Will no one rid me of this turbulent Amendment?

Returning to our Founding Fathers’ ideals.

There’s been a plethora of talk lately regarding the revisitation of some of the more troublesome Amendments to the Constitution, most specifically, the 14^th Amendment. In deference to the most esteemed opinions of these Constitutional purists I’m recommending we review all those bothersome Amendments to see if we actually need any of them. Since there are so many of the goshdurn Amendments, this piece will have to be written piecemeal, evaluating them one at a time.  So, let’s get started with the First Ammendment,.

The First Amendment states: “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.” Ideally this was originally meant strictly as a limit in Congress itself, and not meant to cover other agencies, governments or persons. The religious aspects most surely could be done away with, I’m sure that most of the “Tea Party” advocates would agree that for the good of the country there are times when we should control and regulate subversive religions and religious groups, such as the current case of the moderate mosque threatening to be built near Ground Zero Such an affront to the relatives of the victims of 9/11 should of course not be allowed, just as surely as we should protect the memory and sanctity of the victims of the Oklahoma City terrorist attack. Unfortunately, in that instance, we as good Americans, failed, and were unable to keep members of the same religious faith from establishing footholds in near proximity to that tragic site. Timothy McVeigh being Roman Catholic in faith, very little has been done to limit the explosion of Roman Catholic churches in the Oklahoma City area.

As related to the Free Speech aspects of that Amendment, this also should be eliminated. The courts have upheld in the past that aspects of  the Sedition Act of 1918 are enforceable much more easily of proper limits are placed on the First Amendment, furthermore, with the elimination of the First Amendment, it would be much easier to protect the sanctity of our Government and limit seditious and traitorous speech in America, with such powers, President George W. Bush would have had a much easier time controlling the violent tendencies of Muslims in America, and possibly eliminating at it’s root the tragedy of 9/11 by arresting and detaining te hatemongers that brought that tragedy here to our shores.  Furthermore, thanks to the wording of that act, criminalizing “disloyal,” “scurrilous” or “abusive” language against the government, such outbursts as Joe Wilson’s “You Lie” outburst could have been properly acted upon, and Mr Wilson could have been arrested and charged.