Two major events have occurred in the last ten days or so that command my attention from the top of the mountain. One is Obama’s ruling on the gay marriage issue and the other is the Supreme Court ruling on the First Amendment and the Right to Free Speech no matter who gets hurt.
To be clear, the first issue has nothing to do with the pros and cons of gay marriage. What is really in contention here is whether or not any government official except the Legislative body, which can write and change laws, or a Judge, who interprets laws, has the authority to ignore law. I assert that Barack Hussein Obama has no right, not one, to arbitrarily refuse to uphold the law of the land. In fact, as an attorney and as President of the United States, he has sworn under oath to faithfully uphold the Constitution and, thereby, the laws of the United States. As an officer of the Court, he has no choice in the matter.
This President also flagrantly violated the Constitution of the United States by insisting on passing a law that requires citizens to purchase a product whether they want to or not, (ObamaCare). Both of these actions are grounds for stripping Obama of his license to practice law and, in actuality, impeachment charges should be brought against him. He is just as guilty of misconduct as Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton and he should be treated accordingly and no, I don’t care what color he is.
Now as to the Supreme Court. The Westboro Baptist Church has been showing up at military funerals and spewing forth with ugly hate speech. The Court ruled that the First Amendment right to free speech trumps anything the offenders might say. In voting 8-1 that Constitution protects the group’s self-expression, the court acknowledged the far reach of the First Amendment and asserted a faith in Americans’ ability, independent of any government action, to condemn loathsome speech.
Well, I’m sorry, but that is a lame excuse for exercising a poor Judgment.
As a journalist, I support the right to free speech. Joe Wilson, for example, popped off by shouting that Obama was a liar while he was giving a State of the Union speech. He had that right, as distasteful as the words were at that occasion. On the other hand, it is a settled principle of law that you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire, either. The reason, of course, is simple: people can get killed in trying to rush out of a burning theater.
I assert that people can get killed under the circumstances of yelling hateful speech at a funeral, too. Had one of those family members gone after and severely beaten one of the miscreants, I find it difficult to believe that a Court would send him off to jail. Inciting a riot is not protected, and this activity certainly inflames human passions.
I understand and subscribe to the theory that any infringement on the right to free speech invites further undermining of that fundamental right. I can also understand why the Supreme Court ruled the way it did, although I believe they were dead wrong. While they have a duty to interpret the law and to apply the Constitution, you would expect that the Supreme Court would also exert discretion under these circumstances. Justice Samuel Alito, the lone dissenter, said the protesters "brutally attacked" Matthew Snyder to attract public attention. "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," he said. I agree.
No comments:
Post a Comment