You are currently browsing the American Clarity weblog archives for the day 5. February 2010.
- cultural/racial (16)
- economy (9)
- philosophy (46)
- politics (49)
- Theology (28)
- Uncategorized (2)
- 5. September 2010: Us vs. Them: liberal positions on belonging
- 30. August 2010: Sex and cruelty
- 29. August 2010: The case against "tolerance"
- 28. August 2010: What should the law forbid? (VIDEO)
- 15. August 2010: The eight dumbest arguments for gay advocacy
- 8. August 2010: Reexamining the philosophy of territory
- 2. August 2010: The difference between thievery and taxation: John Locke and Moses speak
- 1. August 2010: Making sense of God's anger, judgment, and forgiveness
- 29. July 2010: Citizens' rights vs global humanitarianism: rights, responsibility, and amnesty
- 25. July 2010: The giving nature of God: proof of His existence in Jesus Christ
Archive for 5. February 2010
Who was the bill of rights intended for?
5. February 2010 by admin.
No American is actually a constitutionalist.
Although the kind of rights guaranteed by the federal government are hailed by both parties as essential, the truth is that they are absolutely impractical on a local level, almost everyone disagrees on their universal application, and both parties violate the constitution’s broad stance on many issues. Conservatives, for instance, will say that freedom of speech is intended to protect political and religious speech, while Liberals say that freedom of speech is also intended for dirty language and suggestive themes on daytime television, but not “hate” speech. Both parties prosecute pedophiles for baiting children with words on the internet, you can’t yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater or divulge your intent to kill someone, The FCC exists, it is illegal to disclose classified information, and we currently do not allow people to advertise for Christian roommates. And even though most agree that infringement is absolutely necessary in the first five of these, these cases are all still unconstitutional infringements upon the first amendment. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in politics | Print | 1 Comment »