abuses to light and arming citizens with information and arguments. Think Watergate. The academy, protected by the doctrine of academic freedom, will also be essentialquestioning Trumps policies, providing empirical evidence to refute his assertions, and educating citizens about the value of our civil liberties and civil rights. And the nonprofit sector, including organizations such as Planned Parenthood, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the ACLU, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, 350.org, and the groups that comprise the Movement for Black Lives, will be a focal point for organizing, educating, litigating, and inspiring resistance. If we are saved, it will be thanks to actions by citizens exercising their First Amendment rights against Trump.
Upon exiting the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin was asked what the framers had achieved. He replied, A republic, if you can keep it. The onus is on us. By protecting the freedom to speak, organize, publish, and petition, the Constitution ensures that we have the means at our disposal to maintain our republic. What the framers couldnt give us is the will to use those means. But if the response to Trump thus far proves anything, its that the will to resist is there.
Originally posted here:
Donald Trump vs. the First Amendment - The Nation.