Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Montana Not Covered by Bill of Rights

Yesterday I posted my thoughts regarding the Supreme Court case which will determine how the 2nd Amendment, more specifically, how the right to keep and bear arms will be interpreted. I tend to run long winded, each critical word placed properly, often repeated for effect; hopefully leaving little if any doubt as to my meaning, if only we could get the same out of Washington.

I mentioned how Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasn’t sure if the 2nd Amendment, the part about an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, should be extended to citizens in all states since the Heller ruling only covered folks living in Washington D.C. or other federal protectorates. The veins in my neck just started swelling as I re-read that part of the article.

Today I read Bill Bumpas’ article in OneNewsNow , a follow up to one by Charlie Butts of the same organization covering a Montana case on the 1st Amendment right of free speech.

 According to the update, “A judge in Montana has ruled against a high school valedictorian who wasn't allowed to speak at her graduation ceremony because she wanted to give God credit for her success.”
‘Whitehead explains he has seen many incidents of constitutional rights violated in graduation ceremonies, and has won several such cases. But Griffith's case -- which he describes as "pure censorship" -- is the worst he has seen, he says.
"Society seems to be going another direction," observes the attorney. "But the scary thing is, even these students who just want the right to freely speak like other students about what they believe in [are] being denied their rights. So what's happening is we're gutting the free-speech clause [in the Constitution]."

Whitehead maintains that students have constitutional rights -- but warns that "if we don't begin protecting the right to free speech in the schools, we are going to lose the right to speak entirely."'

I’d like to know the name of the judge in Montana, the one who hasn’t been told the Bill of Rights was ratified, that it was intended to insure God given rights to every citizen; even those living in Montana of all places. Judge Ginsburg seems bewildered by the Bill of Rights; actually believing they only cover folks in Washington D.C., now I find Montana residents are exempted from the 1st Amendment; what’s next?

No wonder kids are confused about life here in America, the rules keep changing with reckless abandon. We’d better get back to basics in one big hurry, re-establish our foundations in order for our nation to prosper, a nation which shall not perish from this earth.

This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal , a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”. Please take a moment to add them to your list of favorites or include them in your side-bar.


Col. Hogan said...

Sad as I am that the young girl would dismiss all her hard work in favor of crediting god for it, it is her right. The notion of violating the right to free speech for reasons of politically correctness reasons is in fact, part of an attempt to discredit that right for us all. An evil politician (or government-paid teacher) can always find reasons to make irrational exceptions to the rights of men.

Col. Hogan said...

....And I also think that there ought to be a program by which any judge can be permanently removed from the bench for grossly misunderstanding the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the rendering of his opinions and judicial decisions.

T. F. Stern said...

Col. Hogan, Glad you left your comment, especially the part about having a way to remove idiot judges from the bench. The same should hold true for activist judges, those who wish to legislate from the bench rather than work within the laws as written.

MK said...

The way these types think is, anything they believe in is protected, anything you believe in that they don't agree with is far game and up for censorship, simply because they feel like it.

The probligo said...

Heh, a galah that makes some sense.

I agree MK. How 'bout that!!

The last example (this past week) was the Catholic Church getting its knickers knotted about the local atheists putting advertising in buses. The Church INSISTED that the bus companies not allow the advertisements.

T. F. Stern said...

Atheism actually is a religion, much like global warming. I noticed a couple of bill board signs put up by folks with no faith explaining how others, those without faith, could all meet together. What would they do to start the meeting, certainly not

The probligo said...

"Atheism actually is a religion, much like global warming."

There are those who would like to try that, TF. Their motives are probably much the same as those of bishop Brian Tamaki forming the Destiny Church.

Global warming as a religion? In some circles it is a matter of belief. That might qualify it as a religion.

Even science is a belief when you get down to it...

T. F. Stern said...


This thread is taking on a life of its own.

Science and religion have much in common; they both seek truths which are intended to establish foundations upon which we may rest assured. The difficulty is when a declared truth lacks sufficient irrefutable proof, in essence remaining in the realm of theory or conjecture; but is passed off as irrefutable. When that happens it isn’t much different than the Lutherans finding issue with Catholics, Muslims declaring jihad on infidels or evolutionists ridiculing the ID crowd. In each case the facts, while substantial, or so they would appear to one side or the other, the facts are not complete and there is yet more to be done.

I think this should be the close of the thread unless it actually returns to the original topic, the Bill of Rights. Thanks for participating.