F
star2589 said:assuming that rights are granted by the state rather than inherent, i'd agree. The constitution says that the congress cannot pass laws to prohibit free speech, it doesnt say anything about stopping other bodies that may prohibit you from speaking freely.
Narph said: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.
Not so. Several state constitutions pre-date the US Constitution, and in fact many things found in the US Constitution were drawn from several of those state Constitutions.faithful_servant said:The basis for my great state's Constitution is the US Constitution, as is every state's.
Narph said: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.
Narph said: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.
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.
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....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?