Tag Archives: first amendment rights
If you believe – as I do – that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were inspired, then you must believe – as I do – that God inspired the Separation of Church and State. What we do in whatever house of worship we attend, or do not attend, is between the individual and God.
God never wanted to be in the White House, or the Congress or the School. Man wants his version of God in those places. If God inspired the Constitution and Bill of Rights there is no other way to believe. You cannot have it both ways.
You cannot believe God inspired the First Amendment only to keep Congress out of Churches, and is OK with forcing religion on everyone else, whether through worship or through laws. You see, Shariah Law is Shariah Law whether administered by radical Islam or radical Christianity, it is the same.
If your opposition, or favor, of any secular law is “Because God says so” then you are in opposition to the very principles God established when He inspired the Founding Fathers.
God does not want forced worship or devotion, that is not His plan, but it is someone else’s.
This applies to not choosing to believe as well. There’s a reason the Founding Fathers were inspired to place a separation of church and state in the First Amendment, it was to prevent religious beliefs, or teachings, from being forced on the general public in the form of laws. Thus, if limiting same sex marriage is based on religious beliefs, it’s not Constitutional.
Sometimes the hard part about living in a country with a Constitution like ours is being willing to protect and defend the rights of others to have the inalienable, God given right to choose how they will live their lives. In short, if you don’t mind religions telling other citizens – through the civil government – how to live their lives, I’m sure you won’t mind when other citizens – through that same civil government – start telling you how to worship.
According to a story in The Hill, Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has proposed an amendment to the Constitution to exclude corporations from First Amendment rights to spend money on political campaigns.
The proposed amendment’s a reaction to the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, wherein the conservative majority Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the government cannot put limits on election advertisements funded by corporations, unions or other groups. Democrats have charged that the decision essentially treats corporations as people who can enjoy First Amendment rights.
“Make no mistake, the Citizens United ruling has radically changed the nature of our democracy, further tilting the balance of power toward the rich and the powerful at a time when already the wealthiest people in this country have never had it so good,” Sanders said.”In my view, history will record that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision is one of the worst decisions ever made by a Supreme Court in the history of our country.”
S.J.Res. 33, would state corporations don’t have the same constitutional rights as persons, that corporations are subject to regulation, that corporations may not make campaign contributions and that Congress has the power to regulate campaign finance.
While the Citizens United case affected corporations, unions and other entities, the Sanders amendment focuses only on “for-profit corporations, limited liability companies or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests.”
The Hill reports that Sanders said he’s never proposed an amendment to the Constitution before, but said he sees no other alternative to reversing the Citizens United decision.
“In my view, corporations should not be able to go into their treasuries and spend millions and millions of dollars on a campaign in order to buy elections,” he said. “I do not believe that is what American democracy is supposed to be about.”
This past summer, Republican Tea Party (GOTP) presidential bridesmaid candidate Mittens Romney mewed “corporations are people my friend,” when fielding a question about whether taxes should be raised in order to increase federal revenues, which drew sharp reactions from Democrats.
The Sanders amendment is co-sponsored by Democratic Senator Mark Begich of Alaska, and a similar amendment has been proposed in the House by Democratic Representative Ted Deutch of Florida.
While it’s true these proposals don’t have a snow ball’s chance of moving forward in the House and Senate, as each would need the support of two-thirds of both chambers to pass, Sanders, Begich and Deutch should all be thanked by liberty loving people everywhere; Citizens United is one of the most infamous Supreme Court decisions since Dred Scott and make no mistake it will one day be overturned.