On September 17, 1787 the delegates to the Constitutional Convention met for the last time to sign the document they had created. The National Archives and Records Administration celebrates this important day in our nation's history by presenting the following activities, lesson plans, and information. We encourage teachers and students at all levels to learn more about our Constitution and government.

The First Amendent reads as follows: 

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. 

Let's break this down into it's constituent parts shall we?

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
2. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
3. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
4. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.
5. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
6. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Let's also remember that the rights in the Bill of Rights are not absolute. Restrictions can – and in a place that follows the rule of law, must – be placed. For example, your right of free speech is restricted in that you may not shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Your right to peaceably assemble ends when you try to assemble on my private property. 

And a final point: Congress herein means federal House and Senate (and bills signed by the President into law). States can make all sorts of laws regarding each of these six issues as long as making such laws is not contrary to that state's own constitution.

The Vermont Constitution states:

Article 3rd. Freedom in religion; right and duty of religious worship (notes)

That all persons have a natural and unalienable right, to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understandings, as in their opinion shall be regulated by the word of God; and that no person ought to, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any minister, contrary to the dictates of conscience, nor can any person be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of religious sentiments, or peculiar mode of religious worship; and that no authority can, or ought to be vested in, or assumed by, any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control the rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship. Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the sabbath or Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.

So, you can be whatever religion you want, but if you are Christian, you should go to Church on Sundays.

1. Congress (federal) can not make a law to establish the Church of the United States. (In my mind that would include the first church of atheism). This clause was added so that United States would not follow England's example and have a Church of England situation with a King or Queen as titular head of said church.

2. Congress (federal) can not make a law to prohibit the free exercise of religion. (Legal restrictions can, again, be placed on this. For example human sacrifice is against the law. You may not practice that even if your religion calls for it. Polygamy is against the law. You may not practice it even if your religion calls for it.)

3. Congress (federal) can not make a law abridging the freedom of speech. (There are legal restrictions. As noted above, one can not shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The safety of the patrons outweighs your free speech rights).

Alaska's Constitution says this best I think:

SECTION 5. FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.

So, say or write what you will, but be prepared to take responsibility and the consequences should you abuse that right. 

4. Congress can not make a law abridging the freedom of the press. The press have the right to print what they want. This is restricted by laws regarding libel and slander. The press do not have the right to get in your face and ask questions. If they are on your property (or other private property) you can tell them to go away. If they won't, you can have the police remove them. They can ask questions but do not have the right to an answer. There is no special privilege for journalists to keep secrets. Doctors/Patient and Attorney/Client relationships are covered by privilege. Journalist/informant relationships are not.

5. Congress (federal) can not make a law abridging the right of the people to peaceably assemble. Once again, the federal government can not make a law. A municipality has the right to require a permit if they so desire. A municipality may want to know when and where an assembly may be held in order to schedule police presence and perhaps even close off streets to accomodate crowds.

6. Congress (federal) can not make a law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. One is able to petition the Government without fear of reprisals.  

These are all my own thoughts on the First Amendment, memories of High School civics courses (lo these many years ago), and recent readings all over the Web… 

*made up number – lost count long ago… (partial transcript)

Gregory: As you well know, this is not a campaign season about whether America is a great place or not, right? I mean it's a lot more substantive than that and it has to do with the path that this president took the country after 9/11. Now when a Republican leader of Congress says 'I wonder if democrats are more interested in protecting terrorists than they are in protecting the American people.' [ed note: actual quote is 'I wonder if they're more interested in protecting terrorists than they are in protecting the American People.' This was said by John Boehner in response to what Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Tuesday that Bush was “more consumed by staying the course in Iraq and playing election-year politics.” source] As a spokesman for the President, do you think that it's your duty to say that's out of bounds, or not?

Snow: Frankly again, this is one of these things. I haven't even seen the Boehner statement. But let me make a larger point. When people call the President a liar or a loser – that happens -there have been all sorts of names and smears aimed at the President and he understands and is a big enough boy to deal with that. The other thing is that in this present political season unfortunately there will be a lot of it. There will be some name calling. You know what? I think you and I agree. Let's figure out what the substantive issues are, let's get past the name calling, and let's get down to it and let's talk about it.

Gregory: But this is important because as a matter of fact the Vice President said over the weekend to Tim Russert that the sort of debate we're having in this country about withdrawing troops from Iraq emboldens the terrorists. Now you have a Republican leader of Congress saying the Democrats may be more interested in protecting terrorists than the American people. Does the President agree with that? 

Snow: The President, What you've done is you've taken two things. Let's focus on what the Vice President said which is that withdrawal from Iraq would embolden the terrorists. And it's true. Osama Bin Ladin has made it clear. And one of things he says is that if the United States is pushed from Iraq it will be to the eternal humiliation of the United States. So it is clear that from the standpoint of Bin Ladin, who in the past – you've quite kindly corrected me on a misstatement back in August when I got it wrong – Bin Ladin drew the conclusion when we left Somalia that the Americans didn't have what it took to stick it out. See, that's the way that the enemy is looking at this. So as an objective statement about the way in which Bin Ladin views the United States, that is a true statement. I'm not going to get into trying to characterize what John Boehner said.

Gregory: You certainly would get into if somebody accused the President of being a liar. You want to let a statement like this stand from a Republican leader of Congress?

Snow: You're presenting me with a statement that I haven't seen. I'll tell you what. I'll get back to you on it.

Gregory: It's been out for a couple of hours. I think you've had ample time to see it. Let me ask you this final point. Can you describe how it's possible to oppose the President on the war in Iraq without emboldening the terrorists? 

Snow: There are probably… Yes, absolutely. There are ways to do it but also if you say we need to leave, right now, without preconditions, and I'm not sure anybody says that but I give you a hypothetical, that would embolden the terrorists. If the end result was that we left Iraq and we did not have an Iraq that was able to sustain itself, govern itself, and defend itself that would embolden the terrorists. If the terrorists have the ability, if the terrorists draw the conclusion that they can use political means – because they defeat us militarily, so it has to be a political battle – if they can use political means to drive us from Iraq and make Iraq a place from which – like Afghanistan before – they can mount terrorist attacks and set up their own headquarters and this time have in addition, oil as a weapon, then that, in fact, is the kind of situation that we can't let stand. But there are ways of disagreeing. You can disagree over a lot of things. If you share the objective, of having an Iraq – this is what's kind of interesting about the debate last night because if you look at the President's speech, he talks about an Iraq that's going to be able to be democratic. I don't know that that's controversial with anybody. An Iraq where Iraqi forces are going to be able to defend Iraqi ground. I don't that that's controversial. I think those are the things. So to answer your question – I want to get back to this – to answer your question, it is possible to disagree, but on the other hand, if you are proposing a position that says to Bin Ladin in effect 'Iraq is yours' then that is not the kind of thing that I think is going to lead to victory.

Gregory: Do Democrats want to protect terrorists more than the American people? What do you think?

Snow:  Again, you know I know you think that in the last hour – I had an hour to prepare because we had long meetings – 

Gregory: Forget about what Boehner said.  I'm putting the proposition to you. Do you have an opinion on that topic?

Snow: Do I think, no I think…

Gregory:  Democrats are more interested in protecting the terrorists than the American people. What do you think?

Snow: No.  

Welcome Gateway Pundit readers! Have a look around… 

An audience member on Dayside 9/12/2006 (paraphrased) It’s time to stop debating whether or not we should have gone into Iraq. We’re there. The discussion now should be all about how to win. (emphasis mine)

Straw Poll time again at GOP Bloggers!

Let your opinion be heard!

Bumped to top for 9/11 – please scroll down for new posts.

Paul Pansini – WTC (#2,472)

click photo for Bravest Memorial link

NYT 8/11/2002 story

The Anchoress remembers Matthew David Garvey, FDNY, USMC
Sensible Mom remembers Thomas Fitzpatrick
Gina Cobb remembers Amenia Rasool
Laura Lee Donoho remembers Ada M. Davis
Ed Morrisey remembers Ysidro Hidalgo-Tejada
Michelle Malkin remembers Giovanna Porras
Rory Peterson remembers Patricia Cushing
Curt at Flopping Aces remembers Aram Iskendarian
Hang Right Politics remembers Stephen Lauria
Junk Yard Blog remembers Lisa J. Raines
Lone Star Times remembers William J. Martin
Kim Priestap remembers John T. Gnazzo
Lady Jane remembers Betty Ann Ong
Sister Toldjah remembers Peter Edward Mardikian
James Mabry remembers Soo-Jin “Stuart” Lee

[tags]9/11, 2996, “2,996”[/tags]

Yesterday and this morning the site looked like this (screenshot from GOP Bloggers)

asks that we put aside all partisan differences and politics on this day.

judi reprinted it at Dave Barry’s Blog today.

It begins…

No humor column today. I don’t want to write it, and you don’t want to read
it.

No words of wisdom, either. I wish I were wise enough to say something that
would help make sense of this horror, something that would help ease the
unimaginable pain of the victims’ loved ones, but I’m not that wise. I’m
barely capable of thinking. Like many others, I’ve spent the hours since
Tuesday morning staring at the television screen, sometimes crying,
sometimes furious, but mostly just stunned.

Go read the rest.

In comments she links to the column he wrote at the first anniversary.

7 meg file, broadband is best for viewing.

Music – Enya, Only Time

grab a box of kleenex – this is as powerful now as it was when it was made.

America Attacked

1st Amendment

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.

Congress shall make no law is the pertinent part of this amendment.
I was watching “Saved” on TiVo the other night. The episode was originally broadcast 8/24/2006 and is titled: A Shock to the System. In the episode, a TV crew comes to talk to the character Wyatt Cole regarding a lawsuit that has been filed against him. Wyatt doesn’t want to talk to the TV crew and becomes a little belligerent.

The owner of the ambulance service comes out of his office and tells the news crew, “Remove your equipment and yourselves.”

The TV guy says, “We have a First Amendment right to be here.”

The owner says, “You have a First Amendment right to be across the street. This is private property.”

The owner is right.

Congress can make no law abridging the freedom of the press.

This means that Congress can not make a law that punishes the press for criticizing the government, just as they can’t make a law that punishes you or I for speaking our minds about the government.

The media don’t have a First Amendment right to ask you questions.

They don’t have a First Amendment right to get an answer from you.

They seem to think that they do.

On the other hand, the Democrats in Congress seem to think that they can make a law to punish Disney/ABC for criticizing the government regarding “The Path to 9/11”. Via Hugh Hewitt we are pointed to AmericaBlog which has a copy of the letter:

September 7, 2006

Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank CA 91521

Dear Mr. Iger,

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”

Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.

Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.

Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]

Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.

These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.

Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.

As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan

The Government (or representatives thereof) threatening a broadcaster with the loss of their license because said representatives aren’t happy with said broadcaster’s portrayal of certain current and former members of the Government.

The Reagan biopic originally scheduled for CBS and then moved to Showtime was protested by real people and relatives (Patti Davis’ op-ed in Time here). Congress, even though a majority Republican then as now, didn’t get involved in any way, shape or form and certainly didn’t threaten CBS with a loss of their broadcasting license. They didn’t even do anything to CBS over Ra^thergate (fake but accurate – and timed to sway an election).

Nothing was done to Michael Moore over Farhenheit 9/11. He has the right to free speech.

Captain Ed and The Anchoress have more.

Sensible Mom has some thoughts as well.

hmmmm.

Welcome Wizbang! readers. Thanks Lorie. Read her Thwack! Townhall column!

Welcome Memeorandum readers.