Dumping The First Amendment

It’s already happening, in case you’ve missed it. In fact, liberals have successfully been able to re-write the Second Amendment, and the 14th Amendment to fit their narratives, even though neither clearly states their purpose. And, it’s already happening with the First Amendment…right under your eyes. So, why should the liberals in this country be the only ones allowed to do it? Let me first explain what’s been happening.

The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Now, if you were just going to read that, you would understand that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”, actually has. If you are one that believes that words mean things, then you have to go along with the fact that there is nothing that should stand in the way of any citizen of owning a firearm. It doesn’t say “no bump stocks”; it doesn’t say “no assault weapons”. It says “shall not be infringed”. That would also mean that you cannot stop anyone for any reason from purchasing a firearm. That would suggest you can’t do background checks, wouldn’t it?

Let’s look at the 14th Amendment. Now, liberals used this some 47 years ago to legalize abortion through Roe v Wade. The portion of the 14th Amendment that was used is, “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.” Those that argued this said that women who wanted an abortion were being denied “privacy” and so, they weren’t being treated equally under the law. That was the whole argument. It was certainly a stretch, and legal scholars on both sides have questioned whether or not the Supreme Court (which was liberal) was legislating from the bench.

Now, let’s look at the First Amendment. In today’s environment, you have Freedom of the Press. There’s a reason for that. The press is supposed to be protected in the event that they have to investigate and report on ill-happenings dealing with the government. One supreme example that comes to mind of this being used correctly was the Washington Post’s investigation and publishing stories involving Watergate, which ultimately forced the resignation of Richard Nixon. However, in the last few years, it appears that several members of the press are abusing this Amendment. Instead of investigating stories against the government, as Woodward & Bernstein did, they are making up what’s been known as “fake news”. The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, The Washington Post, and others have been guilty, and have admitted to faking news. They have published and aired stories that were totally false, and were designed only to make the administration look bad, while lying about the facts that were given. Reporters were fired when this was brought out on some occasions, but not all.

I for one, would suggest that if the Trump administration, or any administration in the future had to deal with this type of false reporting, when it’s found to have been done with malice, it requires the administration to deny the offending organization protection under the law. It’s one thing to miss a fact or get something wrong. It’s another when you knowingly violate journalistic integrity to publish or air a story that has been made up with the intent of misleading the public. That would be akin to yelling, “Fire” in a crowded theater. That is not covered by Freedom of Speech, and frankly fake news shouldn’t be covered by Freedom of the Press. If a news organization is going to air false information, and knowingly do so, they should lose that protection, and be denied further protections under the First Amendment.

Obviously, before it’s being done, it’s going to have to be brought before the courts to decide, but if found guilty, the objective organization should be banned from falling under the First Amendment going forward. THAT will stop fake news on both sides from occurring!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed…and stay safe!

9 thoughts on “Dumping The First Amendment

  1. You neglected what I consider to be one of the biggest concerns of the 14th amendment and that’s allowing anyone born on U.S. soil to be considered a U.S. Citizen. Seems the courts don’t know their history or read the congressional record regarding the debates that took place. The amendment was intended to give citizenship to those African American’s who were held in servitude when slavery was finally abolished. Seems nobody wants to include the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause within that amendment.

    I’ve got the copies of the Congressional Globe and the debates that took place during those debates and the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is very well defined as to who is, and who isn’t under the jurisdiction. And not every Tom, Dick or Harry who is born on U.S. soil is given birth by a person who is “under the jurisdiction.” of the United States. Those people would be,as stated during the debates, “foreigners, aliens,who belong to the family of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States.” That’s why American Indians weren’t considered “citizens” until 1924 because they lived under tribal law. They were considered “quasi-foreign nations.”

    It was well understood that to be born a “Citizen” of a country, you had to be born of parents who were also citizens of that country, “…that, in order to be of the country,it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country” (Vattel, The Laws of Nations )

    Boy….I could go on forever but I better stop before I give myself a heart attack! Let’s just say that this is NOT the same Country our Founding Father’s handed us!

    For GOD and Country

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Seems you’ve got me going, so let’s talk about the 2nd Amendment and Article IV for a moment!

    Article IV, Section 1 states: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”

    So how come every State recognizes your driver’s license to be valid even though it was issued in a different State, or each State recognizes your marriage even though you were married in a different State, but States DON’T recognize your right to carry a weapon or your “concealed to carry” permit if it was issued in a different State?

    The most baffling part of that issue is the fact that the right to bear arms is a constitutionally mandated protection of our unalienable Rights, but I fail to see any such Right to a driver’s license or marriage license protection within the Constitution!

    For GOD and Country

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s