• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Where in the constitution do peolpe get Freedom of speech as a right?

N

Narph

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
129
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No where in the constitution does it say freedom of speech is a right.
I hear people say that the first amendment to the constitution is the right to freedom of speech, but if you read it there is no mention of such a right.
All that amendment says is that the congress shall not make a law that tuches that subject. I suppose people see what they want to see though. Please before you post read the amendment and think about what it says. Look carefully at the "Congress shall make no law" Part.


Amendment I
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.
 
Don't you think your playing semantics with the Constitution? If it is not a right, then what is it? What is the point you are trying to make?

I almost forgot, Welcome to Debate Politics.
 
My point is that no one understands the countries highest laws. You hear things like

The right of freedom of speech
Separation of church and state

They say these things are in the constution when they are not.
I feel people misunderstand the purpose the Federal government was intended
for and if they where held to there own rules by us the people than people would stop using the Federal Government as a way to impose the agendas on the rest of the states.

I am from Oregon and I believe in freedom of speech, but I recognize that my right of freedom of speech is protected by the Oregon constitution not the Federal.

Section 8. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.

Thank you for the warm welcome!
 
Last edited:


Looks like freedom of speech to me.It says congress shall make no abriding the freedom of speech.

Abridge is defined as
a·bridge Audio pronunciation of "abridging" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-brj)
tr.v. a·bridged, a·bridg·ing, a·bridg·es

1. To reduce the length of (a written text); condense.
2. To cut short; curtail.

: to diminish or reduce in scope



So basicly that means freedom of speech since it is actually defined in the constitution.
 
To jamesrage

I think you missed the point of what I am saying or you misunderstand the constitution. This amendment only applies to the Federal congress not the states. So it only prevents the Federal government from abridging the freedom of speech not the states. So if a state made a law that took away your right of freedom of speech the constitution does not prevent it. Sure modern day judges who I don't think have even read the constitution would say it does prevent them but if you read the plain English of the first amendment it does not.
 
The basis for my great state's Constitution is the US Constitution, as is every state's. The statement that Congress may not enact laws to restrict free speech defines the concept that we are not to be limited by the Federal gov't in what we can say. The Constitution also says that states can't pass laws that conflict with the US Constitution.


BTW - Which side of the Cascades do you live on? Are you forced to live on the side that's beautiful 5 months out of the year (when it's not raining) or are you blessed to get to live on the side that's always beautiful?
 
faithful_servant said:
The Constitution also says that states can't pass laws that conflict with the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

the constitution says that congress may not pass a law, so a state law would never contradict it anyway.
 
I believe it's the 14th Amendment that extended Constitutional protections to the states.
 
Patrickt said:
I believe it's the 14th Amendment that extended Constitutional protections to the states.
Click to expand...

Actually it was SCOTUS interpretation that extended the 14th amendment to limit state powers..

Original Undestanding of the ammendment certainly did not, nor would it of been approved if it was worded to support todays SCOTUS interpretation.
 
A clever Natural Law observation.

What you see in the First Amendment is a restriction laid upon the government, not the establishment of the right to speak freely.

The right to free speech itself is not established in the Constitution. The right itself is established by God, and conferred upon each individual by God upon that individual’s creation.

In effect, there is no Constitutional basis for the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and papers, etc. All these are perceived to already exist per a common understanding of Natural Law

Also, the preamble of the Constitution tells us that one of the purposes of the Constitution is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty". Well, who is to say that this alleged "liberty" exists in the first place, let alone that this unproven "liberty" issues "blessings"? That's simply a matter of opinion, don't you think?

Heh, what tangible, Objective, verifiable scientific evidence did our founding fathers have that this so-called "liberty" existed? They told each other that it existed, so at best it's a 'because-I-say-so-postulation'; and based on what? Religion! That's what! Be it a personal abstract belief or opinion, or an official orthodoxy.

So at worst governmental endorsement of this alleged "liberty" violates the Wall of Separation.

Okay, I had my fun, back to cleaning the house....
 
I believe it's the 14th Amendment that extended Constitutional protections to the states.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

And Narph, there is about 200 years worth of case law that upholds the right to free speech, separation of church and state, etc, that you and others may argue "isn't in" the constitution.

What you see in the First Amendment is a restriction laid upon the government, not the establishment of the right to speak freely.
Click to expand...

Which, practically speaking, is the same thing, that is if the restriction is enforced. But I understand your point.

example:
I was born with freedom of speech. But if I speak my mind and I'm thrown in jail, I do not have constitutionally protected speech. Big dif.
 

The 200 years of case law is not what I am debating about and is the opinion of a select group of people. Also that case law at many times contradicts it self depending on
who those judges are, and the time period. If you can't see that the supreme court is dictating law from the bench not enforcing it than you must be blind. Also if you want to prove a point about a amendment all you should have to do is quote the amendment. If you can't do that you should rethink your position.

What I am saying is the perpose of the 1st amendment is that the Federal government is not suppose to touch the subject either way. So that the states can decide for them selves. There was a time when people saw them selves as citzens of there respective states first and of the union second.It was a sad day when that changed because now we have people trying to impose all there agendas and beliefs at the Federal level. With no one seeing a problem with it. I see this as the bigest threat to freedom there is.
We would all be a lot better of if we let states do what the people of that state want to do.
 

ARTICLE VI:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary not withstanding.

??? What was your point again???
 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

??? What was your point again???
 

I agree with that 100% I don't think you understand how that applies. The first amendmend says Congress shall make no law ext.. that only binds the Federal Congress. Not the states or counties or cities.
 
Posts like this are quite frankly, inane, as it abandons all common sense and stages its attack based upon loopholes and misinterpretations. Like any state is going to specifically announce that it prohibits free speech, come on people...
 
liberal1 said:
Posts like this are quite frankly, inane, as it abandons all common sense and stages its attack based upon loopholes and misinterpretations. Like any state is going to specifically announce that it prohibits free speech, come on people...
Click to expand...

There was a time when a person living in the states saw them selves a citezen of that state first and of the U.S.
second. So they wanted 99% percent of things to be decided by their respective states. Even abridging the freedom of speech. Do you want the world to vote on how things should be run where you live. I don't think you would like the result.
 
Narph is a robot. And a not very bright one at that.

He understands little to nothing about actual human interaction and absolutely nothing about terminology and how in order to effectivlely communicate, people use general phrases that are not always exact in order to communicate faster but in total understanding that the shortened message stands for something more than is being said.

Like when I respond.."cool" to a "how are you" question on a hot sunny day.

He thinks that I don't understand that my body temperature is higher than normal and I am dehydrated as well...he does not understand that that botht the question and answer are not textbook definitions.
 
Narph's Original Post is inherently incompatible with Constitutional law. He seems to believe that a right does not exist unless some Government somewhere approves it; the Framers of the Constitution held the opposite view: every right exists, unless some Government denies it. That is the philosophy behind the Constitution.

Governments do not create Rights: they are not the source from which Rights are issued. Governments, in the philosophy of the Founding Fathers, always tend to restrict, abridge, and choke the natural Rights of the people, who have the rights by default because they are human. That is why the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, is a list of restrictions on government -- not a list of rights enumerated.

Narph's position is a dangerous one because many people could easily be fooled into thinking that the root of Authority lies with a Government, when in fact, it lies always with the People. The Government has no inherent authority or validity.
 
zymurgy said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

??? What was your point again???
Click to expand...

The 14th Amendment very cleary changed all that.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
Narph said:
I agree with that 100% I don't think you understand how that applies. The first amendmend says Congress shall make no law ext.. that only binds the Federal Congress. Not the states or counties or cities.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Constitution is the highest law in the land and NO LAW is legal, regardless of where it is created, if that law is contrary to the constitution.
 
I agree with that 100% I don't think you understand how that applies. The first amendmend says Congress shall make no law ext.. that only binds the Federal Congress. Not the states or counties or cities.
Click to expand...

14th amendment, section one:


Your argument would have had merit back in 1865.
 
ok, first, i apologize if i start to go on a rant and get off the subject. second, the first 9 amenments were written specificaly for the people and to make sure the people didnt suffer the same as they did under the rule of the king. most of the rights from the amendemts were written because the colonists, as they were in that point in time, were pissed that the king became a tyran and took away their natural rights as people given to them by God. basical, the govermnment cant take away your right to freedom of speech because it is a natural right. they can, however, put limitations to it. its called slander or lible. pretty much, if you were to say something that could ruin the reputaion of someone, its slander. if it is publisized, then it is lible. during the constitution era, you could go to jail for that. now a days, you can get taken to court (aka... a limitation). you are free to say what you want but have to be prepared to face people who are willing to make it turn very ugly.
 


"abridging the freedom of speech" Need further help?

From Merriam-Webster online


Can't shorten it....where is your misunderstanding coming from?
 
Patrickt said:
I believe it's the 14th Amendment that extended Constitutional protections to the states.
Click to expand...


we have a winner-that is true.
even more importantly, there is nothing in the constitution that GIVES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT The power to abridge speech.

some "liberals" think that if its not specifically prohibited, its allowed. that only works for "the people" and "the several states" not the federal government

sadly, FDR and his minions in the courts used the commerce clause and the "general welfare" clause as carte blanche empowerment provisions in clear violation of the bill of rights
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…