The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads:Talk about your hard questions. Let's get the lad some input, shall we? Thanks."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."
For homework, I need to find out what you think is the most important part of the first amendment and why, and what is the least important part of the first amendment to you and why.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Homework . . . Help!
My nephew, MPF, sent me the following by email:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Here's my response to the question posed (framed as a response to MPF's email):
First let me say that I think that all parts of the First Amendment are indispensable. An attempt by the government to infringe on any one of them would certainly be a serious blow to our democracy, and if not immediately challenged by we, the people, could spell the end of democracy in this country.
We are seeing encroachment on several areas of the First Amendment, especially by the current administration and its allies in Congress and on the courts. Many now in power view Christianity, especially their own interpretation of it, as the de facto official religion of the United States, and are attempting to push this view into law.
The current powers that be have also made numerous, subtle attacks on the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech. As with many administrations before this one, these limits have been justified in the name of war and national security.
The right to assemble has also been attacked, but in this case, more by local governments. They claim that they are trying to stop problems associated with gangs when they ban groups of kids from hanging out together. I say it is the governments who are breaking the law.
Having said all of that, let's look at your question as an intellectual exercise. (It really creeps me out to think that this is some nefarious survey being financed by the government, through the unwitting auspices of school teachers and their students.)
I suppose that I would say that the least important part of the First Amendment is the part that forbids the government from "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. I don't much care for organized religion in general. While I respect anyone's right to believe anything, if I had to pick one part of the First Amendment to be done away with, I suppose it would be this one.
The bad part about allowing the government to prohibit free religious expression, of course, is that it would immediately lead to the establishment of one or a few "approved" religions. If you'll allow me to separate the establishment aspect from the prohibition aspect, though, then this is my answer for "least important part."
The most important part of the First Amendment, to my mind, is freedom of
the press. This is the best way to keep government honest -- allowing anyone who has a problem with the government to complain about it in print, on the Web, or on TV or radio. Without freedom of the press, I don't see how anyone would find out about the government taking away other rights, or even if people knew, how they would effectively complain about it.
It seems to me that freedom of the press implies freedom of speech, because any fool with a gripe can fire up a free blog or run off free newspapers, and rant all he or she wants.
It must be said that the press has a pretty terrible record of exercising its rights over the past five years, and it must shoulder some of the blame for allowing the government to reduce press freedoms.
Most of the major media outlets; e.g., big newspapers and magazines and the broadcast television channels, are being hamstrung by the government in two ways, one overt, and one covert.
In the overt sense, the government impinges upon freedom of the press by regulation and intimidation. Organizations like the FCC often threaten TV and radio stations with revocation of licenses and fines. Also, courts threaten newspapers and magazines by throwing reporters in jail for not revealing sources.
In the covert sense, the government implicitly encourages the major media outlets to form into huge conglomerates, via doing away with laws that are meant to promote and preserve competition. The big conglomerates are easier for the government to manage, as big business and government always end up working hand in hand.
[Also framed as a response to MPF's email]
It is tough to select the most important part, they don't seem to me to be separable, if there is such a word. No one of them can stand alone. They all interact and support each other. But if I had to select the most important one, I guess I'd say freedom of the press for the very practical reason that a free press should react by exposing any attempts to curtail the freedoms in the other phrases.
If I had to chose the least important, I guess I'd say the least important is the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances". I think this comes down to the right to sue the government and even though your parents are both lawyers, without the political impact of the harsh light of exposure in papers and on TV, governments can and do ignore the courts.
A recent example of this is the exposure by the New York Times that the Internal Revenue Service has just not made the refunds of earned tax overpayments for many many people, but it wasn't until the Times reported it that our congressional representatives paid attention and forced the IRS to change its policies.
Don't get your father and mother mad at me - I admit that the papers could not continue to withstand the pressure from some politicians to ignore malfeasances and only report "good news."
I also admit that I might have been brainwashed by [your grandmother]! But you needn't tell your teacher that!
it's late so forgive me if i'm repetitive or incoherent.
that said, i think this is a very hard question to answer. i see the "parts" of the 1st amendment as very closely interrelated, and largely inseparable. both brendan and the enigmatic KK have already touched on this, but i see free speech as most critical to our form over goverment as it lays the ground work for the ultimate check and balance on our system, the "fourth estate" or free press.
the existence of a free press is essential to ensure that our government is kept honest and true to the principles upon which it was founded. without free speech empowering whistle-blowers and the free press we might never learn of the important issues of the times. i can think of numerous recent examples of this: extraordinary rendition, abu ghraib, guantanamo, NSA domestic monitoring. all of which speak directly to the freedoms upon which our government was built.
with many of the freedoms and principles enshrined in our constitution, there are many circumstances in which there are no hard and fast lines between right and wrong. a free, open, and ongoing discussion is needed to decide where in the gray area to draw the lines. look at how some of the lines have been re-drawn in the years since our constitution was established. when our country was founded, slavery was considered legal, women couldn't vote, and hanging was deemed acceptable under the 8th amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments. & look at how crucial free speech was to the civil rights movement.
without a free and open public discourse about the actions of our elected officials and other current issues, the right to vote would be rendered meaningless, and our democracy an empty facade.
although i'm not an adherent to any organized religion, i would probably say that freedom of religion(or from imposed religion) is more important than the "right to petition the government for redress of grievances". probably because i'm inclined (naively) to believe that any such grievances would be rectified after being exposed by those rabid bulldogs that constitute our free press.
I agree with Brendan in hoping that engaging in this exercise of choosing among the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment is not a precursor to a new, slimmer edition of the Bill of Rights. As I learned too late, voting for the new color of M&Ms (blue or purple) implicitly meant that I agreed that the root beer color should go. On this idea (of sacrificing liberties, not of selecting M&Ms), people have been quoting Ben Franklin a lot lately: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." If asked, I would choose not to give up any of the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Having said that, however, I think that portion of the First Amendment that permits the people to "petition the government for a redress of grievances" is the least important -- mostly because it has not been relied on in our history. Like the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the "redress of grievances" clause is so broad as to be rendered meaningless. It's not read as permitting people to sue the government. (I'm disagreeing with KK on this.) In fact, the "sovereign" (i.e., the various levels of government) retains the right in our country to determine when it will permit itself to be sued, notwithstanding this clause. I do agree with KK, though, in his weighing of the value added by journalists versus lawyers: I think more better government comes about because of the influence of the press than of lawyers. Notwithstanding the incredibly valuable work of groups like the ACLU and the Innocence Project, newspapers reach a wider audience.
However, I think you can retain all the liberties in the First Amendment by guaranteeing freedom of speech. Thus, I think the clause forbidding the government from "abridging the freedom of speech" is the most comprehensive and therefore the most valuable. If all people have the right to speak, then by implication they all have the right to say their prayers in worship. I think, too, the right to speak freely carries with it the right to be heard, thus free speech by implication also carries the right to be heard -- in groups and via publication. The freedom to speak ensures that the government will not trammel an individual's thoughts or beliefs by forcing silence.
The freedom of speech should be employed with great humility and awareness of the responsibility of the awesome power of speech. Often people forget that and speak irresponsibly. Even so, laws shouldn't be passed trying to enforce "responsible" speech. In that, I agree with the First Amendment's dictum that "Congress shall make NO LAW" abridging speech -- responsible or not. Speech that is wrong or abhorrent is best addressed by more speech. For example, I may find distasteful someone who advocates the practice of aggressive pre-emptive war. But the best solution to that distasteful speech is not to squelch it. Rather, it's to have MORE speech -- the presenting of contrary points of view. It is from these exchanges of ideas that thinking is broadened, and the best ideas eventually win.
I think Clare's analysis about free speech being paramount trumps mine concerning free press.
Thanks also, Clare, for the discussion about petitioning the gov't for a redress. I never did understand this part too well.
I agree with everyone else that speech and press are the most important and assembly least. This is a test to see if this posts from a different machine than my home computer. TC
Welcome, TC!
Did TC really mean "assembly" is the least important? Probably just a new computer typo. Standing together in silent witness to government atrocities (e.g., Tiananmen Square) or getting together for a cup of coffee to talk about whether the president should be impeached is a pretty powerful right. My guess is his new computer meant to say "petition."
The right to petition has an interesting history. The way it's seen now is as a right to gather signatures in support of a cause and to lobby legislative bodies for or against legislation. For an interesting history of the petition clause (which dates to the Magna Carta) and its merging with the assembly clause, click here .
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
This statement is most important to me, because it is so blatantly violated (you can find recent laws if you are curious), and provides a great example of why we need the 2nd amendment which allows us to bear arms and overthrow the fuckers.
"... and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
This is the least important, because it is irrelevant. It is equivalent to saying we have the right to complain. Thanks!
It says nothing about whether anything will be done about it, or whether there may be repercussions. It is almost as if they are warning us not to do it. Bitches.
You had to know that, sooner or later, in any discussion involving the First Amendment, some lame was sure to invoke the Second Amendment.
I propose this as a corollary to Godwin's Law.
Clare's link to a history of the right to petition is pretty interesting, if you can make it past the turgid prose and the compulsive footnoting.
In particular, the site says:
"The right of petition recognized by the First Amendment first came into prominence in the early 1830's, when petitions against slavery in the District of Columbia began flowing into Congress in a constantly increasing stream, which reached its climax in the winter of 1835. Finally on January 28, 1840, the House adopted as a standing rule: 'That no petition, memorial, resolution, or other paper praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, or any State or Territories of the United States in which it now exists, shall be received by this House, or entertained in any way whatever.'"
So, I guess JoshuaE is pretty much spot on when he says "bitches."
Also from the same site:
". . . petitions for the repeal of the espionage and sedition laws and against military measures for recruiting resulted, in World War I, in imprisonment. . . . Processions for the presentation of petitions in the United States have not been particularly successful. In 1894 General Coxey of Ohio organized armies of unemployed to march on Washington and present petitions, only to see their leaders arrested for unlawfully walking on the grass of the Capitol. The march of the veterans on Washington in 1932 demanding bonus legislation was defended as an exercise of the right of petition. The Administration, however, regarded it as a threat against the Constitution and called out the army to expel the bonus marchers and burn their camps."
I should have known that dissing JoshuaE would result in my having to humbly acknowledge his massive wisdom.
Oops pardon my French. Yes, of course, I meant petitioning for relief from grievances, not assembly. We definitely need to be able to hit the streets to protest. I was trying to think of any incident in our history where citizens petitioned for redress of a grievance, and the petition succeeded. Certainly not the Japanese in WWII, and certainly not the Indians over the broken treaties with Washington. In fact, precious few court cases have been able to win out against the guvmint much less some petition. If you got together a petition where would you present it? You might put it in newspapers, but then it becomes freedom of the press and speech again rather than a petition guaranteed to receive a fair hearing at the White House or in Congress. In fact this is probably a meaningless "right" guaranteed by the Constitution
Post a Comment