Shredding the U.S. Constitution, Part II

By Richard Olivastro
Posted 2/28/12

“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 …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Subscribe to continue reading. Already a subscriber? Sign in

Local reporters keeping you informed across the Alabama Gulf Coast.

You can cancel anytime.
 

Please log in to continue

Log in

Shredding the U.S. Constitution, Part II

Posted

“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 GRIEVANCES.” (emphasis added)

 

Those 45 words clearly spell out the First Amendment – within the BILL OF RIGHTS – to our United States Constitution.

 

In Shredding the Constituion – Part I, (see www.GulfCoastNewsToday.com) we spoke to the “methodical attack on individual liberty and personal enterprise… (as) orchestrated by many politicians and bureaucrats…” and, that “the blatant political shredding has moved determinedly public”, citing for openers the “the unilateral Obama dictate…” that disrespects the very Freedom of Religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.

 

Of course, some apologists -- as well as those prone to political accommodation - may chose – for their reasons -- to hastily point out that it was not Congress but the Occupy Executive Branch who issued the recent order undermining Freedom of Religion.

 

That’s true.

 

Also true…

 

No incumbent in Congress has stood up - spoken out – to declare: STOP!

 

That leads us to another First Amendment guarantee: Freedom of Speech.

 

Here’s an example the actually links two First Amendment guarantees: Religion and Speech.

 

Circa 1940… let’s set the stage:

 

Connecticut required anyone who would solicit donations for “religious or charitable purposes” to first get a government issued license “permitting solicitation”.

 

Under the guise of a type of consumer protection, before granting a license, a government bureaucrat would determine “whether the cause was a religious one or is a bona fide object of charity or philanthropy". And – get ready for this - “whether the solicitation ‘conforms’ to reasonable standards of efficiency and integrity" according to the state.

 

If government concluded the cause was acceptable, a license was granted.

 

(Oh, yes – for a fee. Even back then, it was about more revenue for government.)

 

Here’s a bit more:

 

Three Christians – going door to door - were arrested. The charges:

 

First, “violation…” failing to get a license from the “… public welfare council; and,

 

Second - get ready again - “inciting… a common law breach of the peace”.

 

What may have been on the pages of pamphlets or audio records is not the point.

 

What is distributed in public or played in public does not need be taken and can be ignored respectively… and, pray tell… respectfully.

 

The three Christians stated they “…did not believe government has the right to determine whether… (Their specific Christian religion was)… a religion.

 

In court, the three Christians “argued that the statute denied… their due process rights under the 14th Amendment and it also denied them their First Amendment rights to Freedom of Speech and religious expression”

 

Foolishly, the Connecticut Courts disagreed.

 

Their finding: “the statute was an effort by the state of Connecticut to protect the public against fraud, as such, the statute was constitutional”.

 

Fortunately, for all freedom loving Citizens, SCOTUS got it right.

 

The Supreme Court of the United States found that all of the actions by the three Christians were “protected by the First and the Fourteenth Amendments”.

 

In the final opinion, “to condition the solicitation of aid for the perpetuation of religious views or systems upon a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise of a determination by state authority as to what is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution."

 

I should note – the SCOTUS decision was unanimous in support of Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, and that no law or government order “shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor…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”.

 

Again, the SCOTUS decision in that case was unanimous – and clear.

 

And, if the current Congress, as a body, refuses to stand up, and speak out – STOP… then SCOTUS must become engaged immediately in this latest government travesty en-route to shouting out – unanimously and clearly – in support of Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech.

 

Shredding the Constitution Series continues next week.

 

Richard Olivastro is president of Olivastro Communications and founder of Citizens for Change. You, too, can Sign the Declaration. A professional member of the National Speakers Association, he is available pro bono for charitable fundraisers and public forums. Reach Out to Rich via e-mail at RichOlivastro@gmail.com or by phone at 1-877-RichSpeaks.