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. (Source)
Sorry, but Congress cannot just trump the Constitution and Note the first five words……………Congress shall make no law
This is by Zac Morgan, a staff attorney at the Center for Competitive Politics writing at NRO. My emphases and comments.
Does Religious Speech Threaten Democracy?
It could be restricted or banned under a constitutional amendment Democrats have proposed.
The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday approved by a 10–8 vote a constitutional amendment that, if passed, would functionally eliminate the political rights of speech and association. While the committee made the language more succinct than in its original iteration, the law still poses a profound threat to fundamental liberties. [Mind you, a constitutional amendment doesn’t happen over night, but… it has to start somewhere.]
For instance, Congress probably would have the power to ban religious sermons and church literature. [Can you feel things sliding in this direction? This will fail, of course. BUT… in the failure, they will have bumped the paradigm a little bit in this direction. Call it creeping incrementalism. That’s how liberals work.]
Section 1 of the amendment permits Congress and the states to “advance democratic self-government” — whatever that means — “and political equality” by “regulat[ing] and set[ting] reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.” [Thus limiting free speech. “No. You may not freely spend your own money to advance some cause.”]
Section 2 specifically permits the federal and state governments to “distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.”
And section 3 — in a perfect demonstration that the eight Judiciary Committee members who are lawyers, yet voted for the measure, failed to pay attention in law school — claims to prevent anyone from reading the amendment in such a way as “to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.” [the press… which is on the side of the dems]
The First Amendment, as drafted by men such as Fisher Ames and James Madison, protects five freedoms: speech, press, assembly, petition, and religion. The newly minted constitutional amendment mentions only one of those as being untarnished — “press.”
Under a longstanding principle of statutory interpretation — expressio unius est exclusio alterius — the explicit naming of one member of a class means that the other members of that class are excluded. So, under this amendment, as long as the interests of “democratic self-governance” and “political equality” are “reasonably” at issue, Congress or the states may infringe on speech, assembly, petition, and religious freedoms.