- Section 1. 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. (Emphasis mine, JEB)
1.3. Since the States have a certain degree of sovereignty, and are not micromanaged by the Federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment was needed to protect citizens against local infringements of their fundamental rights. This is particularly true of the First Amendment and Second Amendment (1A and 2A) rights.
1.4 Before the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, some states actually had official religions. For instance, the official religion of Massachusetts was the Congregational Church (1629-1833); the state religion of Virginia was Anglican/ Church of England (1606-1830).
1.5 Whether these state religions were actually imposed on the citizens is another matter. State governments preferred one religion over another, clearly against the intent of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment thus protects citizens of every state against "establishment of religion", or "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
1.6 Another right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment is the Second, "the right to keep and bear arms*". Even though the language of the original Second Amendment necessarily implies the right of citizens to own and carry firearms, states have been making all sorts of laws infringing on this right.
1.7 First, let us establish that the Second Amendment is indeed legally protected by the Fourteenth. In the cases of District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008) and McDonald vs. Chicago (2010), for instance, the Second Amendment was found to be "incorporated" in the Fourteenth. Incorporation of the Second in the Fourteenth means that every state must view the keeping and bearing of firearms as a fundamental right.
1.8 However, many states do not comply with this judgement, nor with the fundamental right to self-defense. Massachusetts requires a lengthy process to receive a gun ownership permit, and even more difficult process for a license to carry (LTC); the state even then places many restrictions on the owner of the firearm. The state of New York also makes is very difficult to own and carry a firearm. Such laws act as a virtual prohibition of firearms. By the Fourteenth Amendment, state laws against firearms are unconstitutional.
1.9 On the other hand, the states of Alaska and Vermont allow their citizens to own and carry firearms, without any registration or permit involved. These states agree with the Constitution, as well as common sense. I am pleased to say that even states once prohibitive of handgun ownership, such as Wisconsin and Illinois, are coming closer to compliance with the Constitutional. Their compliance is based on the incorporation of the Second into the Fourteenth Amendment.
2.0 It should be obvious that guns do not cause crime, any more than hammers cause houses or needles cause clothing. It should also be obvious that free speech, when it does not directly threaten a person's safety, does not cause any violence. Criminals cause crime; terrorists cause terrorism.
2.1 Recently, a Norwegian man, Anders Breivik, took it on himself to attack and kill over 65 people on the island of Utoya. The victims were not engaged in violence; their only crime was their political party. It seems that Breivik read many online news blogs, including those of conservative or anti-Islamization writers, and cited them as reasons for his attack.
2.2 In the wake of the killings, people of the very same political leanings which Breivik hated, began to claim that the anti-Islamization writers were somehow responsible for his rampage. The mainstream news media were full of language decrying "extremism", "Islamophobia", and especially "hate speech".
2.3 Let us set aside the fact that the online sources cited by Breivik, such as Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer and Atlas Shrugs' Pamela Geller, nowhere promote violence against Muslims or any others. Even speech that insults another person or group, as long as it does not directly promote violence against them, is solidly protected by the First Amendment.
2.5 There is really no such thing as "hate speech". First of all, this is mere political language. It smacks of Orwellian doublespeak, like the gratuitous use of "racist", and like it is obviously intended to suppress freedom of speech. Secondly, since US citizens do have freedom of speech per the First Amendment, any "hate speech" law is unconstitutional. Finally, if anything on Jihad Watch or other anti-Islamization weblogs could be considered "hate speech", then the same would be even more true of Islamic terrorist rants such as "Nuke Israel" or "Slaughter those who insult Mohammed".
2.6 There are rumblings of "hate speech" laws, just as there are rumblings of gun control. These are like distant thunder, warnings of a coming storm. A whole assemblage of special-interest groups like the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), do not give a snit for the Constitutional rights guaranteed to all citizens. They simply want special rights or protections for their interests, and frequently sue in court to establish their irrational ideas as law.
2.7 A message for these people: Americans who do respect the US Constitution will not be suppressed or silenced by your unjust ideologies nor by your loud and arrogant words. We know our rights, and will defend them with the pen, with the word, or if necessary, with the sword.
*See "The Vital Right of Self-Defense"
No comments:
Post a Comment