The First Amendment (Part 3)

Abridge—To limit; curtail. – American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5^th Edition.

Greetings my fellow Americans!

Before we dive into this clause, let’s remind ourselves that Congress (i.e., the national body) is still being explicitly and specifically addressed by our Founders here. What is particularly key about this throughout our supreme documents is the notion of government Of, By, and For the People; insofar as those in Congress were to be direct representatives of the People (and the States prior to Amendment 17), Congress alone was empowered with legislative authority, and was explicitly restricted by the Bill of Rights from infringing on any actions by the People and States specifically called out in these amendments and from anything not explicitly mentioned in the main body of the Constitution (more on this when we get to Amendments 9 and 10).

“…[N]or abridging the Freedom of Speech…”

While I think the case could be made that this clause, as stated, is among the clearest and most straightforward in the context of modern-day American English, it is ironically among the most misunderstood and abused, especially with the advent of so-called “wokism.” In my opinion it has also become the widest gateway to injecting extraconstitutional laws and government into the United States, as more and more people appear to rely on others to define by what they should feel offended, and believe they have a right to never be offended, or otherwise made to feel uncomfortable, by anything anyone else says or does. Ironically, there also appear to be privileged classes of people who are free to foment feelings of guilt and shame, in language, among others who have been deemed to have unfairly benefitted from injustices which predate the existence of everyone currently walking this planet.

Yet, these are but symptoms of the more fundamental issue of the central government having breached this clause long ago (ironically through abdication of the Congress to maintain sole legislative authority), as well as that of ever-increasing monolithic treatment of citizens of the individual States by that government. On that latter note, I’d like to diffuse and dispel the potency of the yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater argument which many in the central planning ministry known as Washington, D.C. like to bring up whenever the issue of unabridged speech comes up: “Congress shall make no law…[!]” That the likes of Nancy Pelosi, et. al., like to reference the crowded theater at every inkling of someone permitting speech with which they disagree is not surprising, but where is the outcry and pushback from those supposedly in political opposition to Madame Speaker and her ilk? What clearer statement of Congress’ (i.e., the entire federal government’s) lack of authority to limit or curtail speech under any circumstances could have been made by those who ordained and established the United States of America?

And can someone please cite the specific clause in our Constitution which bestows the right of perpetual, uninterrupted comfort on anyone? The so-called modern sciences of Psychiatry and Psychology have done a great disservice to the notion of personal responsibility for one’s own feelings of inadequacy and offense, and how to deal with these on one’s own to make the words and opinions of others inconsequential to one’s self-image. But I defer.

Freedom of speech is explicitly mentioned in our Constitution within this First Amendment, and is seminal to all of the other limitations and restrictions placed on “Congress” by this and the rest of the Bill of Rights. We the People have the responsibility to ensure that this right is not abridged nor infringed upon by those whom we elect; we are also personally responsible for how we deal with the words and actions of others, and have the power (whether we realize it or not) to disregard and/or ignore utterings with which we disagree or are otherwise offended. We don’t need the government to protect us from the vile words of others, and if we are to insist on such protection, or refuse to confront those who claim authority to grant such protection, then we are as guilty of ignoring this Amendment, and the rest of the Constitution, as those in government.

If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN

Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
Parler: https://parler.com/AFNNUSA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA