Anti-“blasphemy” regs trump the First Amendment. What part of “shall make no law” is unclear to The 0!? Just more “Sit down and shut up” from The 0!’s White House.
While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this month, but it is the exception, not the rule that worries civil libertarians. Though the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism. It is viewed as a transparent bid to appeal to the “Muslim street” and our Arab allies, with the administration seeking greater coexistence through the curtailment of objectionable speech. Though it has no direct enforcement (and is weaker than earlier versions), it is still viewed as a victory for those who sought to juxtapose and balance the rights of speech and religion.
Hmmm, if The 0! is serious about pushing this, expect an effective nullification coming here in the U.S. of
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.
Coming soon to a court room near you:
Isn’t it interesting that the amendment you cite begins with “Congress shall make no law”, and yet our Supreme Court essentially has said that it applies to just about everyone? Even a local dogcatcher can get in trouble for quoting the ten commandments – under the “respecting an establishment” clause. Meanwhile the “free exercise clause is prohibited.
That amendment is already as effectively dead as the tenth amendment where the rights of individuals in our society are concerned. From restrictions on political speech in the 60 days running up to an election to the suppression of religion, the federal government has abrogated the right altogether. And let’s not even get started on the second amendment. That one has no words saying it only applies to Congress (as the first does) and yet our supreme court has held in the past (after the war of 1861) and even recently in the DC gun rights case that it only applies to Congress.
This outrage at the U.N. Human Rights commission has been in the works for a while. I think Angel had something to say about it last year. That our own President would repudiate the Constitution’s protection of free speech and free religion is not really much of a surprise.
But it is still an outrage.
Well, as you well know Perri, the SCOTUS has made an overly-broad application of the 14th (and to a slightly lesser degree, 15th) Amendment the centerpiece of “feddle gummint” takeover of State and local sovereignty. They (mis)use it whenever it pleases them, as does the Congress and the Executive.
As for the Second Amendment, I read it to apply to private ownership of MLRS and Abrams M-1s as well as simple popguns, though I’d admit that
1. I’d be hard pressed to even pay for the diesel to run an Abrams battle tank and
2. my reading of that amendment is probably a bit idiosyncratic, verging on what Janet Napolitano’s Goon Squad would probably label as “right wing extremism” or outright outlawry. If the Founders were around, they could join me in outlawry…