In my opinion, most sane, mature Americans would not abolish the Constitution. Most certainly they would not fool around with the Bill of Rights—those first 10 precious guarantees of individual freedom.
There are of course attempts to attack one or the other sections of the Bill—most notably the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right of citizens to arm themselves, and the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly…
Minutes after some madman uses a firearm illegally in this country, there is normally a well-organized chorus assembled to sing out the evils of the tool he misused, while excusing his temperament, demeanor, or lack of basic humanity.
And should we ban (or even condemn) a religious movement because of its dogmatically-held beliefs—beliefs that may run counter to pop culture or the trending political bias?
My answer would be to judge the person for his action, regardless of the tool being used or the doctrine espoused. Indeed, Article Three of the Constitution establishes our judiciary and levies the authority to apply the law and to issue punishment.
Seems simple: The courts decide what (if any) crime has been committed and what price must be paid by whom. The government attorney states their case and the accused’s attorney states theirs. Beneath it all is a battle for rights—rights of the accused, rights of the public to be safe in their homes, rights of the individual to hold onto and profess solemnly-held spiritual beliefs.
Thank God (and our Founding Fathers) for that Bill of Rights. And here’s more good news…the expense of hiring a judge, jury, attorneys—that can be paid for from our taxes. Even the accused can be represented by government-funded counsel.
And if all else fails, there’s always the ACLU. How they work can be illustrated by two recent examples.
The ACLU defended religious freedom when they joined with the Council on American-Islamic Relations in 2011 to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims in Los Angeles by hiring an undercover agent to infiltrate and monitor mosques there.
So the Administration (our Administration) excludes mosques from being monitored for terrorist support and encouragement. But they keep a close eye on those fanatical Christians, even though, according to Investor’s Business Daily, independent surveys of American mosques reveal about 80 percent preach violent jihad or pass out violent literature to worshippers. Perhaps the ACLU believes that literature is not quite as violent as the Sermon on the Mount.
The ACLU also is considering defending the right to assemble (I guess) by instituting litigation against the City of Wildwood, New Jersey, which recently passed an ordinance that would ban what they see as indecent dress on their boardwalk—clothing that is worn so loose that undergarments or even bare bottoms are displayed.
It’s comforting to know that the ACLU uses its donations to defend our rights, especially the right to preach violence against innocent law-abiding citizens, and the right to walk about in public with your gochies (or more) exposed.
Does it make anyone else wonder what the hell this outfit thinks is important? I’ve always found the ACLU downright silly (undies exposure) or dangerous (terrorist cultivation) in what they choose to defend. To my way of thinking, they assault the Constitution more so than shield it.
Consequently, I’ve always considered their acronym rather oxymoronic: American Civil Liberties Union—I find them neither American, nor civil, nor guardians of our liberties.
They are, however, a union, so I assume by their way of thinking, a one-out-of-four ratio for truthfulness is enough to keep them legit, and to keep those donations flowing in.