1st Amendment - State Sponsored versus Individually Sponsored

I read something this morning that started a fire in my brain, and now I want to see if it starts a fire in yours.

According to a Fox News article, a North Carolina school compelled a young girl to remove religious references from a poem she wrote about her two grandfathers and their Vietnam War experiences during a Veteran's Day presentation at her school. According to the report, the principal at the West Marion Elementary School was asked to review the appropriateness of the religious references in the poem being performed at a school sponsored function, as it may violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The school agreed with the grievance and the girl was ordered to alter the poem.

What bothers me isn't the school's knee-jerk reaction. That's typical, and I recognize it in two parts: 1) a coward's response to a public that believes they have the right to not be offended, and have been proven correct through successful litigation, 2) a school's reaction to the first response and deciding that to "err on the side of caution", as the principal puts it, saves them from having to defend themselves against a costly lawsuit that the plaintiff will invariably not have to fund due to the slavering vociferousness of the ACLU's desire to destroy any form of public religious expression. What bothers me is that we, as a society, continue to mistakenly apply the First Amendment to institutions to which it is not applicable as a means of restricting Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion.

Below, the full text of the First Amendment; we're going to break this down, and then I'm going to point you at a a dissenting viewpoint that, unfortunately, due to legal precedent  happens to be the way the First Amendment is applied.

"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."

Phraseology; we're going to take this a piece at a time. First clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
Seems simple enough, right? This is also the basis for the "Establishment Clause". So lets get into this.

The Amendment specifically states that Congress shall make no law... Congress is the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government, and thus an amendment to the Constitution was created by our Founders to limit the Federal Government's ability to create laws that establish or recognize any religion as a religion preferred by the State. There is nothing in this Clause that expressly prohibits lower entities under the Government, or public entities not associated with the Federal Government from displaying icons of a religious nature publicly, and doesn't protect the citizenry from the expression of religion in public by anyone, regardless of affiliation with the Government. Put simply, extrapolating from this first part of the Amendment that the Federal Government shall, in pursuit of compliance with the Amendment in whole, expunge all religious references from public display, or display by public representation at any level, is reaching too far for the apple. As a school is not capable of legislating, a school's allowing for a child to reference God, Allah, Thor, or whatever other deity they choose to while reading a poem they, themselves, wrote is protected by the remainder of the Amendment.

"...or (make no law...) prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" refers again to the limits on Congress concerning the creating of laws limiting freedom of religion. Since its been argued successfully, and to our detriment, that a publicly funded entity should be held to higher restraints concerning religious display, regardless of its legislative powers, one could also conversely argue that since the school, in this case, would violate the Establishment Clause by allowing for the poem to be read as written, that they would also violate the Freedom Exercise Clause by prohibiting the child's poem to be read. This circular reference paradox is directly caused by the misapplication of judicial precedent regarding the Establishment Clause and its applicability to lower governmental bodies with no legislative powers. A school is not Congress, just as much as a city community center, lets say, in Santa Monica, CA, isn't Congress. The Establishment Clause applies only to Congress.

"...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" This is pretty self explanatory, but we still manage to get it wrong. There are those who feel that since words can hurt we must prevent this pain by preventing the unfettered use of language to express an individual. I'm not talking about libel or yelling fire in a crowded building. I'm talking about political correctness and the overbearing need to force people to not offend others. You're no more protected by the First Amendment from being offended than the school is obligated to wipe religion out of that little girls poem. For some reason, though, we've created an industry around litigation centered on the protection of the feelings of people from the expression of others. This seems to only apply to religious types, or Conservatives, though. No one has, to my knowledge, suggested we bind Louie CK's lips shut for calling Sarah Palin the vile things he has; at least, no one has and received face in the media for having done so. Unless you are exposed to what CK has said on the radio, in his act, and on TV, you'd not know, and therefore not be offended. The same can be said for any other type of expression, say, Mark Levin or Rush Limbaugh, for instance. If what they say doesn't sit well with you, change the channel, but don't go crying to the Government to forcibly "change the channel" for the entire population. That is not your place, and the changing of the channel is not the Government's place, as indicated by this Clause.

"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This seems pretty self explanatory as well. Congress shall not legislate away the right to peaceably assemble, protest publicly, or petition for the redress of grievances against the Government. Since this isn't part of the topic at hand, I'm not going to delve too deep into this, except to say that while Occupy Wall Street started out as a peaceable protest movement, it quickly spun out of control, as most mob mentality movements will. Once the peace was disturbed by the mob the protest movement gave up its right to assemble. If a citizen was part of the mob and arrested for defecating on a police vehicle, that arrest is not without cause, and the police officer should not be reprimanded for carrying out their duties in the prevention of further carrying out of doodie.

For a dissenting opinion on the Establishment Clause, and the history of its application to public discourse, to the detriment of society, please visit the Introduction to the Establishment Clause at Exploring Constitutional Law.

We Hold These Truths to be Self Evident...Part I - by Dan Lewis of The Spitcracker Picayune

Dan Lewis posted the first in a series of studies on the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights at The Spitcracker Picayune. A very good read. I had the following comment:

"... else we chafe ourselves and bleed."

For this bleeding to happen we must voluntarily give up there trappings of Liberty in favor of tyranny. Remember, for your liberty to be taken by Government, you, as the governed, must agree to have those in office imbued with the power to strip your liberty from you. You, along with others, also have the power to empower Government to strip away the liberties of others, in most cases without their consent, through a majority vote to pass bad policy, or bad policy makers.

Conservatism Explained

There isn't a lot of push within what most Americans would think of as the bastions of Conservatism to actually express what being a Conservative means. I believe the GOP's biggest problem over the course of the last 30 years and more has been a blurring of morality; a penchant for personal gain, regardless of means, if you will. Politicians find very shortly after election that they're able to amass a vast amount of power and wealth in a relatively short amount of time if they only go along to get along inside the Beltway.

Conservatism isn't about one aspect of one's life, it is a lifestyle. People who are Conservative believe what they believe to be true because over the course of history and the expanse of observation of human nature the core aspects of Conservatism have been proven over and over again. To espouse Conservatism isn't the be all and end all of what it means to be a Conservative. It is simply a beginning. One must live their lives within the confines of moral and ethical purity; to do the right thing every time, especially when no one is looking. What one does when no one is there to witness their actions is the simplest measure of the quality of one's character, and the willingness to hold oneself to being ethically and morally pure even when temptation would cause human nature to prompt us to take care of Number One at the unknowing expense of humanity, in whole or in part, is anathema to Conservatism.

Once the ethical and moral litmus test comes back positive for Conservatism there are a few Core Values that Conservatives apply to their lives. These Core Values, much like the Core Values of our military services, shape the lens through which a Conservative views the world around them, and guides them through the tumult that invariably stands between humanity and prosperity.

Conservatism's Core Values are:

• Constitutional Republicanism, or the preservation of the true representative republic under which all Americans are supposed to be governed by, as outlined in the Constitution
• Limited Federalism, or the intentional hobbling of the Federal Government so as to purposefully prevent a totalitarian tyranny from springing up within the centralized aspects of government that are necessary
• Sovereignty of the States over the wishes of the Administrative State, except where the Constitution outlines enumerated powers held exclusively by the Federal Government
• The Right to Ownership of Personal Arms, or the right to own a means of protecting oneself from assault, regardless of source
• Fiscal Conservatism, or the application of proper and just stewardship of the public trust that is accumulated by the Government through taxation and tariffs as a means to fund the necessary functions of Federalism
• Peace Through Strength, or the forming, training, supplying and sustaining of a strong military force as a means of deterrence to aggression to enemies foreign and domestic as well as a means to stand by and defend our allies from the same
• A Strong Currency, made and kept strong through the application of all of the other Core Values.

Our Nation lives and breathes these Values in some shape or form. Although not every American is able to identify with more than a few of Conservatism's Core Values, most will find that they believe in at least one of these keystones that make up what it means to be a Constitutional Conservative. Sadly, temptation, always the enemy of every man, woman and child in this great nation, pulls the attention of even the most devoted Conservative away from the application of these values to their lives. Diversion of attention isn't a failing. Allowing for temptation to spur action in the hearts of man, at the expense of others, is a severe failing, and can be traced as a direct causative factor in nearly every detrimental aspect of American life.

The path toward solving the problems that face America today is very much the same as it was during the founding of the United States following the Revolutionary War. Many of our problems stem from what temptation causes man to do unto his fellow man. Application of Conservatism, Constitutional and otherwise, is a spectacular first step down this path. Many have already begun taking this step.

Will you join them, and us, in starting down the path toward restoring America to its former greatness?

This post was also contributed to The Spitcracker Picayune

The Constitution of the United States - Article I

My study of the Constitution begins here:
Article I
Section 2, Clause 5:
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment
Once Senators begin spouting off about how Congress should start Impeachment Hearings the Senators involved should be required to re-read this Section and Clause.

Section 3, Clause 6:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
This is the reason why Senators, even if under the belief that someone has conducted themselves in a manner that would warrant Impeachment, should keep their opinions on the matter to themselves. The conflict of interest created by Senators pre-judging they would ultimately be responsible for presiding over would be abundantly apparent. It would also present the appearance of the "judging body" in the event of Impeachment Hearings being biased against the accused by virtue of the fact that a member of the body called for the Hearings, thereby affirming their belief in the accused person's guilt.


Section 8, Clause 3 (The Commerce Clause):
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
This is one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented of the Clauses in the Constitution. Specifically, the middle statement, wherein is indicated that Congress has the power to regulate Commerce "among the several States". This is a simple statement. Commerce among the States is under the purview of Congress. Simply put, this means that Commerce between the States shall be regulated as Congress sees fit. This Clause does not indicate anything other than Commerce among the States, which means Commerce that is not carried out by Citizens and Non-Governmental organizations is exempt from this oversight by Congress. Simply put, if the States wish to conduct Commerce related activity the activity is subject to Congressional approval, and conversely, if a private Citizen, Business or Non-Governmental Organization wishes to conduct Commerce related activity they are free to do so without hindrance from Congressional oversight.

Section 10, Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
Unless I read this Clause incorrectly, this Clause indicates that all net proceeds collected by States who are able to gain Consent of the Congress to levy taxes on Imports and Exports shall then transfer said proceeds to the US Treasury for their specific Use. This basically means that the gasoline, liquor and tobacco taxes, and other such taxes that vary from State to State are actually the property of the US Treasure, not the State they are collected in. I wonder what would happen if the Treasury were to re-direct the California $0.185/gal gasoline tax from California Department of Transportation projects to something else entirely?

Article II, tomorrow...

I want to get back into this!

I find that when I write I'm happier. Strange, that, considering that when I write I am often complaining about something. I think I'm happier because when I write it lets me vent my spleen about the things that really light my hair on fire. That could be it. Anyway, I'm going to try to get back into it, and I have planned a study of the Constitution of the United States as a starting point. I'm going to go through, Amendment by Amendment, in hopes of gaining a deeper understanding of what being an American truly means.

It should be fun! Or boring... Depending on your perspective. We shall see.