Congress shall make no law...
8 Jan 1996
My politics do not depend fundamentally on the Constitution; what I feel
is right and proper comes from my own thought, not archaic social
contracts I never signed. But as peace comes from adherence to a set of
ground rules, and the Constitution is tolerable, or would be if we
obeyed it, some minor commentary:
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
- Yet churches are exempt from taxes, which means the IRS must
determine what religious institution is a church and what not, which
means religions could be partially established on the basis of IRS
- In 1787 we did not have radio, or TV, or an Internet. But can one
doubt that they -- especially Web sites on the Internet -- would not
have been considered part of "the press"? The argument that claims they
are not protected by the First Amendment must also consider the Air
Force unconstitutional, since the Consitution only allows the
maintenance of an army and navy.
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
- This does seem to be a rather ambiguous statement, but I think it
becomes less so with time. At least for me the more times I've read it
the more I feel the "militia" part is justification, not conditioning,
and that the meat is the RKBA "shall not be infringed." It was thought
necessary for the country's security -- as much against its own
government as against invasion -- that the militia be healthy. That the
militia might be organized is provided in the enumerated powers, but I
feel this amendment was meant to ensure that there would be an armed
populace to organize.
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture,
sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation
thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all
territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is
- How come banning alcohol took an amendment to the constitution,
whereas any other drug now can be banned by the FDA or DEA? And even
Prohibition doesn't seem to have banned simple possession and use.
On calls for a constitutional convention to propose specific amendments
to the Constitution: they're nuts! The Convention of 1787 was called
specifically to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation.
You'll note what actually happened.
Back to me.