4 ms·

BTW, why does the US constitution protect religion per se? Isn't free speech enough?

joshzayin 16y ago
Well, free speech alone could also theoretically be enough to cover freedom of the press, assembly, and right to petition, but I'd rather have my rights spelled out explicitly so no court decision can take them from me.
- DougWebb 16y ago
  The Bill of Rights does NOT spell out your rights for you. Your rights include EVERYTHING that the Constitution does not explicitly give to the state. The Bill of Rights is just an example listing of rights that the founders felt were most important for a free society.
  - joshzayin 16y ago
    Yes, but that doesn't stop the government from taking away rights (See: Plessy v. Ferguson/Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia [was needed to stop abridgment of rights], DADT and DOMA, for example.)
  - tbrownaw 16y ago
    Just because it was always supposed to work that way, doesn't mean it actually does work that way. In practice there's approximately nothing that can't be eventually related back to interstate commerce.
- protomyth 16y ago
  I would prefer the courts respect the 9th and 10th amendment, reverse a bunch of rulings on the "Commerce Clause", and try to remember what limited government really is.
  - joshzayin 16y ago
    RE: the 9th, I think more precision is needed-it's still too easy for a court to reject certain things as "not rights." I think there should be an amendment that in essence makes it unconstitutional to ban any action which does not negatively affect another human being, with maybe a bit more specificity on what "negatively affect" means. But the anti-drug lobby will never let that pass, and the RIAA/MPAA might have problems with it too. (And it should be clear that it only refers to people, NOT corporations or organizations. They should have rights, but not the same rights as individuals-look at what the S.C. did to campaign financing.) The problem with the 9th amendment is that it's far too vague. Without specific regulation, the court will always move in the direction of taking away rights.
    - protomyth 16y ago
      I still believe enumeration should be reserved for the federal and state governments. If it isn't listed in the constitution, then they should not have control. The problem is that courts have used the commerce clause to give the gov everything.
      - joshzayin 16y ago
        That'd be the ideal, yes, but I highly doubt the court'll change what they're doing without something on the scale of a constitutional amendment.
econner 16y ago
So the first amendment reads: 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. I think mostly the framers just wanted to make religion explicit since it was then a contentious issue and always will be.
- amichail 16y ago
  So there might be things that might become illegal in general but not illegal within the context of religion? Why make exceptions in this way?
  - lmkg 16y ago
    You're taking this too literally. Remember, the Bill of Rights was a political compromise to get more people to vote in favor the US Constitution. The US was, and is, a deeply religious country, and a significant number of people who emigrated to the then-colonies did so in part or in whole to escape religious persecution from their homeland. While freedom of speech probably encompasses freedom of worship, the extra explicitness was added just to reinforce that the concern was being addressed. And, to be perfectly honest, I have full confidence that any lawyer worth his salt could argue that religious belief is not speech, per se, but rather bluh bluh bluh and therefore not covered. At the very least, without that explicit clause you could probably create a state church and have other religions be second-class citizens, as long as they are tolerated to a certain extent. By explicitly forbidding a state church, they prevent the first-among-equals conundrum from becoming institutional.
protomyth 16y ago
It is mostly a clause to keep something like the Church of England (head of state is head of church) from happening in the USA.

Well, free speech alone could also theoretically be enough to cover freedom of the press, assembly, and right to petition, but I'd rather have my rights spelled out explicitly so no court decision can take them from me.

DougWebb 16y ago
The Bill of Rights does NOT spell out your rights for you. Your rights include EVERYTHING that the Constitution does not explicitly give to the state. The Bill of Rights is just an example listing of rights that the founders felt were most important for a free society.
- joshzayin 16y ago
  Yes, but that doesn't stop the government from taking away rights (See: Plessy v. Ferguson/Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia [was needed to stop abridgment of rights], DADT and DOMA, for example.)
- tbrownaw 16y ago
  Just because it was always supposed to work that way, doesn't mean it actually does work that way. In practice there's approximately nothing that can't be eventually related back to interstate commerce.
protomyth 16y ago
I would prefer the courts respect the 9th and 10th amendment, reverse a bunch of rulings on the "Commerce Clause", and try to remember what limited government really is.
- joshzayin 16y ago
  RE: the 9th, I think more precision is needed-it's still too easy for a court to reject certain things as "not rights." I think there should be an amendment that in essence makes it unconstitutional to ban any action which does not negatively affect another human being, with maybe a bit more specificity on what "negatively affect" means. But the anti-drug lobby will never let that pass, and the RIAA/MPAA might have problems with it too. (And it should be clear that it only refers to people, NOT corporations or organizations. They should have rights, but not the same rights as individuals-look at what the S.C. did to campaign financing.) The problem with the 9th amendment is that it's far too vague. Without specific regulation, the court will always move in the direction of taking away rights.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    I still believe enumeration should be reserved for the federal and state governments. If it isn't listed in the constitution, then they should not have control. The problem is that courts have used the commerce clause to give the gov everything.
    - joshzayin 16y ago
      That'd be the ideal, yes, but I highly doubt the court'll change what they're doing without something on the scale of a constitutional amendment.

econner 16y ago

So the first amendment reads: 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. I think mostly the framers just wanted to make religion explicit since it was then a contentious issue and always will be.

amichail 16y ago
So there might be things that might become illegal in general but not illegal within the context of religion? Why make exceptions in this way?
- lmkg 16y ago
  You're taking this too literally. Remember, the Bill of Rights was a political compromise to get more people to vote in favor the US Constitution. The US was, and is, a deeply religious country, and a significant number of people who emigrated to the then-colonies did so in part or in whole to escape religious persecution from their homeland. While freedom of speech probably encompasses freedom of worship, the extra explicitness was added just to reinforce that the concern was being addressed. And, to be perfectly honest, I have full confidence that any lawyer worth his salt could argue that religious belief is not speech, per se, but rather bluh bluh bluh and therefore not covered. At the very least, without that explicit clause you could probably create a state church and have other religions be second-class citizens, as long as they are tolerated to a certain extent. By explicitly forbidding a state church, they prevent the first-among-equals conundrum from becoming institutional.

protomyth 16y ago

It is mostly a clause to keep something like the Church of England (head of state is head of church) from happening in the USA.