The First Amendment provides, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech … .”
The Second Amendment provides, “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.”
So, is it time to “update” these amendments? To amend them to bring them into conformity with the more enlightened current notions of perhaps half of the American people.
Should the First Amendment perhaps be revised to provide, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Provided, however, that no religious denomination shall make or enforce any ecclesiastical rule or law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any religious denomination deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person the equal protection of the laws of the United States. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article?
Should the revised First Amendment further specify, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, unless that speech has first been determined to be ‘disinformation,’ by the president’s office of disinformation. Congress hereby authorizes the president to establish a presidential office of disinformation, and to appoint the officers thereof. That office shall have the sole power of determining what speech amounts to “disinformation,” and to prohibit dissemination thereof whenever that office determines that dissemination of that “disinformation” creates a likelihood of danger to the government or people. Disinformation shall be punishable by imprisonment from one to five years, and a fine up to $5 million.
Should the Second Amendment be amended to provide, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall be subject to the power of Congress to establish any and all limitations on that right as Congress shall adjudge reasonable?
Would we be better off with these simple amendments to our Bill of Rights? Should the Bill of Rights be subject revision by the majority vote of both Houses of Congress, when approved by the president? Whenever a majority of the American people hold a referendum to amend the First and/or Second Amendment?
Or should the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights be above the will of any Congressional simple majority? Above the power of a simple majority of the voters to amend?
It has been said that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to put the inalienable rights of the American people above the power of repeal or amendment by a simple majority? Were the men who did that right or wrong?
Should the revised First Amendment further specify, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, unless that speech has first been determined to be ‘disinformation,’ by the president’s office of disinformation. Congress hereby authorizes the president to establish a presidential office of disinformation, and to appoint the officers thereof. That office shall have the sole power of determining what speech amounts to “disinformation,” and to prohibit dissemination thereof whenever that office determines that dissemination of that “disinformation” creates a likelihood of danger to the government or people. Disinformation shall be punishable by imprisonment from one to five years, and a fine up to $5 million.
Should the Second Amendment be amended to provide, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall be subject to the power of Congress to establish any and all limitations on that right as Congress shall adjudge reasonable?
Would we be better off with these simple amendments to our Bill of Rights? Should the Bill of Rights be subject revision by the majority vote of both Houses of Congress, when approved by the president? Whenever a majority of the American people hold a referendum to amend the First and/or Second Amendment?
Or should the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights be above the will of any Congressional simple majority? Above the power of a simple majority of the voters to amend?
It has been said that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to put the inalienable rights of the American people above the power of repeal or amendment by a simple majority? Were the men who did that right or wrong?
First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on June 25, 2023.
Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea
No comments:
Post a Comment