You are currently browsing the American Clarity weblog archives for the day 5. February 2010.
- cultural/racial (30)
- economy (18)
- foreign policy (4)
- immigration (5)
- Islam (3)
- multiculturalism (13)
- natural law and rights (30)
- Personal (1)
- philosophy (82)
- politics (73)
- sex (4)
- Theology (40)
- Uncategorized (5)
- worldview (11)
- 29. January 2012: The wives of others (covetousness and the perils of social liberalism)
- 16. January 2012: America, Rome, and military expenditures
- 28. December 2011: Jesus: the true American Dream
- 17. December 2011: The question of peaceable assembly and local government
- 14. December 2011: The moral parameters of private lending (a case against usury)
- 3. December 2011: Why true conservatives do not attend AIDS rallies
- 23. November 2011: Sexual harassment policy in America
- 22. November 2011: Are markets intrinsically moral?
- 14. November 2011: How Jewish land reform can end American socialism
- 12. November 2011: Reexamining the laws of assault
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- January 2009
Archive for 5. February 2010
Who was the bill of rights intended for?
5. February 2010 by admin.
No American is actually a constitutionalist.
Although the kind of rights guaranteed by the federal government are hailed by both parties as essential, the truth is that they are absolutely impractical on a local level, almost everyone disagrees on their universal application, and both parties violate the constitution’s broad stance on many issues. Conservatives, for instance, will say that freedom of speech is intended to protect political and religious speech, while Liberals say that freedom of speech is also intended for dirty language and suggestive themes on daytime television, but not “hate” speech. Both parties prosecute pedophiles for baiting children with words on the internet, you can’t yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater or divulge your intent to kill someone, The FCC exists, it is illegal to disclose classified information, and we currently do not allow people to advertise for Christian roommates. And even though most agree that infringement is absolutely necessary in the first five of these, these cases are all still unconstitutional infringements upon the first amendment. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in politics | Print | 1 Comment »