Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'First Amendment'.
Found 3 results
"Stephen Curry Says New Sports Illustrated Cover Is 'Terrible' for Leaving Off Colin Kaepernick" on bbc.com I agree with Stephen Curry - the "taking a knee" issue wouldn't even exist were it not for Colin Kaepernick. Aside from that, Kaepernick's original protest was about *police treatment of black people*, and yet the entire issue has morphed into "disrespecting servicemen and the American flag" - give me a break. On a related note (and it's absolutely related), this would be the funniest 1-2 Twitter war I've seen, if it didn't have such enormous repercussions: 1) Donald Trump 2) LeBron James My only problem with James' reply is that he felt the need to explain and justify his Tweet, which he did here. Regardless of what this symbolism becomes, It's important to remember that none of this was originally about disrespecting "the military" or "the flag," for Pete's sake. This also shows just how powerful the American Presidency is when it comes to being on the bully pulpit - my personal views of things should be obvious if you follow me outside this website, but I'm not going to use this venue for anything other than intelligent, respectful discourse (discussing the issue itself - regardless of your views - is encouraged; personal insults and partisan politics remain outside our scope). That said, is it correct for *any* U.S. President, regardless of party, to call a peacefully demonstrating NFL player a "son of a bitch?" I honestly wonder if he had an erection when he screamed, "He's fired!" - the sad thing is, for once, I'm not trying to be funny.
The text: "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." My first comment is that in Boolean Algebra (granted, something the Founding Fathers didn't know much about), AND takes precedence over OR. That's something that should at least be discussed. It's possible that in 1791, a string of ORs was ended by an AND - whatever was common practice at the time must be honored as intent. My first question is: Are the last two items ("the right of the people peaceably to assemble" and "to petition the government for a redress of grievances") more strongly linked (because of the AND) than any of the other two items? Or are they all considered equal members in a list? My second question is: What about the separation of church and state? Does the second clause ("prohibiting the free exercise thereof") mean that Congress is not allowed to pass a law, for example, making human sacrifices illegal, should a new religion be established (see the first clause) that calls for them? The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is *very* poorly worded - I'm sorry to say that, but it's true. These people may have known how to fight, but they didn't know how to write. Yet, here we are, slavishly following a poorly conceived and poorly written document. The Founding Fathers just weren't all that smart.
I've been tracking our own Jon Karl's work for nearly twenty years, and I believe this was the finest moment of his formidable career - it was the right speech at the right time. "Freedom of the Press" by Jonathan Karl on abcnews.go.com